Porn censorship is going to destroy the internet(mashable.com)
mashable.com
Porn censorship is going to destroy the internet
https://mashable.com/article/age-verification-is-going-to-destroy-the-entire-internet
171 コメント
I've dusted off the old form. Here you are:
I think the second to last one should also be checked. Most implementations include Government Sponsored Identity Theft.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I agree, there already is a lot of leaked IDs, enough to feed into AI to generate any ID you wish with any name on it. The ID verification system via a picture is dead on arrival.
I’d say all three in the and “finally” category are relevant. This does cause more harm than good because it is more likely to be weaponized by the government when they start to carve out more exceptions to free speech. It is also solving a symptom (where kids go when they are curious about adult topics) rather than the problem (parenting…not providing a safe space for your kids to ask those questions).
More like porn destroyed a generation.
The flood of AI content, social media, and confused articles is destroying the internet.
The flood of AI content, social media, and confused articles is destroying the internet.
How did porn destroy a generation?
Porn has always been around.
It will easily outlast the idiots writing these laws.
> The Wheel: 6000 years old
> Porn: 42,000 years old (Hohle Fels “Venus”)
Porn has always been around.
It will easily outlast the idiots writing these laws.
> The Wheel: 6000 years old
> Porn: 42,000 years old (Hohle Fels “Venus”)
The steel man is that the vast increase in production and availability of porn has never been higher and has created a generation of porn addicts who have unhealthy ideas about sex and the opposite sex. These unhealthy ideas often manifest as anti-social behaviors which lead to loneliness and depression.
"created a generation of porn addicts"
Not to be rude but, this is a lazy analysis that is filled with assumptions, moralizing, over identification, and magical thinking.
you are falling into a causation coorelation trap
Not to be rude but, this is a lazy analysis that is filled with assumptions, moralizing, over identification, and magical thinking.
you are falling into a causation coorelation trap
Long before modern porn, there were laws that a man could not be charged with raping his wife. Society largely looked the other way when a man beat his wife. There was a time when underage women could be trafficked by their parents into marriage against their will. There was a time when a woman who accused a man of rape would basically end up on trial herself while his lawyer dragged out every single romantic or sexual relationship she had in graphic detail so that the jury would believe "she was asking for it."
I am under the impression that "unhealthy ideas about sex and the opposite sex" have been with us for a very, very long time. If we observe that porn addicts have such unhealthy ideas, are we confusing correlation with causation?
I am under the impression that "unhealthy ideas about sex and the opposite sex" have been with us for a very, very long time. If we observe that porn addicts have such unhealthy ideas, are we confusing correlation with causation?
At least in the U.S. the equality of women in society (and in law) has slowly risen over the last 100 years. Over that same period the availability of pornographic images has also slowly risen (from magazines, to VHS, to the Internet, to streaming videos, to VR).
So if we're looking at correlation, doesn't the data imply that _more_ porn is associated with _more_ rights for women?
(Conversely, the vast majority of people calling for and enacting policies for more restrictions on pornography are also rolling back rights for women.)
So if we're looking at correlation, doesn't the data imply that _more_ porn is associated with _more_ rights for women?
(Conversely, the vast majority of people calling for and enacting policies for more restrictions on pornography are also rolling back rights for women.)
As always when it comes to these ("obviously") destructive behaviors, I feel like we don't quite know for sure if the porn addiction comes from people feeling loneliness and depression, rather than the other way around. People tend to jump quickly to the latter theory, but AFAIK there really isn't any consensus that's actually so.
In this case, we actually know (from some recent studies) that "porn addiction" doesn't actually involve any more usage of porn than a control group—what it does involve is guilt around the usage of porn.
I'm not saying unfettered access to an insane amount of porn is healthy, but how does it lead to anti-social behavior. No one is chatting up a person in a cafe then trying to have unprotected anal sex right there in the cafe. I could see it creating unrealistic expectations for men and women, but what's the connection to anti-social behavior?
A lot of pornography is misogynistic. Not all, but a lot. It depicts women as objects to be used, it normalizes sexual violence and degradation, and it focuses mainly on male pleasure. You watch enough of it and you start to internalize these attitudes.
I've seen women complain about men putting their hands around their necks during sex because the men saw a man do it in porn. It's a rather upsetting trend.
No arguments from me on porn being misogynistic and aimed at men. However, it's not like men weren't creeps before porn was invented (saying this as a man). Look at history and there's endless examples of old men marrying 13 year olds, of sexual assault and harassment, etc... Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see modern porn doing much in making that any better or worse. In fact, as porn has proliferated over the last 50 years, we have made progress in the things that people say porn degrades. Obviously correlation does not equal causation but it's worth thinking about.
Fair points, but the main difference with the state of 'modern' porn is that its accessible to young men during puberty (and earlier), via the internet.
Finding a Playboy magazine in the bushes wont radicalize a 13 year old, but watching BDSM or CNC at an age where you're beginning to form your sexual ideologies can't be healthy.
Finding a Playboy magazine in the bushes wont radicalize a 13 year old, but watching BDSM or CNC at an age where you're beginning to form your sexual ideologies can't be healthy.
I must be old, I don't even know what CNC is!
I completely agree that the intensity of porn that can be accessed at a young age is deeply concerning. I have two sons. If I found a playboy in their room at age 13 we would have a discussion but I wouldn't really care. However, if I walked in on them watching extremely hard core pornography I would be pretty concerned.
I completely agree that the intensity of porn that can be accessed at a young age is deeply concerning. I have two sons. If I found a playboy in their room at age 13 we would have a discussion but I wouldn't really care. However, if I walked in on them watching extremely hard core pornography I would be pretty concerned.
"Computer Numerical Control"!
Eh, not quite steel. "A generation of" is kind of slippery language, as is "has never been higher". How many people? How much more available is porn vs 10 years ago? You seem to imply many/most born during a certain period are porn addicts, and that they wouldn't have been 10, 15 years ago because porn wasn't as available. Not sure either is arguable.
Throughout the 20th century we went from drawings of the intimate and obscene to photos, followed by video, then with sound, then delivered by mail, then down the street, and finally right in your pocket. All the while women’s right have been largely improving while actual violent crime has been decreasing.
The world population also exploded in almost every corner from hundreds of millions a to billions.
Relationships, procreation, gender views, and such also depend heavily on economic outlooks and have tracked that rather than porn in every comparison I can find.
I disagree with your assessment that porn causes those things anymore than violent video games cause violence.
The world population also exploded in almost every corner from hundreds of millions a to billions.
Relationships, procreation, gender views, and such also depend heavily on economic outlooks and have tracked that rather than porn in every comparison I can find.
I disagree with your assessment that porn causes those things anymore than violent video games cause violence.
> who have unhealthy ideas about sex and the opposite sex
Yeah, we should go back in time to when good men used to regularly beat up and rape their wife just like god wanted. Where anything not cis and hetero was not tolerated. Where relationships where based on dominance and very seldom on love.
Nope. As sad as that may be, in terms of having healthy ideas about sex, we are probably at the peak since the neolithic revolutions. Times have never been better, especially in progressive Western nations.
For porn to have ruined anything where would need to be something to ruin in the first place. Young men had unhealthy ideas about sex long before porn existed. They probably have a little bit more of a clue now.
Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely willing to entertain the idea that porn and especially over consumption of porn is problematic in many aspects. However it is not a major societal issues. And I absolutely abhor the idea of the state censoring porn to enforce personal and specifically sexual morality. There is good reason civilized countries don't do this.
Yeah, we should go back in time to when good men used to regularly beat up and rape their wife just like god wanted. Where anything not cis and hetero was not tolerated. Where relationships where based on dominance and very seldom on love.
Nope. As sad as that may be, in terms of having healthy ideas about sex, we are probably at the peak since the neolithic revolutions. Times have never been better, especially in progressive Western nations.
For porn to have ruined anything where would need to be something to ruin in the first place. Young men had unhealthy ideas about sex long before porn existed. They probably have a little bit more of a clue now.
Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely willing to entertain the idea that porn and especially over consumption of porn is problematic in many aspects. However it is not a major societal issues. And I absolutely abhor the idea of the state censoring porn to enforce personal and specifically sexual morality. There is good reason civilized countries don't do this.
Your great-grandpappy (and mine) ruined the world, paying for their peep shows and burlesque dances. The Great Depression, WWII, 9/11 - modern researchers cannot prove that these things would have happened had porn not been invented. Historians weep imagining what human utopias might have been had we never commodified our petty urge to reproduce.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Porn: 42,000 years old (Hohle Fels “Venus”)
This only seems like porn because we live in a culture founded on Judeo-Christian taboos against sex and the female form. I wouldn't assume it was in any way pornographic in its own time and context.
This only seems like porn because we live in a culture founded on Judeo-Christian taboos against sex and the female form. I wouldn't assume it was in any way pornographic in its own time and context.
Sorry but if you think Christians invented objectification you are sorely mistaken.
There are 34000 years of other examples to choose from. It's an example to illustrate how long we have been into depecting explicit forms, for pleasure, for art, or otherwise.
There are 34000 years of other examples to choose from. It's an example to illustrate how long we have been into depecting explicit forms, for pleasure, for art, or otherwise.
I didn't say anything about objectification, I was referring to pornography.
Pornography as a concept in Western societies was entirely invented by Christians. The same concept does not exist elsewhere in the same form except where the influence of Western colonizing powers forced it upon native cultures, and I guarantee it did not exist 46,000 years ago when the Venus of Hohle Fels was created.
Pornography as a concept in Western societies was entirely invented by Christians. The same concept does not exist elsewhere in the same form except where the influence of Western colonizing powers forced it upon native cultures, and I guarantee it did not exist 46,000 years ago when the Venus of Hohle Fels was created.
It's literally just an example of how long we have been horny. Your definition of porn is way more narrow and modern than what i'm talking about. Use a different word for it if you want but explicit imagery that people masterbate too is what I mean.
Go off on your liberal arts dissertation though.
Go off on your liberal arts dissertation though.
Correct, and it's to put the genii back in the bottle so to speak. Great video on how AI is being actively used to break the internet. Cause a problem, provide the solution.
https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY?si=KDEVLayU5ToEEmpL
https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY?si=KDEVLayU5ToEEmpL
While there is a lot of things that are ugly about porn I really do not believe it is 5% of the problems recent younger generations face today.
Porn is just the new TV or video games, the scapegoat hidding the real taboo of our society: Parents are happy to believe the society, the government has to take care of their children.
In the 80s they were leaving their children in front of the TV all day long and were blaming the TV programming. Then they bought them video game consoles and games and complained the games were too violent. Now they buy them full HD porn streaming devices with unlimited data and access to the internet to get rid of them and blame porn or tik tok.
Porn is just the new TV or video games, the scapegoat hidding the real taboo of our society: Parents are happy to believe the society, the government has to take care of their children.
In the 80s they were leaving their children in front of the TV all day long and were blaming the TV programming. Then they bought them video game consoles and games and complained the games were too violent. Now they buy them full HD porn streaming devices with unlimited data and access to the internet to get rid of them and blame porn or tik tok.
consider a future internet that consists of numerous index torrent links that serve HTML and CSS files
Wasn't ZeroNet something like this before the developer vanished off the face of the Earth?
yes it was
https://github.com/HelloZeroNet
https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet
perhaps it was too good?
https://github.com/HelloZeroNet
https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet
perhaps it was too good?
Our operating systems are being locked down to the point where you will need an online tracked ID in order to log on. Systems like Recall will be used to track user behavior and drive analytics and control mechanisms designed to maximize compliance to the chosen narrative.
Check the 2023 keynote for Microsoft's Ignite AI conference. Microsoft plans to move ALL compute into the Azure cloud, meaning that they are planning for a future where even your OS in a cloud server.
The GOV's of the world will be on the heels behind the curtain making sure this all passes.
The future is sneaker net.
Check the 2023 keynote for Microsoft's Ignite AI conference. Microsoft plans to move ALL compute into the Azure cloud, meaning that they are planning for a future where even your OS in a cloud server.
The GOV's of the world will be on the heels behind the curtain making sure this all passes.
The future is sneaker net.
Only if your OS is windows... There are plenty of other ones. OSX is much less aggressive, and I honestly can't see something like one of the BSDs getting features like this.
The future is VPN drop boxes.
Funny how porn always points the way in tech, one way or another.
This was never about "protecting children." It never is. It's always about censorship and control.
The only time politicians ever see children is when they can use them as a soapbox to push an agenda.
The only time politicians ever see children is when they can use them as a soapbox to push an agenda.
drcongo(1)
There are things that are already illegal on the internet. Pirated media is generally illegal, which is meant to protect corporate profits. Most people are okay with such restrictions. But when it's actually about protecting children and forcing these shady companies to enforce their terms of service, it's censorship and control?
The ironic thing is many people who decry forcing these companies to verify age, would be fine with such age verification restrictions on Insta or TikTok.
The ironic thing is many people who decry forcing these companies to verify age, would be fine with such age verification restrictions on Insta or TikTok.
They are going to start restricting VPN usage as well [1] and I can't even click on a Reddit profile without getting age verification pop up because they commented on a dating advice subreddit once. At the same time I can go on Google images, type "porn" and click filter off without any problems.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo
> They are going to start restricting VPN usage as well [1]
From your own source:
> A government spokesperson said VPNs are legal tools for adults and there are no plans to ban them.
From your own source:
> A government spokesperson said VPNs are legal tools for adults and there are no plans to ban them.
Restrict != ban.
"She wants ministers to explore requiring VPNs "to implement highly effective age assurances to stop underage users from accessing pornography.""
I don't know, I just can't get fired up about this, I'm sorry. I don't think children have an absolute right to VPNs. There are a ton of things children can't have access to. They don't have full rights as adults, so I feel a bit ambivalent.
As someone with kids I care deeply about the harmful stuff my children will get exposure to. And I'm worried about this as a negative influence, especially to boys, much more than I'm worried about smoking, vaping, drugs, guns, and most other things. This can absolutely wreck your relationships, and it's just not practical to control on a family level. Over 25% of teenagers have ED and it's going up. That can't be good. And for girls it can lead to risky or overall degenerate behavior due to changing expectations and influence.
So many people here pretend like there's no problem.
As someone with kids I care deeply about the harmful stuff my children will get exposure to. And I'm worried about this as a negative influence, especially to boys, much more than I'm worried about smoking, vaping, drugs, guns, and most other things. This can absolutely wreck your relationships, and it's just not practical to control on a family level. Over 25% of teenagers have ED and it's going up. That can't be good. And for girls it can lead to risky or overall degenerate behavior due to changing expectations and influence.
So many people here pretend like there's no problem.
> So many people here pretend like there's no problem.
Or maybe they think that the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.
Or maybe they think that the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.
My point ultimately is that this is a non-solution (websites that don't have verification) (keep in mind they never solved piracy) that is causing collateral damage (non-pornographic content).
@bko:
Because children are the only ones who use VPNs?
Because children are the only ones who use VPNs?
[deleted]
We have had age restrictions on physical pornography (magazines, dvd/vhs) and XXX movie theaters for a century, and it didn't threaten the book publishing industry or Hollywood.
The internet includes porn, but is not limited to porn. Likewise the Internet allows the consuming of content, but also allows the production of content. This is where your analogy breaks down. The end user is both consumer and producer. Take this HN comment for example.
You want the internet to work like book purchases at cash registers? It isn't. There is no real-world analog for what we've built.
We will never get our privacy once this is widespread. Laws are too easy.
We will never get our privacy once this is widespread. Laws are too easy.
As an adult I can’t remember ever having to put my face into a permanent database and be tracked every time I browsed in a bookstore. So this is not a helpful analogy.
There's no reason that online age verification has to require any of that, so your attempted proof that their analogy is not helpful fails.
Can you provide an example of how an age verification system wouldn’t require providing some identifying information to the government or a company when accessing content?
An example is the EU Digital Identity Wallet that the EU is in the midst of implementing. This is a system to allow you to store a copy of your ID documents on a device you own that included a secure element. Most people will use their smartphone.
The agency that issues your documents can give you a digital copy that is cryptographically bound to the secure elements in your device.
When you want to prove your age to a web site it uses a zero knowledge proof (ZKP) based protocol to prove to the site that the documents bound to your secure element show that age. Nothing but the fact that they show that age and that they are bound to your element is disclosed to the site.
The ZKP proof protocol communication is just between your device the site. The government that issued your ID is not involved, so they don't know where you have used the ID or even if you have used the ID.
BTW, this is not limited to age. It can be used with any data on your ID. For example if German political forum wanted to verify you were German before allowing you to post you could use this system to disclose to them that your ID has "Germany" in the country field and that would be all that is disclosed.
For those outside the EU, Google has released an open source library for implementing things like this [1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44457390
The agency that issues your documents can give you a digital copy that is cryptographically bound to the secure elements in your device.
When you want to prove your age to a web site it uses a zero knowledge proof (ZKP) based protocol to prove to the site that the documents bound to your secure element show that age. Nothing but the fact that they show that age and that they are bound to your element is disclosed to the site.
The ZKP proof protocol communication is just between your device the site. The government that issued your ID is not involved, so they don't know where you have used the ID or even if you have used the ID.
BTW, this is not limited to age. It can be used with any data on your ID. For example if German political forum wanted to verify you were German before allowing you to post you could use this system to disclose to them that your ID has "Germany" in the country field and that would be all that is disclosed.
For those outside the EU, Google has released an open source library for implementing things like this [1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44457390
[deleted]
[deleted]
Of course some kind of untraceable verification could exist (e.g., a perfectly implemented zero-knowledge proof protocol), and some things might even use it. But if any online age verification in actual use results in traceable identifiable access, then my point stands.
>There's no reason that online age verification has to require any of that
You are correct.
That said, please tell me which online age verification mechanism doesn't store such PII and/or is immune to hacks/breaches/data thefts.
Please only reference those mechanisms that are actually in use, not hypothetical or experimental mechanisms that are not used for such a purpose.
No rush. I'll wait. Although the actuaries say I'll likely only live another twenty years or so.
You are correct.
That said, please tell me which online age verification mechanism doesn't store such PII and/or is immune to hacks/breaches/data thefts.
Please only reference those mechanisms that are actually in use, not hypothetical or experimental mechanisms that are not used for such a purpose.
No rush. I'll wait. Although the actuaries say I'll likely only live another twenty years or so.
The EU Digital Identity Wallet is such a system and is currently undergoing testing in a pilot program. They are on track to finish testing this year and member states are expected to start deploying to the public in 2026.
To rephrase, the best example of such a system that you could come up with does not exist yet.
>To rephrase, the best example of such a system that you could come up with does not exist yet.
And is limited to just a subset (albeit one of significant size) of the folks subjected to such "age verification."
And is limited to just a subset (albeit one of significant size) of the folks subjected to such "age verification."
[deleted]
>This was never about "protecting children."
I feel like this narrative is counterproductive. Sure, it is true that some people advocating for this are doing it out of ulterior motives, but it certainly isn't true for all of them. Telling the people with legitimate concerns that they don't actually care about children is going to push them into the camp of the people who want to take advantage of their concern. In order to actually prevent the kind of damage that these censorship systems can inflict, there probably needs to be an actual discussion about the problem these systems are ostensibly designed to address.
People have to remember this is a political issue and politics is about coalition building. Insulting large swaths of the general population as being nefarious liars isn't a great way to build coalitions.
I feel like this narrative is counterproductive. Sure, it is true that some people advocating for this are doing it out of ulterior motives, but it certainly isn't true for all of them. Telling the people with legitimate concerns that they don't actually care about children is going to push them into the camp of the people who want to take advantage of their concern. In order to actually prevent the kind of damage that these censorship systems can inflict, there probably needs to be an actual discussion about the problem these systems are ostensibly designed to address.
People have to remember this is a political issue and politics is about coalition building. Insulting large swaths of the general population as being nefarious liars isn't a great way to build coalitions.
> Insulting large swaths of the general population as being nefarious liars isn't a great way to build coalitions.
On the contrary! Look at Qanon. They've essentially taken over the Republican party. They not only insulted the bulk of the population, Qanons want them dead. It worked fine.
On the contrary! Look at Qanon. They've essentially taken over the Republican party. They not only insulted the bulk of the population, Qanons want them dead. It worked fine.
The narrative is necessary because governments advocating for the safety of children are almost always doing so with an ulterior motive, and because people with legitimate concerns are often useful idiots for what turns out to be just another way to ratchet up surveillance and censorship and harass undesirables riding another fever wave of social panic and Christian moralizing.
And large swaths of the general population are nefarious liars who don't actually care about children. If building coalitions requires ignoring that fact, then we're not going to build coalitions. The real world isn't HN, where you're expected to assume good faith at all times, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
And large swaths of the general population are nefarious liars who don't actually care about children. If building coalitions requires ignoring that fact, then we're not going to build coalitions. The real world isn't HN, where you're expected to assume good faith at all times, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
> Insulting large swaths of the general population as being nefarious liars isn't a great way to build coalitions.
This seems to be working okay for the current administration? Among the issues Trump ran on was demonizing a large swath of the population and vowing some nebulous form of revenge.
This seems to be working okay for the current administration? Among the issues Trump ran on was demonizing a large swath of the population and vowing some nebulous form of revenge.
It is more than some. When Project2025 talks about these laws it leads with keeping LGBT content away from children. They barely talk about actual porn.
Internet censorship in Russia started around 10 years ago under the pretense of "protecting children". The initial law was kinda funny and relatively innocent: it banned information about drugs and suicide. Because if this information remains freely available, you know, children would get high and kill themselves.
Today the internet in Russia is utterly broken. A VPN or a DPI bypass tool isn't something nice to have — it's an absolute necessity, especially if you communicate with people in other countries.
Today the internet in Russia is utterly broken. A VPN or a DPI bypass tool isn't something nice to have — it's an absolute necessity, especially if you communicate with people in other countries.
> The only time politicians ever see children is when they can use them as a soapbox to push an agenda.
That’s not true. Sometimes they see kids for sex. I mean, isn’t this what Epstein is all about?
That’s not true. Sometimes they see kids for sex. I mean, isn’t this what Epstein is all about?
Naw I actually think there are orgs who really DO advocate for this stuff because of porn.
As a platform owner I’m dreading the future. People only talk about agriculture on mine, but I’m afraid I’ll run into these silly, expensive requirements just as well.
I mean, if you will peddle that cornography...
yes perhaps if minors somehow learn to cultivate cannabis, or mushrooms, etc. from something on your site, you may have liability ?
What's not going to help is focusing on the suffering of pornographers, when porn is being used as a pretense in order to monitor and restrict communication in general. Most people don't care about the suffering of pornographers. Even the consumers of porn: enough has been made already, it can be copied and preserved forever with no quality loss, we're on the verge of being able to magic it up with AI to match our personal scripts, nobody needs more.
Focusing on how it makes pornographers almost as poor as average workers is almost an advertisement for internet censorship; I may have to call my rape a "grape," but at least a pornographer will have a bad day.
Being against porn is an issue for the base, politicians don't actually care. When you swallow their arguments whole, you've already lost.
Focusing on how it makes pornographers almost as poor as average workers is almost an advertisement for internet censorship; I may have to call my rape a "grape," but at least a pornographer will have a bad day.
Being against porn is an issue for the base, politicians don't actually care. When you swallow their arguments whole, you've already lost.
bko(4)
Related video about the need to control AI with a global ID system to control "misinformation and disinformation" as it will be imposable to tell what is real and what is fake.
We are getting hit from all sides. You will be tracked and it will be used against you.
https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY
We are getting hit from all sides. You will be tracked and it will be used against you.
https://youtu.be/-gGLvg0n-uY
In fairness, you are already tracked. And it will already be used against you.
It's just that right now, though everyone is tracked, only a few people get watched. So even today, the algorithm is already picking out the people who should be watched. It's just that currently the government doesn't always do it on the up and up.
It's just that right now, though everyone is tracked, only a few people get watched. So even today, the algorithm is already picking out the people who should be watched. It's just that currently the government doesn't always do it on the up and up.
lagadu(1)
Porn is just the excuse to build the infrastructure. Then they expand their scope to censor and control everything they don't want.
No, it will not.
I live in the UAE, and I appreciate that my children do not have access to pornography or illegal websites, as these are blocked by the service providers.
This should be adopted by many other countries
This should be adopted by many other countries
would you prefer to implement your own policies for your own household, rather than subscribe to the values endorsed by your service provider?
> I live in the UAE
I'm sure you don't. Feel free to disconnect from the internet though, I don't mind. Also, I wouldn't compare the freedom to have porn with the freedom to have slaves, but it's a cultural difference, right?
I'm sure you don't. Feel free to disconnect from the internet though, I don't mind. Also, I wouldn't compare the freedom to have porn with the freedom to have slaves, but it's a cultural difference, right?
Why would anyone lie about that?
Meanwhile weapons are being sent to Israel to bomb children because they really care about the lives of others.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
And right on cue as expected, the push for age verification to use VPNs in the UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo
The smart children will figure it out if they haven't already, and then go and tell the less acute children how to do it properly, without an app and account. Then we're back to basics of domains and ports instead of apps and accounts.
And then what, age verification to get a VDS?
I don't have proof but I have a felling this is the work of Palantir. After Trump made the announcement that they would be working on solving the ID crisis in America not a month later everywhere all at once started pushing for online IDs.
[deleted]
The beauty behind that is if they can get all the rest of the world to do it then they can point to that to push it here at home.
Break the narrative abroad and after the frogs are acclimated turn up the heat at home.
Break the narrative abroad and after the frogs are acclimated turn up the heat at home.
Instead of "$x is destroying us", I wish we would focus more on personal resilience, introspection, coping skills, and ingenuity.
No matter how many $x's you conquer, there's always another $x around the corner.
No matter how many $x's you conquer, there's always another $x around the corner.
You can't "individual resiliency" your way out of systemic problems.
Which "systemic problems" are you referring to?
Not who you were responding to, but here are some:
- anthropogenic climate change
- institutional racism
- healthcare availability and affordability
- gun violence
The topic at hand was non-existential threats, so my comment was oriented toward that.
But, I think my comment stands with regard to existential threats, as well, but at scale (so, education and social movements are key).
Resilience and coping skills to better deal with the compromises and hardships required, be it refraining from things we enjoy because it fights climate change or dealing with violence from the state to make our voices heard.
Introspection to strengthen our beliefs, ethics, behaviors, and understanding of the world and different viewpoints.
Ingenuity to come up with solutions to these existential risks.
These are all vitally important at scale.
Stronger people brings smarter choices and less vulnerability to external influences (especially the malicious kinds).
But, I think my comment stands with regard to existential threats, as well, but at scale (so, education and social movements are key).
Resilience and coping skills to better deal with the compromises and hardships required, be it refraining from things we enjoy because it fights climate change or dealing with violence from the state to make our voices heard.
Introspection to strengthen our beliefs, ethics, behaviors, and understanding of the world and different viewpoints.
Ingenuity to come up with solutions to these existential risks.
These are all vitally important at scale.
Stronger people brings smarter choices and less vulnerability to external influences (especially the malicious kinds).
In this case? "Porn censorship [at a governmental level] destroying the internet".
No amount of individual resilience can restore the lost privacy, the lost users & revenue for various sites (including some that have very little to do with porn), the lost websites (including some that have very little to do with porn), the lost dignity for sex workers and queer people...
Do I really need to go on?
Like, this is a governmental action that changes the rules for entire categories of content and websites. How can you think that any degree of individual action or attitude can compensate for that...?
No amount of individual resilience can restore the lost privacy, the lost users & revenue for various sites (including some that have very little to do with porn), the lost websites (including some that have very little to do with porn), the lost dignity for sex workers and queer people...
Do I really need to go on?
Like, this is a governmental action that changes the rules for entire categories of content and websites. How can you think that any degree of individual action or attitude can compensate for that...?
What amazes me is that this article fails to mention that the slippery slope is already underway. Multiple states have some variation on the "App Store Accountability Act" that requires you present ID just to download apps, including Texas (SB 2420) and Louisiana (HB 570), with several more underway. Then there's the various acts that try to regulate social media by demanding you present ID to be able to post (or else gimp your site to fit one of the carve-outs they have which conveniently ensures that users cannot engage in public posting of any kind towards one another) such as Texas's HB 186 (from 2024).
Put simply: You've all been asleep at the switch while the US-side Internet has been systematically under attack by pornscolds trying to implement Chinese-style censorship, this article's author included.
Put simply: You've all been asleep at the switch while the US-side Internet has been systematically under attack by pornscolds trying to implement Chinese-style censorship, this article's author included.
We haven’t been asleep. We’ve been saying no at every turn. But they’re using propaganda, and they will continue until something sticks. It’s an endless fight and we are losing, despite our efforts.
If we're honest, this is exactly what it will take for the bots to evaporate into the void. I have always been against 'having a license to internet', but I am very interested in seeing what will happen to all the bots if it does (temporarily) succeed. No bot should be able to pass an ID check, and if one does, its pure legal fuel to sue the system.
That's beyond naive. Nothing will happen to bots because they're not human (and/or) individuals from first world nations. Bot farm runners can either print IDs, post from unrestricted locations, or through bulk posting APIs offered behind doors. Social media operators has less issues with cooperative spams than actually organically trending posts because contents are less original.
It only hurts real users.
It only hurts real users.
IANAL, if there is a very clear legal requirement to identify every user in the system to determine their age, and the bots remain unfazed, then the ID verification mechanism is clearly broken. If the ID mechanism is clearly broken (wontfix situation), then the social media entity has willingly ignored their legal obligation to ID children. Someone will very likely sue the social media company for that.
Just because the social media entity knows who someone is doesn't mean they have to truthfully surface this information to the end user.
What gets me is that people keep voting in favor of this stuff?
It's clear that the HN crowd is a bit of an echo chamber. Somehow, these messages of warning are not getting to people who need to hear them in order to stop voting against their own interests.
Well, now I think about it, people vote against their own interests on all kinds of issues. So I suppose this one doesn't have to be any different?
It's clear that the HN crowd is a bit of an echo chamber. Somehow, these messages of warning are not getting to people who need to hear them in order to stop voting against their own interests.
Well, now I think about it, people vote against their own interests on all kinds of issues. So I suppose this one doesn't have to be any different?
I'll be honest. Many of us in the US are tired of fighting with people that vote against their own interests time and again. It's like having a family member that keeps letting a burglar in the back door, over and over again. At some point you start thinking it might be easier to just find somewhere else to live...
[flagged]
Giving up just guarantees all this stuff gets locked in. Never give up. Particularly when it seems like continuing to fight is pointless.
Put a weapon in my hand and show me where I can start fighting the good fight and I’m in.
I can’t do it alone and I wouldn’t try alone. We need to stand the fuck up and start fighting for our lives, our futures, out world.
But until that day comes? There’s literally nothing for me to do.
And to be clear: I’d happily die for a cause to give my life some meaning. Because as it stands working the rat race is meaningless.
I can’t do it alone and I wouldn’t try alone. We need to stand the fuck up and start fighting for our lives, our futures, out world.
But until that day comes? There’s literally nothing for me to do.
And to be clear: I’d happily die for a cause to give my life some meaning. Because as it stands working the rat race is meaningless.
> There’s literally nothing for me to do.
This isn't actually true. What is true is that there's nothing we can do that is effective, spectacular, and will yield rapid change. But history shows that there's a lot we can do. Even recent history. The people in power now are a specific and stark example of that. Nothing about their rise to power was sudden or accidental, it's the fruit of decades of determined, hard work. And it worked. So look long term. You build the future one brick at a time.
There are lots of ways to fight. Certainly many ways that I suspect you would consider pointless or misguided, such as joining up with like-minded people and agitating, lobbying, etc., or getting involved with the local government, joining the school board, whatever. Also many ways that just aren't your thing. All of that is normal and good.
You don't have to be an activist of any variety in order to stand up. Just living your life as best and honestly as you can, becoming a part of your community in whatever facet you can, and avoiding supporting (financially and otherwise) companies and other organizations that use their wealth and power in ways you disagree with is, honestly, also standing up and fighting. Maybe even the most important way, on the whole.
"Whatever you do in life will be insignificant but it is very important that you do it because you can't know [its real meaning]."
This isn't actually true. What is true is that there's nothing we can do that is effective, spectacular, and will yield rapid change. But history shows that there's a lot we can do. Even recent history. The people in power now are a specific and stark example of that. Nothing about their rise to power was sudden or accidental, it's the fruit of decades of determined, hard work. And it worked. So look long term. You build the future one brick at a time.
There are lots of ways to fight. Certainly many ways that I suspect you would consider pointless or misguided, such as joining up with like-minded people and agitating, lobbying, etc., or getting involved with the local government, joining the school board, whatever. Also many ways that just aren't your thing. All of that is normal and good.
You don't have to be an activist of any variety in order to stand up. Just living your life as best and honestly as you can, becoming a part of your community in whatever facet you can, and avoiding supporting (financially and otherwise) companies and other organizations that use their wealth and power in ways you disagree with is, honestly, also standing up and fighting. Maybe even the most important way, on the whole.
"Whatever you do in life will be insignificant but it is very important that you do it because you can't know [its real meaning]."
>And to be clear: I’d happily die for a cause to give my life some meaning.
It's not a bad cause, allowing children to watch pronographie's, but may I suggest some causes one might find more satisfying? 1) cancer 2) cheap and pollutionless energy 3) reliable food supply
It's not a bad cause, allowing children to watch pronographie's, but may I suggest some causes one might find more satisfying? 1) cancer 2) cheap and pollutionless energy 3) reliable food supply
all of that will be captured by the oligarchs and the people will still suffer.
we already throw away massive amounts of food to artificially raise profit. basic medicine have their formula frivolously modified to renew patents and keep profits high. considering energy look at america regressing on the daily.
[flagged]
In the US? Where else have you even been looking?
> Many of us in the US are tired of fighting with people that vote against their own interests time and again.
Most people aren't voting against their interests, they're voting for the least-bad option based on whichever issues are most important to them. Often that means they have to vote against what they want on one issue, to vote for something they want on a different issue they care more about. There is no way to vote for every issue someone might want, so there will always be to make this complaint no matter what the outcome is.
Most people aren't voting against their interests, they're voting for the least-bad option based on whichever issues are most important to them. Often that means they have to vote against what they want on one issue, to vote for something they want on a different issue they care more about. There is no way to vote for every issue someone might want, so there will always be to make this complaint no matter what the outcome is.
Wedge issues, deployed by both political parties, do exactly this.
Wealthy donors express their political desires by funding politicians who become dependent on their continued financial support.
The voter gets just enough small wins on these wedge issues to keep them somewhat happy. The wealthy preserves the status quo since that’s how they became wealthy in the first place. Our democracy ossifies in the face of new challenges.
If voters across the spectrum viewed campaign finance reform as a key issue, we might have some hope in changing things.
Wealthy donors express their political desires by funding politicians who become dependent on their continued financial support.
The voter gets just enough small wins on these wedge issues to keep them somewhat happy. The wealthy preserves the status quo since that’s how they became wealthy in the first place. Our democracy ossifies in the face of new challenges.
If voters across the spectrum viewed campaign finance reform as a key issue, we might have some hope in changing things.
No, I'm not going to be nearly as generous on this anymore. All my life I've been surrounded by conservatives. Most of my family is conservative to this day. And from extensive discussion and observation, they vote for two reasons:
1. To hurt "others". In particular, LGBT (focus on the T) and minorities. When there are minorities in our family!
2. As an extension of (1) - To cut all forms of social nets and gut education. Social nets they actively rely on! And the education systems their own family participate in!
It's not about a better America tomorrow, it's not about taking care of their children's future (who, I should add, are now unemployed because of government layoffs). The "identity" of their "identity politics" is an utter contempt for other human beings being allowed to exist.
There's no discussion of economics. There's no discussion of history. There's never numbers brought out or thoughts on short-term vs long-term policy. It's never how we can improve the lives of Americans or tackle the debt or recover foreign relations or police effectively.
Politics is exclusively about hate. Border "invasion", trans "pedos", Haitian "dog eaters", middle eastern "terrorists", Chinese "communists", gay "weirdos", union "thieves", "emotional" women, "socialist" educators.
Actual policy discussion is so far from the norm and stays in places like HN, but the boots-on-the-ground reality is so far from what we pretend it is in forums like this, it's like a different planet.
1. To hurt "others". In particular, LGBT (focus on the T) and minorities. When there are minorities in our family!
2. As an extension of (1) - To cut all forms of social nets and gut education. Social nets they actively rely on! And the education systems their own family participate in!
It's not about a better America tomorrow, it's not about taking care of their children's future (who, I should add, are now unemployed because of government layoffs). The "identity" of their "identity politics" is an utter contempt for other human beings being allowed to exist.
There's no discussion of economics. There's no discussion of history. There's never numbers brought out or thoughts on short-term vs long-term policy. It's never how we can improve the lives of Americans or tackle the debt or recover foreign relations or police effectively.
Politics is exclusively about hate. Border "invasion", trans "pedos", Haitian "dog eaters", middle eastern "terrorists", Chinese "communists", gay "weirdos", union "thieves", "emotional" women, "socialist" educators.
Actual policy discussion is so far from the norm and stays in places like HN, but the boots-on-the-ground reality is so far from what we pretend it is in forums like this, it's like a different planet.
The way feel and then vote is a result of the information they are given, which is selected in order to produce the intended result, or “the engineering of consent” as it's put by Bernays.
People don't vote for this. Politicians do. People need to be made aware of what their politicians are up to in their name and encouraged to punish politicians for their acts of treachery at the polls, including the credible threat of a recall election. That, however, would require organizations that aren't a clownshow. I've been singularly unimpressed by the actions of NetChoice (who recently got slammed for handing in "expert testimony" that clearly was written by ChatGPT) and Free Speech Coalition (who clearly are the porn lobby and invariably approach every problem with an approach guaranteed to lose in court). The EFF seems content to wag their finger while doing nothing substantial. The FSF is utterly silent in the face of app store regulations that, if you read them carefully, would ensnare them and anyone else distributing software online, to say nothing of making it impossible to manufacture a PC or operating system that doesn't implement these child-detection controls.
TL;DR We appear to be seriously lacking in leadership and organization.
TL;DR We appear to be seriously lacking in leadership and organization.
[deleted]
This issue raises one of those odd dynamics where people concerned with the welfare of humanity brush against the people arguing for the longevity of public infrastructure. And against them both are the string-pulling hands who have an advantage if either interest prevails.
Or maybe it’s not that odd and this is a common conflict.
I stand on the side of those indifferent to the material consequences of this censorship on pure moral grounds.
And the funny thing is that there are people who seek to mean well and who find the material trade-off intolerable for their own reasons.
Society as a whole is kept in quite the quagmire by the string of these aforementioned hands, ain’t they?
Or maybe it’s not that odd and this is a common conflict.
I stand on the side of those indifferent to the material consequences of this censorship on pure moral grounds.
And the funny thing is that there are people who seek to mean well and who find the material trade-off intolerable for their own reasons.
Society as a whole is kept in quite the quagmire by the string of these aforementioned hands, ain’t they?
I mean there are apps now that realistically declothe people. No amount of legislation is going to stop digitally naked people from existing lol.
thats a feature, not a bug
> While these laws are outwardly about preventing minors from accessing porn sites
Take a look at the Australian age verification law. Mainstream websites aren't even collateral damage, they are explicitly the target.
Take a look at the Australian age verification law. Mainstream websites aren't even collateral damage, they are explicitly the target.
Stupid question: is there a reason they did not mandate every ISP in the UK to allow the blocking of porn as an opt-in feature? (and make it the default for mobile subscribers under 18yo)
its not about porn, its about the visceral reaction to porn being exploited in order to drive support for absolute deanonymization.
We are all bots now.
Maybe. I am still not sold on the idea that porn should be so freely available to children, and we can't depend on parental controls - everyone reading this should know that by now. So we either keep our children off the internet, closely monitor their usage, or let them have at it.
As for destroying the internet? No. It may, in fact, make the internet a little better. Less bandwidth usage. Less intrusive advertisements, maybe even less spam.
Age verification for pornography is not the hill to die on. A national internet identification number is the hill to not only die on, but riot.
As for destroying the internet? No. It may, in fact, make the internet a little better. Less bandwidth usage. Less intrusive advertisements, maybe even less spam.
Age verification for pornography is not the hill to die on. A national internet identification number is the hill to not only die on, but riot.
The first distinction to emphasize is between moral principle and the practical.
Pornography is not free speech or free expression, unless you assume a totally unhinged and nihilistic/libertarian view of these terms to mean "anything goes". Pornography is morally reprehensible in every imaginable way, and it is the source of too many social and personal ills to list. It destroys human relationships, ruins a person's ability to relate to others in a healthy and respectful way, cultivates habits that cripple intellectual function, involves the mistreatment and abuse of women in the industry, contributes to infertility, stunts moral development and psychological health, the list goes on. There is no real argument for porn, only boring skeptical rationalization and relativist sophistry, and a list of reasons of why it is a bad thing.
That covers principle. What about policy? Here is where questions of implementation are relevant. The fallacy we must avoid is the false implication that if a particular way of containing, reducing, or eliminating porn is impractical, then all means are impractical. (I have given here a general principle that should guide policy. It may very well be the case that the tactics proposed won't "ruin the internet", even if they may shape the internet in ways that opponents don't like. Porn is so odious, that we may need to entertain certain restrictions that bleed into other areas.)
FWIW, I think a more aggressive, categorical assault on the production and distribution of pornography is more sensible. The internet is a medium of delivery, not a producer of pornography, so existing laws criminalizing the distribution or other objectionable content could be expanded to include pornography. Targeting producers, whether corporate or private individuals, is arguably the most fruitful tactic, with the secondary result that there will be less porn being distributed. And we mustn't ignore the chilling effect that criminalization has on attitudes. It is not true that the only laws worth making are those that can be enforced. A law is a kind of declaration of expectations that has the power to shape social norms. Simply knowing something is illegal has a psychological and social effect. It gives the conscience a signal, or at threat to motivate the morally unscrupulous, and it provides a tangible basis for establishing social sentiment and stigmas. There is a social stigma attached to being a criminal, and so by criminalizing porn, you receive a clear social sanction to classify those involved in porn as criminals and therefore worthy of being ostracized. It won't prevent all pornographic activity, but it will create an environment that will reduce its presence and shape attitudes toward it.
Pornography is not free speech or free expression, unless you assume a totally unhinged and nihilistic/libertarian view of these terms to mean "anything goes". Pornography is morally reprehensible in every imaginable way, and it is the source of too many social and personal ills to list. It destroys human relationships, ruins a person's ability to relate to others in a healthy and respectful way, cultivates habits that cripple intellectual function, involves the mistreatment and abuse of women in the industry, contributes to infertility, stunts moral development and psychological health, the list goes on. There is no real argument for porn, only boring skeptical rationalization and relativist sophistry, and a list of reasons of why it is a bad thing.
That covers principle. What about policy? Here is where questions of implementation are relevant. The fallacy we must avoid is the false implication that if a particular way of containing, reducing, or eliminating porn is impractical, then all means are impractical. (I have given here a general principle that should guide policy. It may very well be the case that the tactics proposed won't "ruin the internet", even if they may shape the internet in ways that opponents don't like. Porn is so odious, that we may need to entertain certain restrictions that bleed into other areas.)
FWIW, I think a more aggressive, categorical assault on the production and distribution of pornography is more sensible. The internet is a medium of delivery, not a producer of pornography, so existing laws criminalizing the distribution or other objectionable content could be expanded to include pornography. Targeting producers, whether corporate or private individuals, is arguably the most fruitful tactic, with the secondary result that there will be less porn being distributed. And we mustn't ignore the chilling effect that criminalization has on attitudes. It is not true that the only laws worth making are those that can be enforced. A law is a kind of declaration of expectations that has the power to shape social norms. Simply knowing something is illegal has a psychological and social effect. It gives the conscience a signal, or at threat to motivate the morally unscrupulous, and it provides a tangible basis for establishing social sentiment and stigmas. There is a social stigma attached to being a criminal, and so by criminalizing porn, you receive a clear social sanction to classify those involved in porn as criminals and therefore worthy of being ostracized. It won't prevent all pornographic activity, but it will create an environment that will reduce its presence and shape attitudes toward it.