5 ms·

It doesn't matter which sites are targeted. What worries me is the authoritarian mindset. That the state becomes the nanny of all the people. That responsibilit

by Kenji 10y ago

It doesn't matter which sites are targeted. What worries me is the authoritarian mindset. That the state becomes the nanny of all the people. That responsibility for oneself and one's children is no longer the norm, but discouraged and deferred to the state. And the justification for these forceful invasions into our lives is relentless moralizing akin to that of extremist religious people. That is the conclusion I draw from this.

pmlnr 10y ago
In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously against regulation like this because the line of what counts as (porn|extreme|violent|whatever) is too blurry and is too easy to be used to censor whatever the state declares unhealthy, and this is not good. /going rather offtopic afterwards What's also not good is how ugly the internet became. Even in the 90s it was rather easy to stumble upon unexpected material; a prime example would be if you'd searched "Spice Girls" somewhere in ~1996 on Altavista - the results were definitely not showing the pop band. I'm well aware how formerly extreme things, like in fashion or in porn is slowly merging into the mainstream, and so the dark pits of the internet are becoming more accepted. It's also true that bullying, tweet wars, doxing, etc, due to the lack of critical mass of internet users, were not present, and that they are actual, existing issues which should be addressed, but no one knows, how. So no, I'm seriously against a porn database; it's not helping anything, not solving any real problems. The "protect the children" is bullshit; I'm guessing many who are supporting the idea would get a heart attack should they learn how aware "kids" are compared to them, and this is not just due to the internet. These people are the same by the way who grew up in the 70s... Anyway, there are problems which needs attention and regulations, but that's not porn.
- 6t6t6t6 10y ago
  > In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. This not a really good analysis. In Europe, the state is responsible of guaranteeing that the basic Human Rights are protected for all of its citizens. Than includes the right to education, health care, proper nutrition, shelter, security, etc. In general, the state does not intervene in private matters as far as this does not jeopardize the former. It's for a reason that laws about same sex marriage, soft drug legalization, etc. are passed in Europe decades before than in the US. In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    >In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe. No, it's not. What are you talking about? The US is more like Western Europe, in fact the US is probably even more liberal than Western Europe, when it comes to porn. The UK is puritanical all by itself, and closer to, say, Saudi Arabia. Here in the US, we produce all kinds of porn. California (LA mainly) used to be the hub for it, but it's spread out from there and now it's being made all over; you can find people looking for porn performers on any city's Craigslist now. We don't have any kind of "great firewall" to protect us from porn. We don't have proposals to make citizens get "ID cards" to view porn online. We don't have weird anti-porn laws against things like "face-sitting" (remember the flap in Britain a few years ago about that? They had women sitting on men's faces in front of government buildings to protest the ruling), or any other regulation on what kinds of positions are allowed to be shown in porn. It's pretty much totally unregulated over here. The industry does some internal self-regulation, but it's not government-imposed, and there's lots of small, independent producers (basically anyone with a camera) who aren't part of that. Don't lump us Americans in with British prudery. We have some prudishness problems in parts of our society in "meatspace", but on the internet, it's the Wild West.

by Kenji 10y ago

pmlnr 10y ago

In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously against regulation like this because the line of what counts as (porn|extreme|violent|whatever) is too blurry and is too easy to be used to censor whatever the state declares unhealthy, and this is not good. /going rather offtopic afterwards What's also not good is how ugly the internet became. Even in the 90s it was rather easy to stumble upon unexpected material; a prime example would be if you'd searched "Spice Girls" somewhere in ~1996 on Altavista - the results were definitely not showing the pop band. I'm well aware how formerly extreme things, like in fashion or in porn is slowly merging into the mainstream, and so the dark pits of the internet are becoming more accepted. It's also true that bullying, tweet wars, doxing, etc, due to the lack of critical mass of internet users, were not present, and that they are actual, existing issues which should be addressed, but no one knows, how. So no, I'm seriously against a porn database; it's not helping anything, not solving any real problems. The "protect the children" is bullshit; I'm guessing many who are supporting the idea would get a heart attack should they learn how aware "kids" are compared to them, and this is not just due to the internet. These people are the same by the way who grew up in the 70s... Anyway, there are problems which needs attention and regulations, but that's not porn.

6t6t6t6 10y ago
> In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. This not a really good analysis. In Europe, the state is responsible of guaranteeing that the basic Human Rights are protected for all of its citizens. Than includes the right to education, health care, proper nutrition, shelter, security, etc. In general, the state does not intervene in private matters as far as this does not jeopardize the former. It's for a reason that laws about same sex marriage, soft drug legalization, etc. are passed in Europe decades before than in the US. In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe. No, it's not. What are you talking about? The US is more like Western Europe, in fact the US is probably even more liberal than Western Europe, when it comes to porn. The UK is puritanical all by itself, and closer to, say, Saudi Arabia. Here in the US, we produce all kinds of porn. California (LA mainly) used to be the hub for it, but it's spread out from there and now it's being made all over; you can find people looking for porn performers on any city's Craigslist now. We don't have any kind of "great firewall" to protect us from porn. We don't have proposals to make citizens get "ID cards" to view porn online. We don't have weird anti-porn laws against things like "face-sitting" (remember the flap in Britain a few years ago about that? They had women sitting on men's faces in front of government buildings to protest the ruling), or any other regulation on what kinds of positions are allowed to be shown in porn. It's pretty much totally unregulated over here. The industry does some internal self-regulation, but it's not government-imposed, and there's lots of small, independent producers (basically anyone with a camera) who aren't part of that. Don't lump us Americans in with British prudery. We have some prudishness problems in parts of our society in "meatspace", but on the internet, it's the Wild West.