14 ms·

I'm going to take an unpopular view and say that I think this bill is a good idea. . . I use digital blocking software on my laptop now, I use bluecoat's K9 so

by vivekd 10y ago

I'm going to take an unpopular view and say that I think this bill is a good idea. . . I use digital blocking software on my laptop now, I use bluecoat's K9 software which is an effective way to avoid thins like pornography, hate speech, and other similar content that I would prefer not to see. I think many people feel the same way and would like a safer internet except they don't really know they have options for filtering. In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap, so that tells me that the average person doesn't really know about effective filtering software. The 20 dollar fee isn't a bad idea either. It will ensure that minors don't have free access to porn. I suspect that many parents, having the option to filter the internet for their kids, will choose to do so, I know I would. Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking, so it is only reasonable that people who use these services pay something to help government deal with some of the social problems that these services produce. Just as we have a tire tax on drivers so that those who user the roads can help pay for them, so too we can have a very small one time premium on users of porn sites to help pay for human trafficking. Also, by sending unfiltered internet to people as default, we have created a norm for the internet filled with sexual content and hate speech. By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.

codingdave 10y ago
I use k9, too, but that doesn't mean I want the state government enforcing my use of it. That is censorship, and censoring at the hardware/manufacturer level seem very wrong to me. What if it was not about porn? What if they said you could not research your religion? What if you could not visit political sites? It is a worrisome precedent.
- vivekd 10y ago
  It's not censorship because people still have access to it. The supreme court has already held it's okay to put small reasonable restrictions on certain types of speech so long as you don't forbid it altogether. Putting a small fee on obscenity to prevent access by minors and fund human trafficking is well within the bounds of the first amendment. Free speech is not some pure beautiful ideal concept. It exists solely as a creation of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court. And there is strong precedent from the Supreme court that these types of restrictions are perfectly compatible with the first amendment.
  - Archio 10y ago
    Explain to me how your view that porn is obscene (morally? religiously?) necessitates a government-mandated censorship that can be removed with a $20 bribe. You have absolutely no business telling adults what content is unwholesome and what is not, as long as that content does not break the law. Framing this as an effort to stop the funding of human trafficking seems ridiculous to me given the context of what this law will actually do in effect.
    - vivekd 10y ago
      The supreme court has found that the legislature can make laws regarding morality and in fact that one of their jobs was to legislate towards public morality. You're debating based on what your ideals of government should be instead of what government is.
      - Archio 10y ago
        I don't disagree that this law could be passed. I'm asking, in regards to this specific bill, why you feel that porn being an "obscene" activity means that it should be blocked by a state-controlled censorship paywall.
        vivekd 10y ago
        I think you are just rephrasing "20 dollar fee to prevent minors and fund human trafficking" into "state controlled paywall." This is no different from the British TV tax, it's a small restriction on speech that will have benefits of preventing minors from accessing porn and help fund human trafficking prevention efforts.
      - codingdave 10y ago
        Isn't that appropriate? Shouldn't discussion of potential legislation include discussing what the people want, and their ideals? I'm guessing you are a lawyer? You sure are arguing like one. The rest of us are sharing how we feel about this, not arguing its legality.
news_to_me 10y ago
> we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience Is this a direct quote from Fahrenheit 451? It sounds like the same mentality that led to the destruction of all books.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
> In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap, How do you know that the mandated software wouldn't be useless crap as well?
- vivekd 10y ago
  You're right, it probably won't be at first, but it all has to start somewhere, I am hopeful that manufacturers will be smart enough to just contract it out to existing makers like blue coat instead of trying to build a system from scratch themselves.
  - Archio 10y ago
    What will happen when someone decides that a controversial political belief you have, or activity you participate in, is something they "would prefer not to see"?
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      Or a merely unpopular one?
    - vivekd 10y ago
      I don't think that slippery slope is likely. There is a world of difference between pornography and controversial political speech. We have had obscenity laws putting strong restrictions on pornography for a very long time (see 18 USC 1462 - 1468) and they haven't resulted in other speech rights being curtailed, I don't think there is any reason to think this law will be any different.
      - pavel_lishin 10y ago
        > There is a world of difference between pornography and controversial political speech. Until a website you frequent gets marked as a "human trafficking hub", whatever that means.
    - darpa_escapee 10y ago
darpa_escapee 10y ago
This doesn't explain why everyone must be forced to have their internet access censored by the state. If people want to filter their internet access, those people can buy and install filtering software. > By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience. Again, why must this option be forced upon everyone?
wyldfire 10y ago
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but > Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking ...this claim boggles the mind and needs some evidence IMO. Are you really making a claim that "if porn then trafficking"? Please clarify.
- vivekd 10y ago
  Backpage has been investigated for human traffiking and the sex trade https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prosecutors-stop-child-sex-trafficking-without-breaking-the-internet https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prose... and here is an article on the link between human trafficking and internet pornography http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnhenry-westen/want-to-stop-sex-traffick_b_6563338.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnhenry-westen/want-to-stop-...
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    The evidence in the HuffPo article amounts to: 1. Testimony from Fight The New Drug (FTND, a non-profit) regarding anecdotes about how non-consensual porn is produced to look as if it's consensual. 2. FTND research that states those who engage in trafficking have watched porn. 3. Testimony from the CEO of FTND regarding interviews of over 20 performers who state that they were forced or coerced to produce porn. 4. Testimony from a professor of sociology that "As an academic, a sociologist, and mother, I believe [increase in demand for trafficking] is the way men are shaped by society". 5. FTND summary of studies (specifics not disclosed by HuffPo, but perhaps available at FTND): "men who go to prostitutes are twice as likely to have watched a porn film in the last year compared to the general population." 6. FTND study "[FTND] cites a 2007 study of 854 women in nine countries that found 49% of women “said that porn had been made of them while they were in prostitution, and 47% said they had been harmed by men who had either forced or tried to force their victims to do things the men had seen in porn." I find all of this remarkably unconvincing to support "if porn, then trafficking." It might make sense that "if trafficking, then porn" though.

by vivekd 10y ago

codingdave 10y ago

I use k9, too, but that doesn't mean I want the state government enforcing my use of it. That is censorship, and censoring at the hardware/manufacturer level seem very wrong to me. What if it was not about porn? What if they said you could not research your religion? What if you could not visit political sites? It is a worrisome precedent.

vivekd 10y ago
It's not censorship because people still have access to it. The supreme court has already held it's okay to put small reasonable restrictions on certain types of speech so long as you don't forbid it altogether. Putting a small fee on obscenity to prevent access by minors and fund human trafficking is well within the bounds of the first amendment. Free speech is not some pure beautiful ideal concept. It exists solely as a creation of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court. And there is strong precedent from the Supreme court that these types of restrictions are perfectly compatible with the first amendment.
- Archio 10y ago
  Explain to me how your view that porn is obscene (morally? religiously?) necessitates a government-mandated censorship that can be removed with a $20 bribe. You have absolutely no business telling adults what content is unwholesome and what is not, as long as that content does not break the law. Framing this as an effort to stop the funding of human trafficking seems ridiculous to me given the context of what this law will actually do in effect.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    The supreme court has found that the legislature can make laws regarding morality and in fact that one of their jobs was to legislate towards public morality. You're debating based on what your ideals of government should be instead of what government is.
    - Archio 10y ago
      I don't disagree that this law could be passed. I'm asking, in regards to this specific bill, why you feel that porn being an "obscene" activity means that it should be blocked by a state-controlled censorship paywall.
      - vivekd 10y ago
        I think you are just rephrasing "20 dollar fee to prevent minors and fund human trafficking" into "state controlled paywall." This is no different from the British TV tax, it's a small restriction on speech that will have benefits of preventing minors from accessing porn and help fund human trafficking prevention efforts.
    - codingdave 10y ago
      Isn't that appropriate? Shouldn't discussion of potential legislation include discussing what the people want, and their ideals? I'm guessing you are a lawyer? You sure are arguing like one. The rest of us are sharing how we feel about this, not arguing its legality.

news_to_me 10y ago

> we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience Is this a direct quote from Fahrenheit 451? It sounds like the same mentality that led to the destruction of all books.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

> In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap, How do you know that the mandated software wouldn't be useless crap as well?

vivekd 10y ago
You're right, it probably won't be at first, but it all has to start somewhere, I am hopeful that manufacturers will be smart enough to just contract it out to existing makers like blue coat instead of trying to build a system from scratch themselves.
- Archio 10y ago
  What will happen when someone decides that a controversial political belief you have, or activity you participate in, is something they "would prefer not to see"?
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Or a merely unpopular one?
  - vivekd 10y ago
    I don't think that slippery slope is likely. There is a world of difference between pornography and controversial political speech. We have had obscenity laws putting strong restrictions on pornography for a very long time (see 18 USC 1462 - 1468) and they haven't resulted in other speech rights being curtailed, I don't think there is any reason to think this law will be any different.
    - pavel_lishin 10y ago
      > There is a world of difference between pornography and controversial political speech. Until a website you frequent gets marked as a "human trafficking hub", whatever that means.
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago

darpa_escapee 10y ago

This doesn't explain why everyone must be forced to have their internet access censored by the state. If people want to filter their internet access, those people can buy and install filtering software. > By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience. Again, why must this option be forced upon everyone?

wyldfire 10y ago

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but > Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking ...this claim boggles the mind and needs some evidence IMO. Are you really making a claim that "if porn then trafficking"? Please clarify.

vivekd 10y ago
Backpage has been investigated for human traffiking and the sex trade https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prosecutors-stop-child-sex-trafficking-without-breaking-the-internet https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prose... and here is an article on the link between human trafficking and internet pornography http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnhenry-westen/want-to-stop-sex-traffick_b_6563338.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnhenry-westen/want-to-stop-...
- wyldfire 10y ago
  The evidence in the HuffPo article amounts to: 1. Testimony from Fight The New Drug (FTND, a non-profit) regarding anecdotes about how non-consensual porn is produced to look as if it's consensual. 2. FTND research that states those who engage in trafficking have watched porn. 3. Testimony from the CEO of FTND regarding interviews of over 20 performers who state that they were forced or coerced to produce porn. 4. Testimony from a professor of sociology that "As an academic, a sociologist, and mother, I believe [increase in demand for trafficking] is the way men are shaped by society". 5. FTND summary of studies (specifics not disclosed by HuffPo, but perhaps available at FTND): "men who go to prostitutes are twice as likely to have watched a porn film in the last year compared to the general population." 6. FTND study "[FTND] cites a 2007 study of 854 women in nine countries that found 49% of women “said that porn had been made of them while they were in prostitution, and 47% said they had been harmed by men who had either forced or tried to force their victims to do things the men had seen in porn." I find all of this remarkably unconvincing to support "if porn, then trafficking." It might make sense that "if trafficking, then porn" though.