13 ms·

We shouldn't accept Porn being freely available online. Instead, we should require all sites to charge for content, minimum $5/month, with 10% of that being col

We shouldn't accept Porn being freely available online. Instead, we should require all sites to charge for content, minimum $5/month, with 10% of that being collected as sales tax. Sites that do not comply will be blocked. This will ensure that children cannot access them, and allow people to control their pornography addictions.

iso1210 6y ago
Because gambling has no addiction problem.
Drakim 6y ago
Morality questions aside, this wouldn't practically work. It would require pretty much uprooting and destroying the internet entirely. It's too easy to share "free" porn pictures on any website. We'd have to go from a free internet where anybody can make a website to a locked down version where you apply for a permit first.
- iso1210 6y ago
  I suspect 90% of teenagers currently go to fairly safe porn sites like pornhub, rather than diving into murky underworlds of bestility c, child porn, and sites requiring things like 'nudes for porn' or something. You're not going to stop teenagers getting porn, or adults for that matter (in the 80s kids were sharing dad's playboys)
- DuskStar 6y ago
  It'd also require solving the piracy problem, which would be a pretty big ask.
sokoloff 6y ago
Yes, we must absolutely control the expression, sharing, and consumption of ideas to ensure people act and think properly.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Well, many bought this line for "fake news" and "hate speech" (as ill defined as both items are)...
  - jonnypotty 6y ago
    We only apply our principles when they agree with what we already know to be right.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Because there's evidence of harm from those, significant in some cases, and a discussion of proportionate measures that can be taken? This is largely what's missing from the discussion of sex work in general, a clear view of what is and what is not harmful; to whom it is harmful; and what might reasonably be done about it. The argument that sexual material was harmful per se collapsed somewhere around the Lady Chatterly trial.
    - sojournerc 6y ago
      That's the whole issue. Harm, specifically in the fake news example is subjective, especially in the gray middle where it counts. I'd say the same is true of porn. Certainly some is clearly harmful, but hard lines are impossible to draw. Consentual BDSM comes to mind. Thus this subjectivity requires personal responsibility, not authoritarian intervention/ censorship.
    - PKop 6y ago
      There is plenty of evidence of harm from porn usage, it hijacks the brain in a similar manner as hard core drugs. [0] The social consequences are pretty obvious, satisfying fundemental bioligical needs through artifical manner degrades what those desires are meant to achieve: family formation, marriages, which it inhibits forming or ruins those that already exist. Go spend some time on the no-fap sub-reddit to see the massive positive change that occurs when men quit consuming porn. Porn is a tool for social control, pacification and weakening culture [1], it is not empowering for either side of the equation. If this wasn't true, it wouldn't have been used as a form of psychological warfare like it was in this situation [2]. Did they do this to "empower" their enemy? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU [1] https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political-Control/dp/1587314657 https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/porn-run-on-seized-tv-channels-say-residents-20020401-gdf5uw.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/porn-run-on-seized-...
jchw 6y ago
Then you have to define porn, and realize that the internet is international. Tax whom how? How is this enforced?
- lebuffon 6y ago
  As governments begin to lose tax revenue due to everything moving to digital platforms, running beyond their borders, the new politicians born in this century will figure it out. You can be certain of that. (Death and Taxes) Or perhaps somebody will create a Star Trek style economy. :-) (shame Gene Roddenberry never explained that in detail)
  - jchw 6y ago
    I don’t think that makes sense. I can create “porn” right now with a pencil and paper and upload it to the internet. Is it a creative expression, or porn? It’s both probably. I would suggest this doesn’t work out if you believe in free speech.
smitty1e 6y ago
I'm not in the audience at all. But how exactly you craft the legislation to go after these specific requirements while respecting the 1A and not begetting a host of other security concerns is a genuinely interesting legal/technical challenge. And it could be that privacy is already shot to hell and I'm just too stupid to grok that, yes.
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
I don't agree with the downvotes because I feel you presented a point that's worthy of debate. > This will ensure that children cannot access them A. Kids will just steal their parents credit cards or logins. B. The responsibility for raising children is the parents and not credit card companies. Things that make people better parents will work far better, like creating economic systems that don't require two parents to work and be unavailable to their children. > and allow people to control their pornography addictions. A. $5 a month won't work. People continue to smoke and cigarette packs are generally more expensive than that per pack. B. Why should those who are not addicted pay for those who are?
- tbyehl 6y ago
  > Kids will just steal their parents credit cards Kids these days have their own debit cards.
- ReticentVole 6y ago
  A: Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult than just getting a mobile phone and typing 'pornhub.com' into the address bar. B: How do you police something which is so easy to access? We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography? Why don't we require ISPs to provide free DNS-level blocking for residential broadband and mobile phone services? It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to. This is something that should be managed centrally by ISPs, enforced by Government regulation. C. $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price. D. Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
  - tenebrisalietum 6y ago
    > Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult For signing up for porn sites, it's really not very much more difficult. Steal card from parent while sleeping, enter numbers in form, now you have access. It's a small hoop to jump through and lots of people do it for identity theft purposes. > How do you police something which is so easy to access? You really can't. > We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography? Access to drugs isn't the same as telling me what to do in my own house with an Internet connection and device I'm paying for. > It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to. Your kid has a phone, a tablet, and a PC. 3 devices which you bought/owned, not really a lot of work. If you have the problem of your kid having too many devices, you also have the means to pay someone to do it for you. > $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price. It would have to be way higher. Honestly if I'm extremely addicted and use porn 5x a day, $5 a month is a bargain. > Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation. I don't know. Amateur content is a top category on many sites I think. Probably the number one thing anyone concerned with exploitation could do is destigmatize and legalize sex work, and provide a decent social safety net so people are less tempted to commit desperate actions to survive.
bouncycastle 6y ago
This won't work. Kids are inventive and can still get around that. Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide that karate videos should be blocked because... violence. Or, we may wake up one day and find that we can't access the Wikipedia pages about chemistry anymore, because kids can read them and then make dangerous experiments! Reading all those Wikipedia articles can also be an addiction too, (which I seem to have btw...! God forbid from having your kids find a site called Hacker News! ;-)) Instead, how about supervise your kids when they go online?
- PKop 6y ago
  All so-called addictions aren't created equal. Of course it would work (to some degree). We massively decreased the usage of cigarettes by regulation and taxing. With harsh enough fines and punishments as well as social pressure, decreasing porn usage would be easy to achieve. >Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide These types of "this" vs "that" decision-making is done all the time. We ban and punish child-porn usage. Various forms of "hate" speech is booted off the internet and "canceled" in culture all the time is it not? We can do it, it's just that many people here don't want to.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    One important difference to note is that people do this in the privacy of their homes all the time, and we certainly will not be banning that. The only thing you would be banning is having a camera pointed at it. The other vices are not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn.
    - PKop 6y ago
      It would be very easy to regulate the ability to make money easily (platforms, payment systems, public websites/corps) producing this content and therefore decreasing the supply. The bigger picture is the social/cultural conversation around porn usage. It is very accepted, promoted even, by many communities and elements within our society. If there was an honest conversation around this usage would decline. The "no fap" community is an example of this and I think they have had successes changing minds around porn usage as an unquestionable good. This does also get into political viewpoints on public good and individual freedom, and where that line is drawn. >not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn Don't know what this means. Authorities cannot have knowledge of every instance of law breaking that occurs maybe? Doesn't change its illegality or the punishment if this is discovered.
FpUser 6y ago
I think smartphone addiction is way worse. As for the rest we already have more than enough controls imposed by self righteous imbeciles. Please spare from yet another one.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Children shouldn't be allowed to watch people being happy. We need them to stick with safe things like violence and murder. (this point has been made for decades yet somehow never sinks in with some groups and I don't understand why)
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  If this argument has been made for decades, then it is a bad argument that has been made for decades. > I don't understand why OK, let me try to explain. I'm not against pornography. I'm also not a prude -- if consenting adults want to have orgies, or wife swap, or insert baseball bats into body cavities, or get slapped and yelled at, go for it! I'd bet that 90+% or more of people's first exposure to sex is online videos. While there are certainly videos that show realistic sex, the vast majority are highly unrealistic and set incredibly weird expectations about what is normal. A lot of what is shown on video is bad acting, not happiness. To distinguish itself from from other videos, makers are always trying to find some new or more extreme boundary to push. A lot veers into extreme power dynamics -- boys learning about porn should not have the expectation that women like to be choked or spit on, or have jackhammer anal sex. Girls shouldn't have the expectation that that is what boys expect of them. As an adult you might say, hey, a lot of those scenarios are just entertainment, eg, those step siblings are obviously in their 20s, or obviously women don't like having 100 men ejaculate on them, but to children where this is their first exposure to sex, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I almost completely agree with what you say here (so upvoted) but it's what you don't say that I find disturbing. You've outlined what can be unpleasant about porn (eg. slapping women or choking them, however consensual I won't watch that) but you seem blind to the (albeit simulated) violence, sadism and killing I alluded to in mainstream films which can be far, far worse. I personally know it isn't real but to borrow and slightly amend your own sentence... "but to children where this is their first exposure to violence, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some" You can see the bad parts in porn, but not see the worse in films that children are freely exposed to? How come?

iso1210 6y ago

Because gambling has no addiction problem.

Drakim 6y ago

Morality questions aside, this wouldn't practically work. It would require pretty much uprooting and destroying the internet entirely. It's too easy to share "free" porn pictures on any website. We'd have to go from a free internet where anybody can make a website to a locked down version where you apply for a permit first.

iso1210 6y ago
I suspect 90% of teenagers currently go to fairly safe porn sites like pornhub, rather than diving into murky underworlds of bestility c, child porn, and sites requiring things like 'nudes for porn' or something. You're not going to stop teenagers getting porn, or adults for that matter (in the 80s kids were sharing dad's playboys)
DuskStar 6y ago
It'd also require solving the piracy problem, which would be a pretty big ask.

sokoloff 6y ago

Yes, we must absolutely control the expression, sharing, and consumption of ideas to ensure people act and think properly.

coldtea 6y ago
Well, many bought this line for "fake news" and "hate speech" (as ill defined as both items are)...
- jonnypotty 6y ago
  We only apply our principles when they agree with what we already know to be right.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Because there's evidence of harm from those, significant in some cases, and a discussion of proportionate measures that can be taken? This is largely what's missing from the discussion of sex work in general, a clear view of what is and what is not harmful; to whom it is harmful; and what might reasonably be done about it. The argument that sexual material was harmful per se collapsed somewhere around the Lady Chatterly trial.
  - sojournerc 6y ago
    That's the whole issue. Harm, specifically in the fake news example is subjective, especially in the gray middle where it counts. I'd say the same is true of porn. Certainly some is clearly harmful, but hard lines are impossible to draw. Consentual BDSM comes to mind. Thus this subjectivity requires personal responsibility, not authoritarian intervention/ censorship.
  - PKop 6y ago
    There is plenty of evidence of harm from porn usage, it hijacks the brain in a similar manner as hard core drugs. [0] The social consequences are pretty obvious, satisfying fundemental bioligical needs through artifical manner degrades what those desires are meant to achieve: family formation, marriages, which it inhibits forming or ruins those that already exist. Go spend some time on the no-fap sub-reddit to see the massive positive change that occurs when men quit consuming porn. Porn is a tool for social control, pacification and weakening culture [1], it is not empowering for either side of the equation. If this wasn't true, it wouldn't have been used as a form of psychological warfare like it was in this situation [2]. Did they do this to "empower" their enemy? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU [1] https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political-Control/dp/1587314657 https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/porn-run-on-seized-tv-channels-say-residents-20020401-gdf5uw.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/porn-run-on-seized-...

jchw 6y ago

Then you have to define porn, and realize that the internet is international. Tax whom how? How is this enforced?

lebuffon 6y ago
As governments begin to lose tax revenue due to everything moving to digital platforms, running beyond their borders, the new politicians born in this century will figure it out. You can be certain of that. (Death and Taxes) Or perhaps somebody will create a Star Trek style economy. :-) (shame Gene Roddenberry never explained that in detail)
- jchw 6y ago
  I don’t think that makes sense. I can create “porn” right now with a pencil and paper and upload it to the internet. Is it a creative expression, or porn? It’s both probably. I would suggest this doesn’t work out if you believe in free speech.

smitty1e 6y ago

I'm not in the audience at all. But how exactly you craft the legislation to go after these specific requirements while respecting the 1A and not begetting a host of other security concerns is a genuinely interesting legal/technical challenge. And it could be that privacy is already shot to hell and I'm just too stupid to grok that, yes.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago

I don't agree with the downvotes because I feel you presented a point that's worthy of debate. > This will ensure that children cannot access them A. Kids will just steal their parents credit cards or logins. B. The responsibility for raising children is the parents and not credit card companies. Things that make people better parents will work far better, like creating economic systems that don't require two parents to work and be unavailable to their children. > and allow people to control their pornography addictions. A. $5 a month won't work. People continue to smoke and cigarette packs are generally more expensive than that per pack. B. Why should those who are not addicted pay for those who are?

tbyehl 6y ago
> Kids will just steal their parents credit cards Kids these days have their own debit cards.
ReticentVole 6y ago
A: Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult than just getting a mobile phone and typing 'pornhub.com' into the address bar. B: How do you police something which is so easy to access? We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography? Why don't we require ISPs to provide free DNS-level blocking for residential broadband and mobile phone services? It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to. This is something that should be managed centrally by ISPs, enforced by Government regulation. C. $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price. D. Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  > Stealing a credit card is an order of magnitude more difficult For signing up for porn sites, it's really not very much more difficult. Steal card from parent while sleeping, enter numbers in form, now you have access. It's a small hoop to jump through and lots of people do it for identity theft purposes. > How do you police something which is so easy to access? You really can't. > We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography? Access to drugs isn't the same as telling me what to do in my own house with an Internet connection and device I'm paying for. > It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to. Your kid has a phone, a tablet, and a PC. 3 devices which you bought/owned, not really a lot of work. If you have the problem of your kid having too many devices, you also have the means to pay someone to do it for you. > $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price. It would have to be way higher. Honestly if I'm extremely addicted and use porn 5x a day, $5 a month is a bargain. > Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation. I don't know. Amateur content is a top category on many sites I think. Probably the number one thing anyone concerned with exploitation could do is destigmatize and legalize sex work, and provide a decent social safety net so people are less tempted to commit desperate actions to survive.

bouncycastle 6y ago

This won't work. Kids are inventive and can still get around that. Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide that karate videos should be blocked because... violence. Or, we may wake up one day and find that we can't access the Wikipedia pages about chemistry anymore, because kids can read them and then make dangerous experiments! Reading all those Wikipedia articles can also be an addiction too, (which I seem to have btw...! God forbid from having your kids find a site called Hacker News! ;-)) Instead, how about supervise your kids when they go online?

PKop 6y ago
All so-called addictions aren't created equal. Of course it would work (to some degree). We massively decreased the usage of cigarettes by regulation and taxing. With harsh enough fines and punishments as well as social pressure, decreasing porn usage would be easy to achieve. >Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide These types of "this" vs "that" decision-making is done all the time. We ban and punish child-porn usage. Various forms of "hate" speech is booted off the internet and "canceled" in culture all the time is it not? We can do it, it's just that many people here don't want to.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  One important difference to note is that people do this in the privacy of their homes all the time, and we certainly will not be banning that. The only thing you would be banning is having a camera pointed at it. The other vices are not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn.
  - PKop 6y ago
    It would be very easy to regulate the ability to make money easily (platforms, payment systems, public websites/corps) producing this content and therefore decreasing the supply. The bigger picture is the social/cultural conversation around porn usage. It is very accepted, promoted even, by many communities and elements within our society. If there was an honest conversation around this usage would decline. The "no fap" community is an example of this and I think they have had successes changing minds around porn usage as an unquestionable good. This does also get into political viewpoints on public good and individual freedom, and where that line is drawn. >not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn Don't know what this means. Authorities cannot have knowledge of every instance of law breaking that occurs maybe? Doesn't change its illegality or the punishment if this is discovered.

FpUser 6y ago

I think smartphone addiction is way worse. As for the rest we already have more than enough controls imposed by self righteous imbeciles. Please spare from yet another one.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Children shouldn't be allowed to watch people being happy. We need them to stick with safe things like violence and murder. (this point has been made for decades yet somehow never sinks in with some groups and I don't understand why)

tasty_freeze 6y ago
If this argument has been made for decades, then it is a bad argument that has been made for decades. > I don't understand why OK, let me try to explain. I'm not against pornography. I'm also not a prude -- if consenting adults want to have orgies, or wife swap, or insert baseball bats into body cavities, or get slapped and yelled at, go for it! I'd bet that 90+% or more of people's first exposure to sex is online videos. While there are certainly videos that show realistic sex, the vast majority are highly unrealistic and set incredibly weird expectations about what is normal. A lot of what is shown on video is bad acting, not happiness. To distinguish itself from from other videos, makers are always trying to find some new or more extreme boundary to push. A lot veers into extreme power dynamics -- boys learning about porn should not have the expectation that women like to be choked or spit on, or have jackhammer anal sex. Girls shouldn't have the expectation that that is what boys expect of them. As an adult you might say, hey, a lot of those scenarios are just entertainment, eg, those step siblings are obviously in their 20s, or obviously women don't like having 100 men ejaculate on them, but to children where this is their first exposure to sex, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I almost completely agree with what you say here (so upvoted) but it's what you don't say that I find disturbing. You've outlined what can be unpleasant about porn (eg. slapping women or choking them, however consensual I won't watch that) but you seem blind to the (albeit simulated) violence, sadism and killing I alluded to in mainstream films which can be far, far worse. I personally know it isn't real but to borrow and slightly amend your own sentence... "but to children where this is their first exposure to violence, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some" You can see the bad parts in porn, but not see the worse in films that children are freely exposed to? How come?