4 ms·

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

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.
sokoloff 6y ago
B. I’m not in favor of governments policing drugs the way they’ve been going about it and I’m even less in favor of them having the power to censor the Internet. I’d rather my kids, even at 9 and 11, stumble across pornography than grow up in a world where the government decides which sites are allowed to be in DNS. C. No addict will be slowed by $60/yr price tag for their addiction. You’re not forcing anyone to confront their addiction in any meaningful way. D. I’m not in favor of protectionist rackets even for businesses that I think should be allowed to operate.

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.

sokoloff 6y ago

B. I’m not in favor of governments policing drugs the way they’ve been going about it and I’m even less in favor of them having the power to censor the Internet. I’d rather my kids, even at 9 and 11, stumble across pornography than grow up in a world where the government decides which sites are allowed to be in DNS. C. No addict will be slowed by $60/yr price tag for their addiction. You’re not forcing anyone to confront their addiction in any meaningful way. D. I’m not in favor of protectionist rackets even for businesses that I think should be allowed to operate.