6 ms·

Even if the laws aren't intended that way, that is often the results they have. For example parental control apps are more likely to classify and block LGBTQIA+

by mojzu 5y ago

Even if the laws aren't intended that way, that is often the results they have. For example parental control apps are more likely to classify and block LGBTQIA+ websites as adult content [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2022/01/19/92-of-top-parental-control-apps-wrongly-block-lgbtq-and-sex-ed-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2022/01/19/92-of-t...

cameronh90 5y ago
I did see that in the article but I'm not sure what the link is. A private company managed block list is very different in nature to requiring that adult content providers implement age verification, with a human regulatory process that kicks in if they refuse. Indeed one could argue that by making this a requirement of the website, and making the web safe by default, it negates the need for these overly puritanical 3rd party blocklists and actually increases access to non-pornographic LGBT material. It's a weak argument, but two can play at that game...
- mojzu 5y ago
  It depends where the lines are drawn, given pressure from religious or other organisations I could easily see websites being put into these kinds of categories without much cause to score political points. I also doubt it would make the web safe by default unless they're targetting other kinds of potentially offensive but legal/age-restricted content Given that similar systems have disproportionately affected LGBTQIA+ groups in the past (whether that's maliciously or not), I think it's a fair point to bring up in response to this new legislation (in addition to it being an expensive waste of time and resources)
- burnoutgal 5y ago
  In practice people will accuse non-pornographic LGBT educational resources of being pornography and breaking the law. Pornography is subjective, and straight people have historically tried to say that any information about gay sex or being trans is pornographic. This just hurts queer youth by depriving them of resources and forums to talk about their experiences
  - Kye 5y ago
    For example: that mayor withholding already allocated funds until the library removed anything that didn't reflect his views on LGBT people. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/mississippi-mayor-withholds-library-funds-over-lgbtq-books https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/mississippi-mayor-withhold... You might have heard of a queer-majority community stepping up to help raise funds to replace what he denied: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdpen/mississippi-furry-book-banning https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdpen/mississippi-furry-boo...
    - tomp 5y ago
      This is strawman; the worn "porn" doesn't appear in the PBS article. The mayor objected to "homosexual material", not "porn".
      - Kye 5y ago
        The two are the same to this sort of person. It seems absurd until you've watched someone call a goodbye kiss between two men pornographic.
bluecalm 5y ago
More likely than what? The article says they block sex-ed websites as well even if they are not LGBTQIA+. It just seems they block content related to sex no matter if it's straight, gay or queer.

by mojzu 5y ago

cameronh90 5y ago

I did see that in the article but I'm not sure what the link is. A private company managed block list is very different in nature to requiring that adult content providers implement age verification, with a human regulatory process that kicks in if they refuse. Indeed one could argue that by making this a requirement of the website, and making the web safe by default, it negates the need for these overly puritanical 3rd party blocklists and actually increases access to non-pornographic LGBT material. It's a weak argument, but two can play at that game...

mojzu 5y ago
It depends where the lines are drawn, given pressure from religious or other organisations I could easily see websites being put into these kinds of categories without much cause to score political points. I also doubt it would make the web safe by default unless they're targetting other kinds of potentially offensive but legal/age-restricted content Given that similar systems have disproportionately affected LGBTQIA+ groups in the past (whether that's maliciously or not), I think it's a fair point to bring up in response to this new legislation (in addition to it being an expensive waste of time and resources)
burnoutgal 5y ago
In practice people will accuse non-pornographic LGBT educational resources of being pornography and breaking the law. Pornography is subjective, and straight people have historically tried to say that any information about gay sex or being trans is pornographic. This just hurts queer youth by depriving them of resources and forums to talk about their experiences
- Kye 5y ago
  For example: that mayor withholding already allocated funds until the library removed anything that didn't reflect his views on LGBT people. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/mississippi-mayor-withholds-library-funds-over-lgbtq-books https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/mississippi-mayor-withhold... You might have heard of a queer-majority community stepping up to help raise funds to replace what he denied: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdpen/mississippi-furry-book-banning https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdpen/mississippi-furry-boo...
  - tomp 5y ago
    This is strawman; the worn "porn" doesn't appear in the PBS article. The mayor objected to "homosexual material", not "porn".
    - Kye 5y ago
      The two are the same to this sort of person. It seems absurd until you've watched someone call a goodbye kiss between two men pornographic.

bluecalm 5y ago

More likely than what? The article says they block sex-ed websites as well even if they are not LGBTQIA+. It just seems they block content related to sex no matter if it's straight, gay or queer.