12 ms·

I don't understand why people think this is a bad thing except unless they think children should be watching porn? We could argue over the implementation of it

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• polishdude20 4y ago
  I think in this case, Pornhub isn't "luring" your kids to do anything. In any case, the parents can always put up a website blocker. If the kid continues to try and get on the website and even finds a way to disable the blocker, is that PornHub "luring" ?
  • throw_pm23 4y ago
    [flagged]
  • friedman23 4y ago
    Pornographic content is too accessible. It's impossible for the parents to police this, there will always be one kid with negligent parents that will expose other children to this crap. We are talking 10 year olds here, it's already happening.
    • silent_cal 4y ago
      Yep
    • polishdude20 4y ago
      We can create cases where blockers aren't effective till we're blue in the face. At some point, the measures taken to prevent this start to do more harm to other parts of the population than good. My belief is we've slowly let parents get away with not actually parenting and moved that job over to the government and other institutions. There's many more ways to tackle this that may be more effective and actually seek to educate. How about start with some educational content on why porn is bad for young minds and how to talk to your child about it in a mature way? It's like nobody wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room and have a civil and mature discussion about it with their children because it's awkward or uncomfortable.
• rhn_mk1 4y ago
  Do you have any examples of pornhub luring children into sexual abuse? Cause if you don't, then you're going to look quite silly with those arguments.
• lr4444lr 4y ago
  Because privacy matters. You really trust that Pornhub won't be storing the info of people who access it, including specific content tied to users, and that they couldn't have a security breach? If you want to protect children, you could perhaps have a trusted third party token broker which would neither reveal to the sites who owns the token, nor the site to the broker what content is accessed.
  • vxNsr 4y ago
    [flagged]
• brink 4y ago
  > I don't understand why people think this is a bad thing except unless they think children should be watching porn? Because the US is mostly addicted to porn. There was one study that found that 91.5% of men had reported using porn in the past month. It's bleak.
  • spiderice 4y ago
    "using porn in the past month" != "addicted to porn". Just like how "using alcohol in the past month" != "alcoholic". See how ridiculous that sounds?
    • brink 4y ago
      And someone can drink without restraint to the point of their detriment and say they're not addicted. See how ridiculous debating a subjective term like "addiction" is? Would you like to debate what "beauty" means next?
  • nerdjon 4y ago
    In what world is using porn once in a ~30 day period bleak?!? That is all that is saying, that they used it once. That's... not a lot. So someone has wanked once in the last month. That's.... ok? (Also love the continued sexism that woman don't have a sex drive and we just conveniently ignore them with these statistics) FFS we are sexual creatures. Most species are. Sex is perfectly natural and we really need to remove this stigma around it.
• lilboiluvr69 4y ago
  [dead]
• lokar 4y ago
  Parents are responsible for monitoring their children, not the state.
  • alchemist1e9 4y ago
    Yes true but as a parent it’s not as easy as you suggest. In particular it’s extremely difficult for less educated and poorer parents to block porn access.
    • silent_cal 4y ago
      Exactly. I met a poor mother at a gas station in tears about how her child had been corrupted by porn that he saw on his phone. People just don’t know how bad it is.
      • SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        > I met a poor mother at a gas station in tears about how her child had been corrupted by porn that he saw on his phone. This is the weirdest anecdote.
        • silent_cal 4y ago
          She had nobody else to talk to and I happened to be standing there. I filled up her car because she was stuck, and she started crying and telling me about this. I was surprised too but it really affected how I think about this issue.
  • thepasswordis 4y ago
    Hey if you guys want to go down that libertarian rabbit hole with me I'm with you! But it feels a little bit strange to me that people are on board with the idea that the government should be protecting me from buying antibiotics without getting themselves involved, but they don't think they should be protecting my children from being sexually harassed on the internet by pornographers. If that's the modality we are going to switch to, where it becomes my responsibility to protect myself and my family from bad actors then fine. I accept the compromise. Please direct me to the place I can buy whatever medications I want without the government knowing or caring, and the place where I can attach unregulated firearms to my unregistered drones to hunt bears on my property. But again it seems pretty odd to me that there is nobody up in arms about the fact that my kid needs to show ID and get my permission to get antibiotics, but you guys are all up in arms because he, a 12 year old, can't go online and be monetized into watching incest gangbang porn so that mindgeek can make a few cents off of ads for escort services and dick pills.
• anonporridge 4y ago
  It's not bad for adding friction for children's access to porn. It's bad because it creates an enormous privacy concern for adults who are forced to identify themselves in a traceable way when for consuming legal, but often very socially taboo content. We might say that these sites should never store the information, but the reality is that it's such a honeypot of potential blackmail that no one should trust it not to be stored.
  • DeusExMachina 4y ago
    Isn't this what the parent comment is saying? > We could argue over the implementation of it, and worry about the downstream consequences, but then shouldn't the argument be: how to accomplish this without those effects?
  • noabuseplease 4y ago
    Pornography is not an essential product or service. You can live your life without it. Many people do. If there ends up being a privacy risk to consuming online porn, due to having to hand your personal details over to a pornographer to access it, and you choose of your own volition to do this anyway, then really it's your own fault.
• ezfe 4y ago
  I don't think people (in general) think children *should* be watching porn, it's more the combination of these factors: 1. This law won't prevent anyone with any amount of motivation from watching porn 2. This law will create an avenue for personal details to be compromised, certainly with association to "porn" in general and possibly to actual content 3. This is coming from Louisiana which would rather legislate an issue than educate children on how to handle these issues properly
  • thepasswordis 4y ago
    Okay now do firearms! I don't think people should own fully automatic weapons, it's more a combination of these factors: 1: Gun laws don't prevent bad guys from buying guns anyway. 2: Gun laws create an avenue for personal details to be compromised with association to "guns". 3: Guns laws typically come from Californians, who instead of trying to deal with the people dying in the street of a fentanyl overdose, busy themselves trying to annoy hobbyists in Texas with their stupid lack of understanding about how firearms are made or used.
    • alexb_ 4y ago
      Based and true, you're making this comparison like it's not correct
      • thepasswordis 4y ago
        I've said in other places: if people want to actually build out a libertarian world where the state leaves me alone then good. The frustration I have is that people seem upset at the idea of the the state working to make it harder for people to abuse kids online, and but happy about the idea of the state making it harder for me to protect my family from violent people in real life.
    • ezfe 4y ago
      porn (watching) isn't killing kids
    • acdha 4y ago
• sbarre 4y ago
  This quickly gets into the zone of absolving parents of their responsibilities to oversee their children's education and rearing in the manner that they choose (porn is bad vs. porn is not for you until you're older, etc) How much media in our society is "not for children" but are still easily accessed by children? And how much of that happens because parents aren't paying attention? Porn is just an easy target, especially in America. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I don't think this is effective action. It's actually impossible to effectively manage this with laws and centralized legislation (I would argue this is performative more than anything else), and the more of this we have, the more of a false sense of security you give parents, and the less responsibility they feel they need to have in guiding and supporting their children and helping them learn the reality of the world around them.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• yeahwhatever10 4y ago
  Why are you implying PH is advertising to children and trying to “lure them in”.
  • silent_cal 4y ago
    Because they’re not doing anything to try and make sure they’re not serving their ads to kids
• xdennis 4y ago
  > I don't understand why people think this is a bad thing except unless they think children should be watching porn? It's a very bad take for you to assume that the opposition is from people who want children to watch porn. Protecting children is primarily parents' responsibility, not everyone else's. It's okay if it doesn't cost anything (like putting tricky caps on bottles of hazardous things), but when there's a clash (privacy vs protecting children), it's better to land on the side of freedom and personal responsibility. Hell, you probably shouldn't be giving kids access to the internet anyway. Tik Tok might be just as damaging as Pornhub for them. Edit: in other words, if you're worried about your child rolling off the bed you should buy a crib. Government shouldn't be mandating that all beds need to be cribs, in case children might sleep in them.
  • thepasswordis 4y ago
    Do you extend this thinking to guns as well?
    • maximus-decimus 4y ago
      Americans as a society clearly do.
    • eldritch_4ier 4y ago
      Better yet, do they extend this thinking to: drugs, guns, voting, strip clubs, gambling websites, buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, renting a car, or even buying porn mags? Why is internet porn the only exception? It's obviously harmful: we don't let kids go to strip clubs or invite them to view irl orgies for this reason. They can't even buy physical porn or view porn in stores without age verification. What about it being digital makes it ok?
      • xdennis 4y ago
        Not sure which people you're referring to by "they", but if you mean me: Internet porn is the exception because of privacy reasons. For some of those examples they don't store records (voting, buying alcohol, etc), and in the case where they do (gambling websites, renting) that's not something that's a huge privacy concern. It's like the difference between having security cameras in a lobby vs a bathroom stall. They would both prevent crimes, but the invasion of privacy isn't worth it.
• BaRRaKID 4y ago
  [dead]
• albrewer 4y ago
  Imagine you submit your ID and a data breach happens, or Louisiana subpoenas the information and makes it public. Now imagine you live in Louisiana (a pretty conservative state) and suddenly everyone knows you like to watch every type of porn, such as those seen as more taboo like male/male or male/trans. You are suddenly a target for violence in a place where such violence is most likely to occur, because of your state government's actions. Nobody's saying kids should be watching porn. In a perfect world, this is a good law. We live in reality, though; data breaches happen routinely, and governments can do unethical, harmful, legal things. You should always examine laws in how they can be enforced in the worst way, and what the next logical step might be for legislators with ill intent towards any kind of minority group. > We could argue over the implementation of it, and worry about the downstream consequences, but then shouldn't the argument be: how to accomplish this without those effects? No country in the world has the identification infrastructure to implement this in a rights-neutral way, as far as I know. To do it, your ID would have to be a sort-of rolling public/private key pair that others can use to verify information with, such as DOB and driving eligibility. We would then have to track what entities are querying your ID and what info they got so that we can audit who's getting our Id info and make sure they have the appropriate access.
• yellow9 4y ago
  If you read Psychology Today they do in fact want kids watching porn to erode traditional gender roles and promote homosexuality.
• charonn0 4y ago
  > I don't understand why people think this is a bad thing except unless they think children should be watching porn? Because it's invasive, ripe for abuse, and contrary to our basic values as a nation.
• gameman144 4y ago
  > We could argue over the implementation of it, and worry about the downstream consequences, but then shouldn't the argument be: how to accomplish this without those effects? I'm not sure this follows. For people that really care a lot about both issues, perhaps. For me, I care much more about privacy and preventing government overreach than making porn harder to access. As such, I'm not going to be the one trying to figure out how to accomplish this without these effects. I'm going to focus on saying "Don't introduce those effects, regardless of your motivations."
• dogleash 4y ago
  > but then shouldn't the argument be: how to accomplish this without those effects? Nope. I think it's perfectly fine to raise issues and tell someone to go off and fix their proposal without my assistance. It's not like there's some time sensitive pressure that I help collaborate to get some minimal solution in place as fast as possible. Kids have been looking at internet porn for the last 25 years and this law won't meaningfully curb that, regardless of how perfect age verification tech ever gets.