4 ms·

> 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 tha

> 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.
    - noabuseplease 4y ago
      You don't have to watch internet porn, it isn't an essential activity. Many people never watch it. It's nothing at all like using a bathroom stall, an activity that everyone does, because we all need to defecate as part of our bodily functions, and spaces to do this in. In the hypothetical situation of installing cameras in stalls, the privacy impact affects essentially everyone. Conversely, if the cost of electing to watch online pornography is that you have to share your personal data with the pornographers, then that is a choice you have made, and it's your responsibility to deal with any privacy consequences. If you don't like it, don't do it. Instead of arguing for your right to view pornography anonymously, you may want to examine the harms it causes, and decide whether this is something you're comfortable being complicit in: https://nordicmodelnow.org/2022/08/13/pornography-as-crime-scene-videos-suzzan-blac-discusses-her-pornhub-research/ https://nordicmodelnow.org/2022/08/13/pornography-as-crime-s...
    - eldritch_4ier 4y ago
      So your problem here is the implementation? Have them do verification through a government-owned endpoint, pass laws with steep fines and jail time for all involved if they store ID info, etc You have to submit a fraction of this same info to open a brokerage account. A solution exists and it's worth pursuing.
- xdennis 4y ago
  [dead]

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.
  - noabuseplease 4y ago
    You don't have to watch internet porn, it isn't an essential activity. Many people never watch it. It's nothing at all like using a bathroom stall, an activity that everyone does, because we all need to defecate as part of our bodily functions, and spaces to do this in. In the hypothetical situation of installing cameras in stalls, the privacy impact affects essentially everyone. Conversely, if the cost of electing to watch online pornography is that you have to share your personal data with the pornographers, then that is a choice you have made, and it's your responsibility to deal with any privacy consequences. If you don't like it, don't do it. Instead of arguing for your right to view pornography anonymously, you may want to examine the harms it causes, and decide whether this is something you're comfortable being complicit in: https://nordicmodelnow.org/2022/08/13/pornography-as-crime-scene-videos-suzzan-blac-discusses-her-pornhub-research/ https://nordicmodelnow.org/2022/08/13/pornography-as-crime-s...
  - eldritch_4ier 4y ago
    So your problem here is the implementation? Have them do verification through a government-owned endpoint, pass laws with steep fines and jail time for all involved if they store ID info, etc You have to submit a fraction of this same info to open a brokerage account. A solution exists and it's worth pursuing.
xdennis 4y ago
[dead]