4 ms·

Also who defines 'porn'. Is porn any photo that shows nudity, or where do you draw the line on vanilla videos vs more extreme. You might end up with devices bl

Also who defines 'porn'. Is porn any photo that shows nudity, or where do you draw the line on vanilla videos vs more extreme. You might end up with devices blocking all photos of a woman topless, or naked men, even art. Does Michelangelo's David statue get his privates covered or blocked? Or like in China where they increasing block things like picture/videos of women eating bananas as that is taken as sexual (and to be fair some steamers were knowingly doing as so). Obviously there is reasonable ground in these discussions, but when it comes to censorship the best overall position is government should stay out as much as possible. History shows human nature, or the people attracted to powerful positions, seems to not play well in these spaces over time.

SauciestGNU 4y ago
The same religious people pushing this law claim that books acknowledging the existence of queer people is pornographic. Forgive me for my cynicism but I think this is less about pornography and more about providing a legal framework for Christians to censor information about queer identities, reproductive healthcare, and things of that nature.
- sh4rks 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - 4ggr0 4y ago
    > Modern porn isn't like your grandpa's playboy magazines I'm sure there was very extreme porn when grandpa was reading his magazines. Maybe access to it is easier today, but I'm sure humans have been into extreme sexual activities for a veeeeeeery long time.
    - sh4rks 4y ago
      Yep, accessibility is my concern. Think about the most vile, extreme porn you've seen. Now multiply that vileness by 10. That content is just as easy to access (via the Internet) as some innocent nude selfie. Again, I think adults should be able to watch what they want. The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age.
      - 4ggr0 4y ago
        > The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age Kinda agree - but for me that's up to the parents. Control your kids devices, restrict them, educate them etc. Else, how do you want to control this? Mandatory identification on the whole internet? No thanks... I've seen a lot of things as a teenager which I shouldn't have seen (gore videos of mexican cartels, ISIS etc.), and I'm sure that this has done some mental damage, even though I can't exactly pinpoint what kind. But still, if the alternative is total bureaucratic control over the whole internet with my personal ID being identified everywhere, just to save some uncontrolled kids from watching things they shouldn't...I don't know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal... EDIT: to clarify, i do agree that kids should be protected from harmful content. just don't think that ID checks or scanning my own data are a net positive.
      - slowmovintarget 4y ago
        We need to stop asking the government to parent our children. This is the chief problem. That idea has been mainstreamed such that the assumption is "there ought to be a law" for everything. Once upon a time, when conservatism was a set of principles and not a set of rants, it was conservatives that stood for limiting government's reach into private concerns. Those values have largely flown out the window to the point where the "two sides" are simply arguing over what to interfere in. At a global level, human societies have gone through this before. The rash of attaching fig leaves to statuary, for example. The last decade has seen an up-tick of that kind of activity as well. What happens when you tear down religion and the family unit as moral centers in society? Society replaces them with government... which is drastically worse. Governmental agencies have no interest in teaching that they don't have the responsibility. Their existence depends on growing their authority. There's a conflict of interest. This is not a slippery slope argument either, it's the consequences of some ideas winning mind share (government as moral authority, morality as old-fashioned...).
  - SauciestGNU 4y ago
    Not a troll, just someone whose life experience leads to the conclusion that people trying to ban "pornography" in the United States are motivated almost exclusively by Christian religious motivations. Especially the ones who are demanding legal solutions that will be a detriment to the freedom of everyone. Furthermore, the notion of the state forcing computer makers to inspect for and block certain content dovetails nicely (if one's goal is the eradication of queer people in the public sphere) with states prohibiting the discussion of queer identities.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    As a parent, I'd sooner argue we should just give the kids a copy of Encarta and kick them off the internet. Porn is a drop in the ocean of the problematic content out there. You don't wage war with the ocean. You keep kids away from it until they learn how to swim.
LinuxBender 4y ago
If we are including all fetishes and kinks, then any photo, video or drawing that shows feet is porn. The internet has a massive foot fetish. Some people are aroused by eyes. So any photo, video or drawing that contains eyes is porn. Some people are into ... I mean, I could keep going but it's already silly. There used to be clear lines drawn for porn penetration, oral copulation, etc... but those lines have been quite blurred. Now anything lewd could be porn and just about anything could be lewd in the eyes of the beholder. There's some case law that tries to put bullet-point requirements on this but is still somewhat subjective even when stare decisis is utilized. A considerable amount of artistic content on DeviantArt could be considered lewd by current US standards. Overall I agree with you. The government should stay out of it. The tech industry should also stay out of it. Just add a header for URL's that may contain user-generated content and let the clients decide what actions to take or not take on that header.
- Gustomaximus 4y ago
  Quite a coincidental headline to read one day later: "Principal fired after Florida students shown Michelangelo statue" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989
LBJsPNS 4y ago
A principal in Florida was recently fired for showing students a picture of David. So there's that.

SauciestGNU 4y ago

The same religious people pushing this law claim that books acknowledging the existence of queer people is pornographic. Forgive me for my cynicism but I think this is less about pornography and more about providing a legal framework for Christians to censor information about queer identities, reproductive healthcare, and things of that nature.

sh4rks 4y ago
[flagged]
- 4ggr0 4y ago
  > Modern porn isn't like your grandpa's playboy magazines I'm sure there was very extreme porn when grandpa was reading his magazines. Maybe access to it is easier today, but I'm sure humans have been into extreme sexual activities for a veeeeeeery long time.
  - sh4rks 4y ago
    Yep, accessibility is my concern. Think about the most vile, extreme porn you've seen. Now multiply that vileness by 10. That content is just as easy to access (via the Internet) as some innocent nude selfie. Again, I think adults should be able to watch what they want. The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age.
    - 4ggr0 4y ago
      > The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age Kinda agree - but for me that's up to the parents. Control your kids devices, restrict them, educate them etc. Else, how do you want to control this? Mandatory identification on the whole internet? No thanks... I've seen a lot of things as a teenager which I shouldn't have seen (gore videos of mexican cartels, ISIS etc.), and I'm sure that this has done some mental damage, even though I can't exactly pinpoint what kind. But still, if the alternative is total bureaucratic control over the whole internet with my personal ID being identified everywhere, just to save some uncontrolled kids from watching things they shouldn't...I don't know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal... EDIT: to clarify, i do agree that kids should be protected from harmful content. just don't think that ID checks or scanning my own data are a net positive.
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      We need to stop asking the government to parent our children. This is the chief problem. That idea has been mainstreamed such that the assumption is "there ought to be a law" for everything. Once upon a time, when conservatism was a set of principles and not a set of rants, it was conservatives that stood for limiting government's reach into private concerns. Those values have largely flown out the window to the point where the "two sides" are simply arguing over what to interfere in. At a global level, human societies have gone through this before. The rash of attaching fig leaves to statuary, for example. The last decade has seen an up-tick of that kind of activity as well. What happens when you tear down religion and the family unit as moral centers in society? Society replaces them with government... which is drastically worse. Governmental agencies have no interest in teaching that they don't have the responsibility. Their existence depends on growing their authority. There's a conflict of interest. This is not a slippery slope argument either, it's the consequences of some ideas winning mind share (government as moral authority, morality as old-fashioned...).
- SauciestGNU 4y ago
  Not a troll, just someone whose life experience leads to the conclusion that people trying to ban "pornography" in the United States are motivated almost exclusively by Christian religious motivations. Especially the ones who are demanding legal solutions that will be a detriment to the freedom of everyone. Furthermore, the notion of the state forcing computer makers to inspect for and block certain content dovetails nicely (if one's goal is the eradication of queer people in the public sphere) with states prohibiting the discussion of queer identities.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  As a parent, I'd sooner argue we should just give the kids a copy of Encarta and kick them off the internet. Porn is a drop in the ocean of the problematic content out there. You don't wage war with the ocean. You keep kids away from it until they learn how to swim.

LinuxBender 4y ago

If we are including all fetishes and kinks, then any photo, video or drawing that shows feet is porn. The internet has a massive foot fetish. Some people are aroused by eyes. So any photo, video or drawing that contains eyes is porn. Some people are into ... I mean, I could keep going but it's already silly. There used to be clear lines drawn for porn penetration, oral copulation, etc... but those lines have been quite blurred. Now anything lewd could be porn and just about anything could be lewd in the eyes of the beholder. There's some case law that tries to put bullet-point requirements on this but is still somewhat subjective even when stare decisis is utilized. A considerable amount of artistic content on DeviantArt could be considered lewd by current US standards. Overall I agree with you. The government should stay out of it. The tech industry should also stay out of it. Just add a header for URL's that may contain user-generated content and let the clients decide what actions to take or not take on that header.

Gustomaximus 4y ago
Quite a coincidental headline to read one day later: "Principal fired after Florida students shown Michelangelo statue" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989

LBJsPNS 4y ago

A principal in Florida was recently fired for showing students a picture of David. So there's that.