6 ms·

Wow, good stuff Virginia. While VPNs certainly circumvent the purpose of this law, it will still have the effect of lowering exposure of minors to this content.

Wow, good stuff Virginia. While VPNs certainly circumvent the purpose of this law, it will still have the effect of lowering exposure of minors to this content. Pornography companies have long been avoiding the negative externalities they cause. The false age-gates that are overridden with a button click were long overdue for some regulation. At the same time there should be some education (parental or community) around pornography, healthy ways of coping with sexual feelings, etc given the wide access of internet, it’s not so easy to protect children these days yet.

predictabl3 3y ago
No, no it won't. Christ, I'm 33 and I knew how to waltz around these protections as a 13 year-old and there was a lot less everything on the internet back then.
- erenyeager 3y ago
  Clicking a button compared to ID checks are two different classes of barriers. ID checks will substantially restrict porn access to minors, and help keep pornography companies accountable.
  - predictabl3 3y ago
    ......... No. No, it won't, because for every porn site that complies, sixty thousand won't. To be clear, I'm not some big porn proponent, especially for young people with developing brains. But, as always, proper parenting and framing is more useful than NetNanny - Now With State-Enforcement!
    - erenyeager 3y ago
      Hi, how do you suggest proper parenting and framing without also society-level interventions? It seems this is putting a lot of burden on parents, teachers, etc, when also regulation on this can be helpful. For example, smoking is prohibited for those below a certain age from purchasing. Or the intervention the government did with Juul to stop the spread of vaping among teens. You say not every porn sure will comply, but if even the biggest players comply, don’t you agree this will significantly reduce minors being exposed to porn? And I’m sure with threat of legal action, just like is taken against other entities, can also be of help, even if it becomes a cat-and-mouse game, I’m saying don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Education from parents to kids is a great effort but that will require a lot more work and dedication.
      - predictabl3 3y ago
        Wew, I don't know what to tell you. Your kid is going to google "boobies" and find them. Now, in six months, in six years, regardless of regulations because they're never going to be enforced anywhere near wide enough to keep a curious kid away. Not even for 3 whole minutes. So, what do you do? .... be a freaking parent. Regulation of physical goods is leaky too. If you rely on the law keeping booze and cigarettes away from your kids, you're going to have a really, really rough time through their teen years. >It seems this is putting a lot of burden on parents, teachers, etc, when also regulation on this can be helpful. No, regulation can make lazy/bad parents feel better and feel like they can just ignore their actual responsibility which is teaching and guiding their rchildren. > don’t you agree this will significantly reduce minors being exposed to porn? No, lol, I'm sorry, it would be rude but I would laugh in your face openly if you tried to tell me that. Pick a state that has implemented this, and I'll record you a YouTube video of me finding porn in less than 30 seconds. And honestly, mentioning Juul? Man, do you live in this same world as the rest of us? There are 6 dozen different disposable vapes that are easily accessible to kids. The Juul ban did absolutely beyond nothing to stop teenage vaping. Yes, parents should do the most important part of their job as a parent instead of advocating for the STATE to track every single adult that wants to watch porn. Yes, I am absolutely saying that: 1. This will stop exactly zero kids from accessing porn. 2. The trade-off requires a STATE-RUN REGISTRY OF PORN WATCHERS. I don't even know where to begin on explaining what a horrendous idea this is. This is clearly 100% just the usual "moral conservatism as law" trope that it always is. People who want to encode their moral beliefs as law because they're too prudish? ignorant? I-dont-know-what? to talk to their kids about sex.
_8j50 3y ago
I agree with you but that sentiment is unpopular in tech circles. I would go further and say porn should be decriminalized but regulated like drugs. Adults should be allowed to use it but their use should be only to allowed dispenseries/sites and monitored for "overdose" with addiction/rehab help provided at the dispensery/site and a large warning text about its harm like cigarettes. With the exception of small audience live videos or screenshots (onlyfans and sexting) being unregulated.
- erenyeager 3y ago
  Curious where would social media sites that are used sometimes for pornographic purposes fall under this? Obviously something like PHub only serves to distribute porn. But things like Twitter, Reddit, etc. are well known for their “secondary” purposes. For example there are many chat apps aimed towards teenagers that are prolifically used for exchanging videos and pictures between adults and minors (at least de facto, even if de jure it is against terms). Of course there’s a big difference between a porn production company versus an individual, but often social platforms are conduits for more “black hat” behavior.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    That's what I was addressing with the "small audience" or one-to-one messaging. So long as the sender is sending to a small number of specific individuals (i.e.: small subreddit or DMing small number of people) it should be unregulated. The consensus is that humans just can't maintain meaningful relationships with more than 150 people so that should be the "small" threshold. The moment the number of viewers/receivers is more than that, it becomes a felony if they fail to follow regulations and notices to users. So if a private group chat grows to have 151 users then everyone sending nudes in that chat is criminally liable unless the group chat has the neccesary warnings and links to where people can get help and moderation to make sure shared content is consensual and legal as well as making sure participants are of legal age. For "children", the solution is enabling parents to regulate what content kids consume (not just porn but anything really).
- LocalH 3y ago
  What right do you have to decide what I look at? I reject your desire to control the content intake of others. Choose what you want to view, and leave other people alone.
DangitBobby 3y ago
Ostensibly the purpose of this law is to prevent minors from accessing porn and not to reduce or eliminate porn use by forcing adults to de-anonymize to access it. This comment says the quiet part out loud, I guess.
- erenyeager 3y ago
  Yes just like we have ID requirements for alcohol and tobacco purchase, the same can apply to pornography which much of it should not be exposed to minors. What educational or beneficial use is quickly outweighed by the many negatives of allowing unfettered access to porn to minors. Regulations on who can access pornography make complete sense and we already have them in the form of over 18 buttons, but these by and far are not effective. Hence since our society already agreed minors should not be exposed to porn, we can take more effective steps like have ID requirements.
KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
Or let's take another perspective: Free VPNs are easily understood and accessed by minors, except now their browsing history is exposed to spurious, unverified, and foreign companies and actors that aren't held to the privacy standards of internet providers and mobile carriers. This is "ten foot wall and eleven foot ladder" territory and we should be very wary of who is selling the ladder.
- erenyeager 3y ago
  Domestic companies already are privacy disasters. The US can introduce privacy legislation like the EU if this is really an issue. But already porn is illegal for children under 18, so this is just a way to more effectively regulate with minimal externalities. Many people already pay for pornography which usually necessitates identification, so requiring ID for any porn site access is not a huge jump.
  - KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
    >Many people already pay for pornography which usually necessitates identification, so requiring ID for any porn site access is not a huge jump. The vast majority of people do not pay for porn, therefore for the vast majority of people it is a huge jump; and so this isn't a very compelling point. And my point was that regulation with easy and free to access loopholes is regulation only by name. Did you know you can still buy drugs, download movies and watch bestiality porn on the Internet? How can this be when these things have been illegal/regulated for so long!?

predictabl3 3y ago

No, no it won't. Christ, I'm 33 and I knew how to waltz around these protections as a 13 year-old and there was a lot less everything on the internet back then.

erenyeager 3y ago
Clicking a button compared to ID checks are two different classes of barriers. ID checks will substantially restrict porn access to minors, and help keep pornography companies accountable.
- predictabl3 3y ago
  ......... No. No, it won't, because for every porn site that complies, sixty thousand won't. To be clear, I'm not some big porn proponent, especially for young people with developing brains. But, as always, proper parenting and framing is more useful than NetNanny - Now With State-Enforcement!
  - erenyeager 3y ago
    Hi, how do you suggest proper parenting and framing without also society-level interventions? It seems this is putting a lot of burden on parents, teachers, etc, when also regulation on this can be helpful. For example, smoking is prohibited for those below a certain age from purchasing. Or the intervention the government did with Juul to stop the spread of vaping among teens. You say not every porn sure will comply, but if even the biggest players comply, don’t you agree this will significantly reduce minors being exposed to porn? And I’m sure with threat of legal action, just like is taken against other entities, can also be of help, even if it becomes a cat-and-mouse game, I’m saying don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Education from parents to kids is a great effort but that will require a lot more work and dedication.
    - predictabl3 3y ago
      Wew, I don't know what to tell you. Your kid is going to google "boobies" and find them. Now, in six months, in six years, regardless of regulations because they're never going to be enforced anywhere near wide enough to keep a curious kid away. Not even for 3 whole minutes. So, what do you do? .... be a freaking parent. Regulation of physical goods is leaky too. If you rely on the law keeping booze and cigarettes away from your kids, you're going to have a really, really rough time through their teen years. >It seems this is putting a lot of burden on parents, teachers, etc, when also regulation on this can be helpful. No, regulation can make lazy/bad parents feel better and feel like they can just ignore their actual responsibility which is teaching and guiding their rchildren. > don’t you agree this will significantly reduce minors being exposed to porn? No, lol, I'm sorry, it would be rude but I would laugh in your face openly if you tried to tell me that. Pick a state that has implemented this, and I'll record you a YouTube video of me finding porn in less than 30 seconds. And honestly, mentioning Juul? Man, do you live in this same world as the rest of us? There are 6 dozen different disposable vapes that are easily accessible to kids. The Juul ban did absolutely beyond nothing to stop teenage vaping. Yes, parents should do the most important part of their job as a parent instead of advocating for the STATE to track every single adult that wants to watch porn. Yes, I am absolutely saying that: 1. This will stop exactly zero kids from accessing porn. 2. The trade-off requires a STATE-RUN REGISTRY OF PORN WATCHERS. I don't even know where to begin on explaining what a horrendous idea this is. This is clearly 100% just the usual "moral conservatism as law" trope that it always is. People who want to encode their moral beliefs as law because they're too prudish? ignorant? I-dont-know-what? to talk to their kids about sex.

_8j50 3y ago

I agree with you but that sentiment is unpopular in tech circles. I would go further and say porn should be decriminalized but regulated like drugs. Adults should be allowed to use it but their use should be only to allowed dispenseries/sites and monitored for "overdose" with addiction/rehab help provided at the dispensery/site and a large warning text about its harm like cigarettes. With the exception of small audience live videos or screenshots (onlyfans and sexting) being unregulated.

erenyeager 3y ago
Curious where would social media sites that are used sometimes for pornographic purposes fall under this? Obviously something like PHub only serves to distribute porn. But things like Twitter, Reddit, etc. are well known for their “secondary” purposes. For example there are many chat apps aimed towards teenagers that are prolifically used for exchanging videos and pictures between adults and minors (at least de facto, even if de jure it is against terms). Of course there’s a big difference between a porn production company versus an individual, but often social platforms are conduits for more “black hat” behavior.
- _8j50 3y ago
  That's what I was addressing with the "small audience" or one-to-one messaging. So long as the sender is sending to a small number of specific individuals (i.e.: small subreddit or DMing small number of people) it should be unregulated. The consensus is that humans just can't maintain meaningful relationships with more than 150 people so that should be the "small" threshold. The moment the number of viewers/receivers is more than that, it becomes a felony if they fail to follow regulations and notices to users. So if a private group chat grows to have 151 users then everyone sending nudes in that chat is criminally liable unless the group chat has the neccesary warnings and links to where people can get help and moderation to make sure shared content is consensual and legal as well as making sure participants are of legal age. For "children", the solution is enabling parents to regulate what content kids consume (not just porn but anything really).
LocalH 3y ago
What right do you have to decide what I look at? I reject your desire to control the content intake of others. Choose what you want to view, and leave other people alone.

DangitBobby 3y ago

Ostensibly the purpose of this law is to prevent minors from accessing porn and not to reduce or eliminate porn use by forcing adults to de-anonymize to access it. This comment says the quiet part out loud, I guess.

erenyeager 3y ago
Yes just like we have ID requirements for alcohol and tobacco purchase, the same can apply to pornography which much of it should not be exposed to minors. What educational or beneficial use is quickly outweighed by the many negatives of allowing unfettered access to porn to minors. Regulations on who can access pornography make complete sense and we already have them in the form of over 18 buttons, but these by and far are not effective. Hence since our society already agreed minors should not be exposed to porn, we can take more effective steps like have ID requirements.

KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago

Or let's take another perspective: Free VPNs are easily understood and accessed by minors, except now their browsing history is exposed to spurious, unverified, and foreign companies and actors that aren't held to the privacy standards of internet providers and mobile carriers. This is "ten foot wall and eleven foot ladder" territory and we should be very wary of who is selling the ladder.

erenyeager 3y ago
Domestic companies already are privacy disasters. The US can introduce privacy legislation like the EU if this is really an issue. But already porn is illegal for children under 18, so this is just a way to more effectively regulate with minimal externalities. Many people already pay for pornography which usually necessitates identification, so requiring ID for any porn site access is not a huge jump.
- KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
  >Many people already pay for pornography which usually necessitates identification, so requiring ID for any porn site access is not a huge jump. The vast majority of people do not pay for porn, therefore for the vast majority of people it is a huge jump; and so this isn't a very compelling point. And my point was that regulation with easy and free to access loopholes is regulation only by name. Did you know you can still buy drugs, download movies and watch bestiality porn on the Internet? How can this be when these things have been illegal/regulated for so long!?