7 ms·

> the plaintiffs write that the act employs “the least effective and yet also the most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas’ stated purpose of allegedly pro

by jpcfl 3y ago

> the plaintiffs write that the act employs “the least effective and yet also the most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas’ stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors,” and that minors can easily use VPNs or Tor; on-device content filtering would be a better method of restricting access to porn for children, they write. “But such far more effective and far less restrictive means don’t really matter to Texas, whose true aim is not to protect minors but to squelch constitutionally protected free speech that the State disfavors.” Wow, this is a weak case. I guess the good lawyers won't stoop to the level of arguing against keeping porn away from children. A security guard would be more effective than a lock at deterring intruders from breaking into my house, but I still have a lock. They also imply that Texas lawmakers aren't interested in protecting children, which is absurd. I have no sympathy for these creeps. I doubt they have any interest in keeping kids off their sites (probably the opposite), so they're just projecting and trying to deflect any responsibility.

wonderwonder 3y ago
Or what if they don't want to have to track adults who use their site? What if they think it's the parents responsibility to ensure their kids don't visit the site and they view what they produce as constitutionally protected speech. No need for the government to be given a nice formatted list of all the porn each TX adult is consuming. That information is also guaranteed to be a hacking target or be selectively leaked to prove a point by someone with a moral axe to grind
- jpcfl 3y ago
  Parents do have a responsibility to ensure their children don't access harmful content, just like they have a responsibility to protect them from drugs and alcohol. But if there's a store down the street where kids can easily get booze, then that kinda makes it impossible as a parent. In this case it's worse--that "store" is right in the kid's pocket.
  - dontupvoteme 3y ago
    Websites aren't stores. I see your point but I can't find a great analogy - I feel it's more like a kid hanging around/texting with bad apples or something like that I am not sure how well this will work anyway to keep suggestive content away from children, even big sites like YouTube seem to sometimes tend towards it on the regular front page from time to time
    - jpcfl 3y ago
      It's not a perfect analogy, but it goes to show that if you're distributing a product that is harmful to children, then you are responsible for keeping it out of their hands. > I am not sure how well this will work Same. Tobacco ID laws don't entirely stop kids from using, but they definitely help, and they create strong incentives for tobacco companies to stop kids from using their products. Tobacco companies have a history of exploiting children for profit, and continue to do when possible. I'm sure children will continue to be exposed to porn on the internet, but we need to work to minimize that as much as possible, as we've done pretty successfully with tobacco (though vaping is turning that trend around). I'm a free market capitalist, but when it comes to harming children I draw a pretty hard line.
      - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        I think the harm of porn is heavily theoretical, while that of tobacco is not. Also, unless already addicted, people aren't programmed to impulsively seek out tobacco as a core physiological drive.
        jpcfl 3y ago
        > I think the harm of porn is heavily theoretical, while that of tobacco is not. For adults, the harm of porn may be less obvious and harder to quantify, but it's not theoretical. There are plenty of data to support the idea that porn is harmful. For children, we don't need data. It's just common sense, and you would be hard-pressed to find a parent who is okay with his child watching content on Porn Hub.
notaustinpowers 3y ago
The government doesn't need to be able to access when I watch porn, what porn I watch, where I watch it at, and all the other BS info that is most likely being collected by the sort of methods they're implementing. My right to privacy doesn't just get rejected cuz I wanna watch some porn. There are more effective ways to protect children and a broken solution is a poor solution.
- jpcfl 3y ago
  > The government doesn't need to be able to access when I watch porn, what porn I watch, where I watch it at, and all the other BS info that is most likely being collected by the sort of methods they're implementing. The government does need to be involved when you're producing and distributing porn, though. This law isn't forcing porn distributors to collect data on their customers and turn it over to the government. It's making sure distributors are verifying the age of their customers, and disclosing health risks to them, just like we do with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    The way the government is enforcing the distributors to verify the age is the problem. By using 3rd party data collection agencies with an economic incentive to monetize that data. Data collection agencies which the federal government (at a minimum) have admitted to purchasing from to collect data on US citizens. There are solutions to resolve this (device-specific privacy controls a la parental controls in iOS) are probably the most secure and most effective.

by jpcfl 3y ago

wonderwonder 3y ago

Or what if they don't want to have to track adults who use their site? What if they think it's the parents responsibility to ensure their kids don't visit the site and they view what they produce as constitutionally protected speech. No need for the government to be given a nice formatted list of all the porn each TX adult is consuming. That information is also guaranteed to be a hacking target or be selectively leaked to prove a point by someone with a moral axe to grind

jpcfl 3y ago
Parents do have a responsibility to ensure their children don't access harmful content, just like they have a responsibility to protect them from drugs and alcohol. But if there's a store down the street where kids can easily get booze, then that kinda makes it impossible as a parent. In this case it's worse--that "store" is right in the kid's pocket.
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  Websites aren't stores. I see your point but I can't find a great analogy - I feel it's more like a kid hanging around/texting with bad apples or something like that I am not sure how well this will work anyway to keep suggestive content away from children, even big sites like YouTube seem to sometimes tend towards it on the regular front page from time to time
  - jpcfl 3y ago
    It's not a perfect analogy, but it goes to show that if you're distributing a product that is harmful to children, then you are responsible for keeping it out of their hands. > I am not sure how well this will work Same. Tobacco ID laws don't entirely stop kids from using, but they definitely help, and they create strong incentives for tobacco companies to stop kids from using their products. Tobacco companies have a history of exploiting children for profit, and continue to do when possible. I'm sure children will continue to be exposed to porn on the internet, but we need to work to minimize that as much as possible, as we've done pretty successfully with tobacco (though vaping is turning that trend around). I'm a free market capitalist, but when it comes to harming children I draw a pretty hard line.
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      I think the harm of porn is heavily theoretical, while that of tobacco is not. Also, unless already addicted, people aren't programmed to impulsively seek out tobacco as a core physiological drive.
      - jpcfl 3y ago
        > I think the harm of porn is heavily theoretical, while that of tobacco is not. For adults, the harm of porn may be less obvious and harder to quantify, but it's not theoretical. There are plenty of data to support the idea that porn is harmful. For children, we don't need data. It's just common sense, and you would be hard-pressed to find a parent who is okay with his child watching content on Porn Hub.

notaustinpowers 3y ago

The government doesn't need to be able to access when I watch porn, what porn I watch, where I watch it at, and all the other BS info that is most likely being collected by the sort of methods they're implementing. My right to privacy doesn't just get rejected cuz I wanna watch some porn. There are more effective ways to protect children and a broken solution is a poor solution.

jpcfl 3y ago
> The government doesn't need to be able to access when I watch porn, what porn I watch, where I watch it at, and all the other BS info that is most likely being collected by the sort of methods they're implementing. The government does need to be involved when you're producing and distributing porn, though. This law isn't forcing porn distributors to collect data on their customers and turn it over to the government. It's making sure distributors are verifying the age of their customers, and disclosing health risks to them, just like we do with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  The way the government is enforcing the distributors to verify the age is the problem. By using 3rd party data collection agencies with an economic incentive to monetize that data. Data collection agencies which the federal government (at a minimum) have admitted to purchasing from to collect data on US citizens. There are solutions to resolve this (device-specific privacy controls a la parental controls in iOS) are probably the most secure and most effective.