5 ms·

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 alco

by 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.
danShumway 3y ago
> then that kinda makes it impossible as a parent > on-device content filtering would be a better method of restricting access to porn for children, they write.
- jpcfl 3y ago
  I'm not advocating against on-device filtering.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    My point is that the existence of on-device-filtering is one of the reasons why this law is problematic. It imposes a burdensome restriction before less burdensome restrictions have been attempted. The presence of porn online does not make it impossible for parents to do anything about the devices in kids' pockets. We have other avenues we can use try to address that problem before abridging speech. The lack of attention to those methods and the willingness of lawmakers to jump to the most burdensome restrictions that they think they can pass -- that makes the law (and their motivations) more suspect. We are not actually in an impossible situation that can only be solved with Internet IDs. The existence of on-device filtering is why the situation is not like a liquor store that's down the street. Digital devices allow for additional mechanisms for safety and parental controls, and Texas lawmakers have ignored those mechanisms.
    - jpcfl 3y ago
      There are many things that can be done to protect children, all with varying levels of effectiveness and burdens. Forcing porn distributors to stop providing their content to children and to publish health disclosures is one of the most basic things that can and should be done. But I agree it shouldn't stop there, and on-device censorship could be another tool that legislators use. However, I think you're underestimating the burden and difficulty of rolling out such technology, and overestimating the effectiveness and legislators' ability to mandate it.
      - danShumway 3y ago
wonderwonder 3y ago
I hear what you are saying but we have to balance "will no one think of the children" with giving the the government, especially one like Texas that would likely 'accidentally' leak the porn viewing habits of a political opponent. Is this really the type of ammunition we want to give to a man like Ken Paxton the Attorney General of Texas, look at what he is already accused of doing. At the end of the day, we have to put a large share of the responsibility on parents. My kids have ipads and phones but I just disabled the internet. They are not old enough for it. When I feel like they are, I will enable it. I will also keep track of all sites that they visit when I do. Its on me.

by jpcfl 3y ago

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.

danShumway 3y ago

> then that kinda makes it impossible as a parent > on-device content filtering would be a better method of restricting access to porn for children, they write.

jpcfl 3y ago
I'm not advocating against on-device filtering.
- danShumway 3y ago
  My point is that the existence of on-device-filtering is one of the reasons why this law is problematic. It imposes a burdensome restriction before less burdensome restrictions have been attempted. The presence of porn online does not make it impossible for parents to do anything about the devices in kids' pockets. We have other avenues we can use try to address that problem before abridging speech. The lack of attention to those methods and the willingness of lawmakers to jump to the most burdensome restrictions that they think they can pass -- that makes the law (and their motivations) more suspect. We are not actually in an impossible situation that can only be solved with Internet IDs. The existence of on-device filtering is why the situation is not like a liquor store that's down the street. Digital devices allow for additional mechanisms for safety and parental controls, and Texas lawmakers have ignored those mechanisms.
  - jpcfl 3y ago
    There are many things that can be done to protect children, all with varying levels of effectiveness and burdens. Forcing porn distributors to stop providing their content to children and to publish health disclosures is one of the most basic things that can and should be done. But I agree it shouldn't stop there, and on-device censorship could be another tool that legislators use. However, I think you're underestimating the burden and difficulty of rolling out such technology, and overestimating the effectiveness and legislators' ability to mandate it.
    - danShumway 3y ago

wonderwonder 3y ago

I hear what you are saying but we have to balance "will no one think of the children" with giving the the government, especially one like Texas that would likely 'accidentally' leak the porn viewing habits of a political opponent. Is this really the type of ammunition we want to give to a man like Ken Paxton the Attorney General of Texas, look at what he is already accused of doing. At the end of the day, we have to put a large share of the responsibility on parents. My kids have ipads and phones but I just disabled the internet. They are not old enough for it. When I feel like they are, I will enable it. I will also keep track of all sites that they visit when I do. Its on me.