4 ms·

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 t

by 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
You've flipped the order here to advocating that we should start with the most burdensome restrictions. That's not how the 1st Amendment and compelling government interests work. > is one of the most basic things that can and should be done. The entire criticism of this proposal is that it's not basic and is in fact wildly complicated and has massive privacy and security implications. You can't really paper over that, you're advocating that we start with the most dangerous policies and get around to less dangerous policies later, maybe, if we feel like it. > I think you're underestimating the burden and difficulty of rolling out such technology, and overestimating the effectiveness and legislators' ability to mandate it. Perhaps Texas should study some of that stuff and look for solutions before jumping to more extreme policies. What are the actual problems in front of this technology? Pornhub already labels its content using standardized headers (https://www.rtalabel.org https://www.rtalabel.org) and iOS and Android already have tools that react to those headers and can be used to block content. So is the problem here that parents don't know about these controls? Is this a problem of parental education? Or is the problem that the tools are buggy? Is the problem that the parental controls aren't comprehensive enough? If so, what areas and apps don't they cover? Has any research been done on that by Texas legislature? No. The fact that they've largely skipped over those controls entirely suggests that this is less about building safety mechanisms and more about controlling access, which is consistent with the fact that these laws are heavily sponsored by "pro-family" and religious groups who aren't only concerned with children accessing porn, but in fact have very public moral objections to porn in general. I'm not overestimating Texas's ability to legislate, I'm pointing out that they haven't haven't even tried to legislate, and that matters when they're trying to defend against 1st Amendment challenges. There should be an order to the legislation we attempt because it is exactly as you say: > There are many things that can be done to protect children, all with varying levels of effectiveness and burdens. This is correct, every solution has varying levels of effectiveness and burdens. And that is how we prioritize legislation. Where constitutionality is concerned, it is the responsibility of the legislature to exhaust less burdensome solutions before they attempt to implement more burdensome solutions that abridge rights to adult privacy and access to adult content. Texas hasn't gone through that process, but proponents of these bills still want to draw the (entirely incorrect) comparison between digital restrictions and physical ID checks. They're not equivalent, there are additional (largely unexplored) tools available in digital spaces to keep kids safe that are not present in physical spaces. There are also more risks to privacy and security that are present in digital spaces when collecting IDs, but proponents of these bills ignore those risks entirely (possibly because, again, these bills are regularly sponsored by (small-c) conservative family activists for whom being as burdensome as possible to the porn-industry across the board is a desired effect of the legislation. It's improper to compare digital ID laws to physical ID laws; the affordances and risks of digital and physical spaces are entirely different, and many of those affordances in digital spaces remain largely unexplored by legislature. But proponents want to skip over that entire conversation and imply that protecting kids requires us to start forcing websites to start collecting drivers licenses or credit card details.
- jpcfl 3y ago
  > You've flipped the order here to advocating that we should start with the most burdensome restrictions. No, you're saying it is the most burdensome. I'm saying it makes to hold porn distributors accountable for who they distribute to. No matter what regulation there is, someone will have to bear a burden, but I'm not going to try to quantify that. Whatever that burden is, it simply makes sense to put a lot of it on the people producing and disseminating the stuff. > iOS and Android already have tools that react to those headers and can be used to block content Are you saying Apple and Google should be responsible for managing pornographic material used on their devices? Should Smith and Wesson be responsible for how people use their weapons? Apple and Google can provide these tools, but what kind of legislation would you propose we have around it? > So is the problem here that parents don't know about these controls? The problem is that parents protecting their children from porn is only part of the solution. Again, I'm not arguing against these kinds of tools (and possibly legislation). I'm saying that implementing these tools without reeling in the distributors is akin to banning drug paraphernalia without regulating drug sales. I don't know the details of how TX legislators expect porn companies to ID their users, and I totally agree that people have a right to privacy, especially from the gov't. But we need to balance the competing interests here, and the current systems make it way too easy for kids to access porn. I'm not convinced that the best path forward is to let porn companies distribute to whoever they want, and require tech companies and parents to compete with that. We might as well deregulate vape pens while we're at it.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > No matter what regulation there is, someone will have to bear a burden, but I'm not going to try to quantify that. Then what value to the conversation are you bringing? Like, seriously, I don't mean to be snarky -- legitimately, if you're not going to evaluate the risks and burdens, then what possible conversation can you have about the 1st Amendment implications of this law? "This law is dangerous" "I'm not going to make a decision on whether it's dangerous, but we should do it" What reaction do you expect me to have to that? > Apple and Google can provide these tools, but what kind of legislation would you propose we have around it? Legislating that the tools are provided could be an option. Legislating labeling would be problematic but would have fewer 1st Amendment implications than what you propose; it would be much more likely to survive a 1st Amendment challenge. Even beyond regulation, government awareness campaigns for parents about the availability and usage of these tools could be an option. Legislating standards for these tools and functionality requirements could be worth looking into. Whether or not public government institutions like schools are even using these tools at all might be valuable data to collect. At the very least, you'd expect some kind of tangible information about where these tools fall short. 1st Amendment challenges can be won based on governments shortcutting other legislation and skipping out on requirements to provide actual evidence that other restrictions wouldn't have been sufficient. Note that Pornhub is not actively trying to show porn to minors. They're just not, they voluntarily label the entire site. This is not like fighting against the ad industry, the businesses involved are trying to label their content, they're not trying to sneak it through filters. So what specifically are the holes in the current technological solutions and parental controls? You say that parents protecting kids is only part of the solution, but... what specifically is insufficient about that? What is deficient in the current tools and why couldn't that deficiency be met with additional regulation around labeling standards? Again, on-device controls are an affordance that is totally absent in physical spaces. It is inaccurate to equate digital access controls and physical access controls, they exist quite literally in different worlds. Distribution is in many cases in the physical world the only mechanism available for restricting children's access to harm. On the Internet, that's not the case -- and so there's an additional responsibility here to justify a much riskier regulation and to explain why the additional safeguards that digital spaces afford are insufficient. > I don't know the details of how TX legislators expect porn companies to ID their users Maybe you should research that? You're having a conversation about the constitutionality of this law, the ID requirements are pretty important to that conversation. > But we need to balance the competing interests here You can't do that if you're unwilling to quantify what the burdens are. You're telling me we need to balance competing interests, and you're refusing to look at what the competing interests are and bringing no data or research forward as to why device-level controls aren't sufficient or what the actual problems are that need to be addressed. > and require tech companies and parents to compete with that. Pornhub is not trying to show children porn; this isn't a competition. I would love to see any kind of evidence that Pornhub is motivated by anything other than what they say -- that the law is extremely burdensome, runs the risk of bankrupting large swaths of the industry, and abridges the 1st Amendment rights of adult content producers and the 1st Amendment rights and privacy rights of adult consumers. But to have that conversation, you can't handwave burdens. The entire conversation is about burdens. If you don't have an opinion on what those burdens and risks are, then respectfully, you don't really have anything to add to the conversation. ---- I do think this in particular is a misconception here that's important to point out though: > Whatever that burden is, it simply makes sense to put a lot of it on the people producing and disseminating the stuff. I'm sorry, but that's not a 1st Amendment consideration. If a law creates a burden beyond the state's compelling interest in that law, then it doesn't matter who it's applied to, it's still unconstitutional. Additionally, part of the criticism of this law is that it doesn't only place a burden on distributors, it also places a burden on adult consumers. Putting a restriction where it "makes sense" is still inappropriate when it creates 1st Amendment burdens for ordinary citizens who will bear the brunt of the privacy risks involved. But even if that wasn't the case, you can't win a 1st Amendment lawsuit by saying, "yes the law is burdensome but if anyone should be burdened it should be them." The 1st Amendment doesn't care about that.

by jpcfl 3y ago

danShumway 3y ago

You've flipped the order here to advocating that we should start with the most burdensome restrictions. That's not how the 1st Amendment and compelling government interests work. > is one of the most basic things that can and should be done. The entire criticism of this proposal is that it's not basic and is in fact wildly complicated and has massive privacy and security implications. You can't really paper over that, you're advocating that we start with the most dangerous policies and get around to less dangerous policies later, maybe, if we feel like it. > I think you're underestimating the burden and difficulty of rolling out such technology, and overestimating the effectiveness and legislators' ability to mandate it. Perhaps Texas should study some of that stuff and look for solutions before jumping to more extreme policies. What are the actual problems in front of this technology? Pornhub already labels its content using standardized headers (https://www.rtalabel.org https://www.rtalabel.org) and iOS and Android already have tools that react to those headers and can be used to block content. So is the problem here that parents don't know about these controls? Is this a problem of parental education? Or is the problem that the tools are buggy? Is the problem that the parental controls aren't comprehensive enough? If so, what areas and apps don't they cover? Has any research been done on that by Texas legislature? No. The fact that they've largely skipped over those controls entirely suggests that this is less about building safety mechanisms and more about controlling access, which is consistent with the fact that these laws are heavily sponsored by "pro-family" and religious groups who aren't only concerned with children accessing porn, but in fact have very public moral objections to porn in general. I'm not overestimating Texas's ability to legislate, I'm pointing out that they haven't haven't even tried to legislate, and that matters when they're trying to defend against 1st Amendment challenges. There should be an order to the legislation we attempt because it is exactly as you say: > There are many things that can be done to protect children, all with varying levels of effectiveness and burdens. This is correct, every solution has varying levels of effectiveness and burdens. And that is how we prioritize legislation. Where constitutionality is concerned, it is the responsibility of the legislature to exhaust less burdensome solutions before they attempt to implement more burdensome solutions that abridge rights to adult privacy and access to adult content. Texas hasn't gone through that process, but proponents of these bills still want to draw the (entirely incorrect) comparison between digital restrictions and physical ID checks. They're not equivalent, there are additional (largely unexplored) tools available in digital spaces to keep kids safe that are not present in physical spaces. There are also more risks to privacy and security that are present in digital spaces when collecting IDs, but proponents of these bills ignore those risks entirely (possibly because, again, these bills are regularly sponsored by (small-c) conservative family activists for whom being as burdensome as possible to the porn-industry across the board is a desired effect of the legislation. It's improper to compare digital ID laws to physical ID laws; the affordances and risks of digital and physical spaces are entirely different, and many of those affordances in digital spaces remain largely unexplored by legislature. But proponents want to skip over that entire conversation and imply that protecting kids requires us to start forcing websites to start collecting drivers licenses or credit card details.

jpcfl 3y ago
> You've flipped the order here to advocating that we should start with the most burdensome restrictions. No, you're saying it is the most burdensome. I'm saying it makes to hold porn distributors accountable for who they distribute to. No matter what regulation there is, someone will have to bear a burden, but I'm not going to try to quantify that. Whatever that burden is, it simply makes sense to put a lot of it on the people producing and disseminating the stuff. > iOS and Android already have tools that react to those headers and can be used to block content Are you saying Apple and Google should be responsible for managing pornographic material used on their devices? Should Smith and Wesson be responsible for how people use their weapons? Apple and Google can provide these tools, but what kind of legislation would you propose we have around it? > So is the problem here that parents don't know about these controls? The problem is that parents protecting their children from porn is only part of the solution. Again, I'm not arguing against these kinds of tools (and possibly legislation). I'm saying that implementing these tools without reeling in the distributors is akin to banning drug paraphernalia without regulating drug sales. I don't know the details of how TX legislators expect porn companies to ID their users, and I totally agree that people have a right to privacy, especially from the gov't. But we need to balance the competing interests here, and the current systems make it way too easy for kids to access porn. I'm not convinced that the best path forward is to let porn companies distribute to whoever they want, and require tech companies and parents to compete with that. We might as well deregulate vape pens while we're at it.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > No matter what regulation there is, someone will have to bear a burden, but I'm not going to try to quantify that. Then what value to the conversation are you bringing? Like, seriously, I don't mean to be snarky -- legitimately, if you're not going to evaluate the risks and burdens, then what possible conversation can you have about the 1st Amendment implications of this law? "This law is dangerous" "I'm not going to make a decision on whether it's dangerous, but we should do it" What reaction do you expect me to have to that? > Apple and Google can provide these tools, but what kind of legislation would you propose we have around it? Legislating that the tools are provided could be an option. Legislating labeling would be problematic but would have fewer 1st Amendment implications than what you propose; it would be much more likely to survive a 1st Amendment challenge. Even beyond regulation, government awareness campaigns for parents about the availability and usage of these tools could be an option. Legislating standards for these tools and functionality requirements could be worth looking into. Whether or not public government institutions like schools are even using these tools at all might be valuable data to collect. At the very least, you'd expect some kind of tangible information about where these tools fall short. 1st Amendment challenges can be won based on governments shortcutting other legislation and skipping out on requirements to provide actual evidence that other restrictions wouldn't have been sufficient. Note that Pornhub is not actively trying to show porn to minors. They're just not, they voluntarily label the entire site. This is not like fighting against the ad industry, the businesses involved are trying to label their content, they're not trying to sneak it through filters. So what specifically are the holes in the current technological solutions and parental controls? You say that parents protecting kids is only part of the solution, but... what specifically is insufficient about that? What is deficient in the current tools and why couldn't that deficiency be met with additional regulation around labeling standards? Again, on-device controls are an affordance that is totally absent in physical spaces. It is inaccurate to equate digital access controls and physical access controls, they exist quite literally in different worlds. Distribution is in many cases in the physical world the only mechanism available for restricting children's access to harm. On the Internet, that's not the case -- and so there's an additional responsibility here to justify a much riskier regulation and to explain why the additional safeguards that digital spaces afford are insufficient. > I don't know the details of how TX legislators expect porn companies to ID their users Maybe you should research that? You're having a conversation about the constitutionality of this law, the ID requirements are pretty important to that conversation. > But we need to balance the competing interests here You can't do that if you're unwilling to quantify what the burdens are. You're telling me we need to balance competing interests, and you're refusing to look at what the competing interests are and bringing no data or research forward as to why device-level controls aren't sufficient or what the actual problems are that need to be addressed. > and require tech companies and parents to compete with that. Pornhub is not trying to show children porn; this isn't a competition. I would love to see any kind of evidence that Pornhub is motivated by anything other than what they say -- that the law is extremely burdensome, runs the risk of bankrupting large swaths of the industry, and abridges the 1st Amendment rights of adult content producers and the 1st Amendment rights and privacy rights of adult consumers. But to have that conversation, you can't handwave burdens. The entire conversation is about burdens. If you don't have an opinion on what those burdens and risks are, then respectfully, you don't really have anything to add to the conversation. ---- I do think this in particular is a misconception here that's important to point out though: > Whatever that burden is, it simply makes sense to put a lot of it on the people producing and disseminating the stuff. I'm sorry, but that's not a 1st Amendment consideration. If a law creates a burden beyond the state's compelling interest in that law, then it doesn't matter who it's applied to, it's still unconstitutional. Additionally, part of the criticism of this law is that it doesn't only place a burden on distributors, it also places a burden on adult consumers. Putting a restriction where it "makes sense" is still inappropriate when it creates 1st Amendment burdens for ordinary citizens who will bear the brunt of the privacy risks involved. But even if that wasn't the case, you can't win a 1st Amendment lawsuit by saying, "yes the law is burdensome but if anyone should be burdened it should be them." The 1st Amendment doesn't care about that.