2 ms·

Okay, I feel like we're talking about different things. Again, I never commented on the specifics of the policy. I just said the plaintiff's position is weak, a

by jpcfl 3y ago

Okay, I feel like we're talking about different things. Again, I never commented on the specifics of the policy. I just said the plaintiff's position is weak, and that they have a duty to keep their pornographic content away from kids. It's very concerning how you can't even agree with me on that basic premise. And now you're even using their pathetic tactic of saying I only "claim" to care about children. Honestly, agreeing on the duty of porn companies to keep their content away from children was supposed to be a layup. Pretty concerning that we can't even establish that as common ground.

danShumway 3y ago
> Again, I never commented on the specifics of the policy. I just said the plaintiff's position is weak We don't disagree on the duty of porn companies to protect kids. We disagree on whether it makes sense to blindly support a policy that you know nothing specific about. > And now you're even using their pathetic tactic of saying I only "claim" to care about children. I will apologize for this, I can't speak to your motivations and I don't have any insight into what you feel about kids. I shouldn't have included that phrasing. I will however say that however much you do care, you don't seem to care enough about kids to actually make sure the policies you're supporting will help. I'm reminded of FOSTA/SESTA once again; people had good intentions, just not good enough intentions to figure out if they were helping or hurting. They did care about sex workers, but ultimately they cared about the image of helping sex workers more than they cared about the reality of helping them. So they passed laws that looked good but were ultimately harmful, and when people pointed out that those laws were harmful lawmakers did exactly what you're doing now -- they accused critics of abdicating responsibility and supporting trafficking. The Texas law is the same. It's an ineffective, harmful policy but it feels good, so it's easy for you to be outraged and say that people who point out that it's harmful just don't want to protect kids or don't believe that porn companies should protect kids. It's irresponsible for me to read into your intent about why you're doing that, I apologize. You could very well be doing that because you want to protect kids. But I can pretty confidently say that your instinct to protect kids is not winning the fight against your instinct to look like you're protecting kids. It's irresponsible for you to advocate for laws that you don't know the impact of and where you don't know if those laws will help, and it's irresponsible for you to characterize criticism of those laws as antipathy to kids being exposed to porn. Criticism of bad policy is not the same thing as dereliction of duty. I know you didn't comment on the specifics of the policy. My point is that you should have looked at and commented on those specifics.
- jpcfl 3y ago
  So which is it? Did I never comment on the policy, or did I declare blind support for it? Do you really think I know _nothing_ about the policy? I've had enough of the insults, the assumptions, and strawman attacks. I don't see any effort on your end to understand my position, and you've done nothing to convince me that porn providers should not have to verify the age of their users. Ciao.

by jpcfl 3y ago

danShumway 3y ago

> Again, I never commented on the specifics of the policy. I just said the plaintiff's position is weak We don't disagree on the duty of porn companies to protect kids. We disagree on whether it makes sense to blindly support a policy that you know nothing specific about. > And now you're even using their pathetic tactic of saying I only "claim" to care about children. I will apologize for this, I can't speak to your motivations and I don't have any insight into what you feel about kids. I shouldn't have included that phrasing. I will however say that however much you do care, you don't seem to care enough about kids to actually make sure the policies you're supporting will help. I'm reminded of FOSTA/SESTA once again; people had good intentions, just not good enough intentions to figure out if they were helping or hurting. They did care about sex workers, but ultimately they cared about the image of helping sex workers more than they cared about the reality of helping them. So they passed laws that looked good but were ultimately harmful, and when people pointed out that those laws were harmful lawmakers did exactly what you're doing now -- they accused critics of abdicating responsibility and supporting trafficking. The Texas law is the same. It's an ineffective, harmful policy but it feels good, so it's easy for you to be outraged and say that people who point out that it's harmful just don't want to protect kids or don't believe that porn companies should protect kids. It's irresponsible for me to read into your intent about why you're doing that, I apologize. You could very well be doing that because you want to protect kids. But I can pretty confidently say that your instinct to protect kids is not winning the fight against your instinct to look like you're protecting kids. It's irresponsible for you to advocate for laws that you don't know the impact of and where you don't know if those laws will help, and it's irresponsible for you to characterize criticism of those laws as antipathy to kids being exposed to porn. Criticism of bad policy is not the same thing as dereliction of duty. I know you didn't comment on the specifics of the policy. My point is that you should have looked at and commented on those specifics.

jpcfl 3y ago
So which is it? Did I never comment on the policy, or did I declare blind support for it? Do you really think I know _nothing_ about the policy? I've had enough of the insults, the assumptions, and strawman attacks. I don't see any effort on your end to understand my position, and you've done nothing to convince me that porn providers should not have to verify the age of their users. Ciao.