2 ms·

You can't expect parents to hover over their children 24/7. Apply the argument you're making to any other instance of corrupting minors. If you have sex with a

You can't expect parents to hover over their children 24/7. Apply the argument you're making to any other instance of corrupting minors. If you have sex with a 14 year old, you're not going to be able to say, "Well the kid's parents should have been watching him..." to the judge. The same applies to showing porn to one.

insickness 3y ago
This is a straw man. Saying that the burden is on parents to ensure a child's safety doesn't mean a child molester is free from blame. You've taken his point and pushed it to the extreme.
- soerxpso 3y ago
  The commenter above is putting the burden on the parents in order to claim that a person who shows porn to children is free of blame. How is that a different argument?
Ukv 3y ago
> You can't expect parents to hover over their children 24/7 That's not what's being asked. There already exists software, and optional functionality on OSs/routers/browsers, that allows parents to restrict what sites can be viewed. This software covers more sites (and offer greater customization) than proposals involving sites verifying ID would, since: * The software can trivially add sites to its blacklist regardless of whether they're outside of jurisdictions that would require ID verification * Sites are more likely to identify themselves as pornographic than to implement ID verification, since it's a significantly smaller burden * Small/obscure sites that could fall under the radar with non-compliance on ID verification can still be blocked by the software with statistical/ML methods * For young children a whitelist of known-safe sites can be used Neither approach is perfect. With ID verification, a child could use a free VPN to bypass it, or be shown a friend's older brother's ID. With filter software, a child could borrow an unfiltered device and find an unfiltered Internet connection to use it on. The question is: would ID verification be better to such an extent that it justifies the privacy invasion and increased risk of fraud, blackmail, etc.? To me, it seems substantially worse than existing solutions.

insickness 3y ago

This is a straw man. Saying that the burden is on parents to ensure a child's safety doesn't mean a child molester is free from blame. You've taken his point and pushed it to the extreme.

soerxpso 3y ago
The commenter above is putting the burden on the parents in order to claim that a person who shows porn to children is free of blame. How is that a different argument?

Ukv 3y ago

> You can't expect parents to hover over their children 24/7 That's not what's being asked. There already exists software, and optional functionality on OSs/routers/browsers, that allows parents to restrict what sites can be viewed. This software covers more sites (and offer greater customization) than proposals involving sites verifying ID would, since: * The software can trivially add sites to its blacklist regardless of whether they're outside of jurisdictions that would require ID verification * Sites are more likely to identify themselves as pornographic than to implement ID verification, since it's a significantly smaller burden * Small/obscure sites that could fall under the radar with non-compliance on ID verification can still be blocked by the software with statistical/ML methods * For young children a whitelist of known-safe sites can be used Neither approach is perfect. With ID verification, a child could use a free VPN to bypass it, or be shown a friend's older brother's ID. With filter software, a child could borrow an unfiltered device and find an unfiltered Internet connection to use it on. The question is: would ID verification be better to such an extent that it justifies the privacy invasion and increased risk of fraud, blackmail, etc.? To me, it seems substantially worse than existing solutions.