4 ms·
My point wasn't that this should be done, just that it's a more viable option if moral busybody legislators actually want to legally restrict children's access
by gary_0 3y ago
My point wasn't that this should be done, just that it's a more viable option if moral busybody legislators actually want to legally restrict children's access to adult content instead of finding creative ways of harassing Pornhub.
Obviously porn blocking should just be something parents should concern themselves with, and parents alone. Software and device vendors already provide all the necessary tools.
- bee_rider 3y agoI think it isn’t a very viable option. I understand the logic of saying to them “here’s a more effective solution, which you would have suggested if you were operating in good faith,” but I think that your solution wouldn’t work, which causes the whole argument to unravel.
- gary_0 3y agoiPhones are pretty locked down, and stand a good chance of allowing parents to totally block adult content. Android and general-purpose computers less so, naturally. But VPNs have already come up as the way around these new age-verification laws, and that didn't stop them. Kids can always find ways around this stuff (when I was in high school eons ago, just about everyone was underage drinking, and a lot of my friends had porno mags too). Fortunately, most democratic countries will be constitutionally prevented from enacting full-blown police states to stop kids from doing naughty things. Hopefully.
- t0bia_s 3y ago- Fortunately, most democratic countries will be constitutionally prevented from enacting full-blown police states to stop kids from doing naughty things. Hopefully. Constitution/law just transfer responsibility to other entity. Whithout responsibility, there is no freedom. State never bringing morale or ethics to society. I would rather focus on why kids doing naughty things, where they learn it, what are consequences of their actions, etc.
- bee_rider 3y agoRight. And this is just in phones, which are already a pretty locked down ecosystem. In general, there would be more implementation problems the farther we look away from there: what about things like laptops, particularly laptops with Linux, or raspberries pi, or heck, an Analogue Pocket… there’s a whole range of computing devices; locking down all this stuff would be a huge pain-in-the-butt process. Rather than have some legislatively confusing mess where every device manager has to wonder if they are responsible for implementing some giant DRM scheme, we’re better off just letting the market handle it.
- ttyprintk 3y agoI think you agree with each other. How about: smartphones arrive with a parent lock(*) using a manufacturer code. Flashing an ID or interacting with a (possibly standards-compliant) body reveals the unlock code. (*) Yes, jailbreaking gets around that, but now you’ve circumvented a content-control system, which is a bigger legal problem under DMCA than any legal Internet content.
- bee_rider 3y agoThat sounds like a fine system for a private company to sell to their customers. There shouldn’t be a law about this, though.
- ttyprintk 3y agoI think you both agree on that. Whether “Software and device vendors already provide all the necessary tools.“ is the question.
- bee_rider 3y agoThey were making a rhetorical point along the lines of “if the politicians actually were engaging in good faith on this stuff, they’d propose this other more effective plan.” I agree with the sentiment that the politicians aren’t engaging in good faith here. We are basically on the same side. However I disagree that the plan would really be able to accomplish what legislators claim they are trying to accomplish, so I don’t think this line of argument works as a rhetorical device. I’m not sure that “Whether Software and device vendors already provide all the necessary tools” is really the sticking point… sorry, I’d write more, but actually I’m not sure how that is supposed to link into the argument so I’m not sure where to go with it.