2 ms·

A few parents? According to the US governments own statistics at SCOTUS right now, almost all parents are failing to restrict, and don’t even know how, even if

A few parents? According to the US governments own statistics at SCOTUS right now, almost all parents are failing to restrict, and don’t even know how, even if they wanted to. This also hoists undue harm across a population - children and teenagers. As the SCOTUS case is going forward, Texas is (correctly) pointing out that this is very different than 90s dial up, and the porn is far more intense, violent, graphic, and accessible. Because we’ve already had porn filters, and even the opposition concedes they’ve been uselessly ineffective, therefore… That’s the argument. It’s a good argument. You don’t have to like the conclusion. However, I have seen firsthand that filtering, and talking to children, absolutely is not, and never will be, effective.

ziddoap 2y ago
>However, I have seen firsthand that filtering, and talking to children, absolutely is not, and never will be, effective. Weird, I have seen firsthand that absolutely can be! I guess we're at an impasse.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Do the children in question watch porn, even sometimes? If so, it was not effective. And even if it was, according to the US government, >90% of parents can’t pull it off, and they’ve had over 20 years to try (tech companies included). That’s law-changing time. As one legal analogy put it: Imagine if there was a law mandating public transportation from City A to City B. There’s a bus line, but it’s people 6 feet or taller only. Don’t come into the courtroom defending it by saying crawling is always an option, and some people have been crawling, so therefore the law is upheld.
  - bigyabai 2y ago
    This is a pathetic incarnation of the "think of the children!" fallacy Americans love so much. You fundamentally cannot stop children from watching porn. It is like arguing for a second prohibition so we can stop kids from accessing alcohol - not only will the plan fail, it will disproportionately harm the legal consumers to the point they're comfortable breaking the law. Age authentication doesn't work, and it's going to train kids to access illegal pornography if they want their fix. Parents can't stop it any more than they can stop kids from watching violent movies or renouncing their faith. Quit arguing with this slippery-slope logic, your comment history reads like Pagliacci's personal diary.

ziddoap 2y ago

>However, I have seen firsthand that filtering, and talking to children, absolutely is not, and never will be, effective. Weird, I have seen firsthand that absolutely can be! I guess we're at an impasse.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Do the children in question watch porn, even sometimes? If so, it was not effective. And even if it was, according to the US government, >90% of parents can’t pull it off, and they’ve had over 20 years to try (tech companies included). That’s law-changing time. As one legal analogy put it: Imagine if there was a law mandating public transportation from City A to City B. There’s a bus line, but it’s people 6 feet or taller only. Don’t come into the courtroom defending it by saying crawling is always an option, and some people have been crawling, so therefore the law is upheld.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  This is a pathetic incarnation of the "think of the children!" fallacy Americans love so much. You fundamentally cannot stop children from watching porn. It is like arguing for a second prohibition so we can stop kids from accessing alcohol - not only will the plan fail, it will disproportionately harm the legal consumers to the point they're comfortable breaking the law. Age authentication doesn't work, and it's going to train kids to access illegal pornography if they want their fix. Parents can't stop it any more than they can stop kids from watching violent movies or renouncing their faith. Quit arguing with this slippery-slope logic, your comment history reads like Pagliacci's personal diary.