3 ms·

We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now. There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and m

by _bent 1y ago

We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now. There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and maybe addiction to TikTok. But being able to access adult content be that sexual or violent in nature doesn't really seem to have had much negative consequences. Sure I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see 2 girls 1 cup - but I reckon it wouldn't be the end of the world if he did. It's good that we have content recommendations. But we shouldn't try to actually enforce them. Again: with all the options kids have had for accessing porn online in the last couple of decades, if it was actually THAT bad, we'd be having an epidemic. Yet we don't. The kids are alright

ProllyInfamous 1y ago
Content restrictions should just be an option with the ISP: to make the entire modem/phone disable adult content and/or require age verification. This, I would disable (presuming `on` by default). >2 girls 1 cup I still remember showing that to curious ladies in grad school (who'd heard about it); some of my favorite reaction footage. >10 years old My generation's equivalent was lemonparty.com =>O<=
tolerance 1y ago
[flagged]
- const_cast 1y ago
  It doesn't - rather, it attacks the preposition at it's source. Pornography is bad, supposedly, but is it actually? It seems to me we all moved on without actually answering that question. We know it's bad for moral reasons, but moral reasons are stupid and I don't trust them. But is it actually bad - like in the real world, with tangible effects, not made-up ones? I don't know, and it looks like you don't know, and OP doesn't know, and the people who are pushing this age verification don't know either. Sure, two girls one cup is disgusting. It's vile. It's immoral. But is it harmful? That's a different question. That's a huge problem. You see, we're attempting to solve a problem which we haven't proved even exists.
  - tolerance 1y ago
    I have a feeling that this is going to turn into one of those exchanges where we capoeira around theory and definitions and what "real" is and what "real" isn't in a way I have to think that either you've lived a sheltered life, or are in denial or have some kind of resentment toward the disgusting, vile and immoral things that you've witnessed that were "harmful" to you (I'm not a therapist). Moral reasons are stupid and you don't trust them. Go find a ten-year-old and show them the video yourself. Then see if they feel up to letting you stick around them long enough for you to figure out whether there were any real-world, tangible effects.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      What I mean by "real" is real-world, tangible. If I drive a car without a seatbelt, that has real-world effects. I can get ejected and die, as well as hurting other people. But pornography doesn't split my skull. It doesn't crush my fingers. It doesn't make me poorer. It doesn't make me sicker. It doesn't hurt me physically, or financially, or even socially.
      - tolerance 1y ago
        I know, or at least I figured that's what you meant. I'm not a proponent of the discipline per say, and maybe because of this, my impression that the entire field of psychology is meant to partially address the real-word, tangible effects of things that do not cause apparent physical harm is naive. If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment. I'm going to leave out a more accessible or agreeable example because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come up one on your own. I don't mean to be condescending, but I want to assume that you're arguing in good faith. Have you, or any one who you know, seen something disgusting, vile or immoral that didn't cause physical harm but had a negative consequence on how you feel about yourself or the world around you? Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews? I know, and I figure that you know too. "Good" and "bad" exist in quotations marks and only count among the people who don't need them to use them with each other.
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
  I saw that when I was little and it was just gross; I’m fine lol. My generation was the one watching cartel executions at that same time and that’s probably worse.
  - tolerance 1y ago
    Who is your generation and how do you think they turned out. No, save it (don't save it, this is rhetorical), because apparently every generation is screwed up in their own way that begets the ills of the next. And if we happen to be cohorts (which I suspect we may be), then I think we made out as worse as any. And is it wrong to assume that there isn't any difference between either kinds of footage? That one goads the other in either direction?
    - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
      Anything you experience may push you in a direction with some magnitude, but we tend to overestimate the magnitude and mispredict the direction because we’re worried about the wellbeing of kids. Think “violent video games create school schootings.” In reality, kids have to deal with a lot of real things in life that are hard, an abusive parent or bullies at school, but those realities are harder to deal with so we distract ourselves worrying about violent video games. At the end of the day, it’s a recording on a screen, which is very different from a traumatic reality because you can just turn it off.
      - tolerance 1y ago
        I'll offer the following speculation: Virtual reality simulates physical reality. In some cases, like violent video games, they assuage traumas. Whether it's a recording on a screen or not, can our brains tell the difference? Something is going on, spooky and subtle in the mind that makes whatever is on the screen meaningful to us. I don't want to get us trapped in this false interpretation that in the year 2025 there is a difference between how human beings are affected in the physical and digital world. To be frank, it's stupid to think like this, meaning that it's an insult to the intelligence of the person who thinks this way and it needs to be called out as such in order to encourage them to think critically about the matter. If this whole interaction is just some woopdy doo, willy nilly, be that as it may sort of engagement with media, what compels us then to entertain the things that we don't (or don't want to) attribute to the hard things in life? I'm going to assume your gender and your age to some degree here: Middle-aged men have a tendency to Wednesday Night Sitcom Dad their way out of confronting things that bring their own vulnerabilities into question and collectively make them accountable for figuring out what to do about these things, especially if it comes at the cost of comfort that they're trying to preserve that are the accessories to their vulnerabilities. What we're discussing isn't as simple as the "close your eyes to avoid cyberbullying" quips of yore: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tyler-the-creators-cyber-bullying-tweet https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tyler-the-creators-cyber-bull... (in which I make a more blatant attempt at guessing which generation you belong to and consequently expose my own).
- educasean 1y ago
  Let's blind all kids. Anyone who is opposed must believe that a non-zero chance of a child seeing two women have sex and eat turds is normal and healthy.
  - tolerance 1y ago
    If it wasn't for your fine taste in ketchup I wouldn't have any qualms about writing you off as an imbecile. I want to believe that your lack of discernment in one area betrays what suggests sound judgment in another. Unless the latter holds true only on occasions that satisfy your gullet.
- DonHopkins 1y ago
  I bet they would have found cakefarts.com hilarious! At least it delivered what the url promised, unlike expertsexchange.com, penisland.com, and therapistfinder.com.
jofla_net 1y ago
Its really sad to see this getting attacked, now, after all that's transpired, after so many years. You'd think if it was that dire, again maybe 10 years in there would have been more action. But again its not genuine, so its really about the ulterior motives. Not even to mention the 1st amendment issues, which again don't just magically dissapear when a bunch of people stick to party lines. Alas, we are in an age of hyper over-regulation though and this is just another example. I could come up with countless others in wildly different fields which have one astonishing commonality. That business has been running fine for ages and all of a sudden, we need to regulate.
mdavid626 1y ago
So, you're saying that children/adults nowadays are not negatively affected by early sexual exposure? These are some of the negative effects, what early sexual exposure can cause: - unrealistic or harmful beliefs about sex, intimacy, and gender roles - sex disconnected from intimacy, respect, consent - anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, body image issues - broken families (one parent missing), divorce - problems with emotional regulation, impulse control - attention control problems, aggression, withdrawal I say, all of these are on the rise and are a big problem.
- Aachen 1y ago
  Wait until you hear what issues the ubiquitous dihydrogen monoxide can cause! https://web.archive.org/web/19961031232918/http://media.circus.com/~no_dhmo/ https://web.archive.org/web/19961031232918/http://media.circ... These points would greatly benefit from being put into perspective You can't seriously think a significant percentage of people are emotionally unstable because they looked up porn of their own will at an age of their own choosing, even if I trust that it can be listed as a contributing factor for some infinitesimal fraction of those with that issue
  - mdavid626 1y ago
    You can’t be serious thinking it has NO bad effect on people, especially children. Would you let your own children watch porn?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - kjkjadksj 1y ago
      Yes!
      - mdavid626 1y ago
        Without restrictions, any age?

by _bent 1y ago

ProllyInfamous 1y ago

Content restrictions should just be an option with the ISP: to make the entire modem/phone disable adult content and/or require age verification. This, I would disable (presuming `on` by default). >2 girls 1 cup I still remember showing that to curious ladies in grad school (who'd heard about it); some of my favorite reaction footage. >10 years old My generation's equivalent was lemonparty.com =>O<=

tolerance 1y ago

[flagged]

const_cast 1y ago
It doesn't - rather, it attacks the preposition at it's source. Pornography is bad, supposedly, but is it actually? It seems to me we all moved on without actually answering that question. We know it's bad for moral reasons, but moral reasons are stupid and I don't trust them. But is it actually bad - like in the real world, with tangible effects, not made-up ones? I don't know, and it looks like you don't know, and OP doesn't know, and the people who are pushing this age verification don't know either. Sure, two girls one cup is disgusting. It's vile. It's immoral. But is it harmful? That's a different question. That's a huge problem. You see, we're attempting to solve a problem which we haven't proved even exists.
- tolerance 1y ago
  I have a feeling that this is going to turn into one of those exchanges where we capoeira around theory and definitions and what "real" is and what "real" isn't in a way I have to think that either you've lived a sheltered life, or are in denial or have some kind of resentment toward the disgusting, vile and immoral things that you've witnessed that were "harmful" to you (I'm not a therapist). Moral reasons are stupid and you don't trust them. Go find a ten-year-old and show them the video yourself. Then see if they feel up to letting you stick around them long enough for you to figure out whether there were any real-world, tangible effects.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    What I mean by "real" is real-world, tangible. If I drive a car without a seatbelt, that has real-world effects. I can get ejected and die, as well as hurting other people. But pornography doesn't split my skull. It doesn't crush my fingers. It doesn't make me poorer. It doesn't make me sicker. It doesn't hurt me physically, or financially, or even socially.
    - tolerance 1y ago
      I know, or at least I figured that's what you meant. I'm not a proponent of the discipline per say, and maybe because of this, my impression that the entire field of psychology is meant to partially address the real-word, tangible effects of things that do not cause apparent physical harm is naive. If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment. I'm going to leave out a more accessible or agreeable example because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come up one on your own. I don't mean to be condescending, but I want to assume that you're arguing in good faith. Have you, or any one who you know, seen something disgusting, vile or immoral that didn't cause physical harm but had a negative consequence on how you feel about yourself or the world around you? Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews? I know, and I figure that you know too. "Good" and "bad" exist in quotations marks and only count among the people who don't need them to use them with each other.
BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
I saw that when I was little and it was just gross; I’m fine lol. My generation was the one watching cartel executions at that same time and that’s probably worse.
- tolerance 1y ago
  Who is your generation and how do you think they turned out. No, save it (don't save it, this is rhetorical), because apparently every generation is screwed up in their own way that begets the ills of the next. And if we happen to be cohorts (which I suspect we may be), then I think we made out as worse as any. And is it wrong to assume that there isn't any difference between either kinds of footage? That one goads the other in either direction?
  - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
    Anything you experience may push you in a direction with some magnitude, but we tend to overestimate the magnitude and mispredict the direction because we’re worried about the wellbeing of kids. Think “violent video games create school schootings.” In reality, kids have to deal with a lot of real things in life that are hard, an abusive parent or bullies at school, but those realities are harder to deal with so we distract ourselves worrying about violent video games. At the end of the day, it’s a recording on a screen, which is very different from a traumatic reality because you can just turn it off.
    - tolerance 1y ago
      I'll offer the following speculation: Virtual reality simulates physical reality. In some cases, like violent video games, they assuage traumas. Whether it's a recording on a screen or not, can our brains tell the difference? Something is going on, spooky and subtle in the mind that makes whatever is on the screen meaningful to us. I don't want to get us trapped in this false interpretation that in the year 2025 there is a difference between how human beings are affected in the physical and digital world. To be frank, it's stupid to think like this, meaning that it's an insult to the intelligence of the person who thinks this way and it needs to be called out as such in order to encourage them to think critically about the matter. If this whole interaction is just some woopdy doo, willy nilly, be that as it may sort of engagement with media, what compels us then to entertain the things that we don't (or don't want to) attribute to the hard things in life? I'm going to assume your gender and your age to some degree here: Middle-aged men have a tendency to Wednesday Night Sitcom Dad their way out of confronting things that bring their own vulnerabilities into question and collectively make them accountable for figuring out what to do about these things, especially if it comes at the cost of comfort that they're trying to preserve that are the accessories to their vulnerabilities. What we're discussing isn't as simple as the "close your eyes to avoid cyberbullying" quips of yore: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tyler-the-creators-cyber-bullying-tweet https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tyler-the-creators-cyber-bull... (in which I make a more blatant attempt at guessing which generation you belong to and consequently expose my own).
educasean 1y ago
Let's blind all kids. Anyone who is opposed must believe that a non-zero chance of a child seeing two women have sex and eat turds is normal and healthy.
- tolerance 1y ago
  If it wasn't for your fine taste in ketchup I wouldn't have any qualms about writing you off as an imbecile. I want to believe that your lack of discernment in one area betrays what suggests sound judgment in another. Unless the latter holds true only on occasions that satisfy your gullet.
DonHopkins 1y ago
I bet they would have found cakefarts.com hilarious! At least it delivered what the url promised, unlike expertsexchange.com, penisland.com, and therapistfinder.com.

jofla_net 1y ago

Its really sad to see this getting attacked, now, after all that's transpired, after so many years. You'd think if it was that dire, again maybe 10 years in there would have been more action. But again its not genuine, so its really about the ulterior motives. Not even to mention the 1st amendment issues, which again don't just magically dissapear when a bunch of people stick to party lines. Alas, we are in an age of hyper over-regulation though and this is just another example. I could come up with countless others in wildly different fields which have one astonishing commonality. That business has been running fine for ages and all of a sudden, we need to regulate.

mdavid626 1y ago

So, you're saying that children/adults nowadays are not negatively affected by early sexual exposure? These are some of the negative effects, what early sexual exposure can cause: - unrealistic or harmful beliefs about sex, intimacy, and gender roles - sex disconnected from intimacy, respect, consent - anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, body image issues - broken families (one parent missing), divorce - problems with emotional regulation, impulse control - attention control problems, aggression, withdrawal I say, all of these are on the rise and are a big problem.

Aachen 1y ago
Wait until you hear what issues the ubiquitous dihydrogen monoxide can cause! https://web.archive.org/web/19961031232918/http://media.circus.com/~no_dhmo/ https://web.archive.org/web/19961031232918/http://media.circ... These points would greatly benefit from being put into perspective You can't seriously think a significant percentage of people are emotionally unstable because they looked up porn of their own will at an age of their own choosing, even if I trust that it can be listed as a contributing factor for some infinitesimal fraction of those with that issue
- mdavid626 1y ago
  You can’t be serious thinking it has NO bad effect on people, especially children. Would you let your own children watch porn?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    Yes!
    - mdavid626 1y ago
      Without restrictions, any age?