4 ms·
Regulating porn, guns, gambling, tobacco, and alcohol has nothing to do with authoritarianism or a lack of freedom. It's about protecting people, just like we a
by pyman 1y ago
Regulating porn, guns, gambling, tobacco, and alcohol has nothing to do with authoritarianism or a lack of freedom. It's about protecting people, just like we already do with seatbelts, speed limits, and food safety.
Why do you think shops ask for proof of age when you buy cigarettes? Not because they care about cancer or want to sell less, it's because they're required to by law. Of course, teenagers can still find workarounds. They can ask an older friend to buy it for them, just like they can use a VPN to access porn.
The difference is, regulation shifts accountability. It moves the responsibility from a greedy, insensitive business owner to the kids. And at least with the kids we can guide them, and help them spend their time and money where it actually matters.
Note: I know people who love guns or porn are probably going to downvote this, but someone has to say it.
- speak_plainly 1y ago“It’s for your own good” is always a laughable argument. The state doesn’t regulate these things to protect people, it does so to manage risk to itself. Porn, guns, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, etc., are tolerated so long as they are contained, taxable, and politically useful. Regulating porn is this system likely trying to move the needle on declining birth rates. You can look to a host of pro-natalist efforts in China as the likely inspiration. And without a doubt, overreach by governments will continue.
- pyman 1y agoRegulate porn to increase birth rates? How does that work? Less porn usually means less sexual activity overall, which would lower birth rates, not raise them. In China for example porn is banned, and their birth rates are still low.
- graublau 1y agoThis is over intellectualising degerate porn. It should be banned on account of poor taste.
- speak_plainly 1y agoBanning pornography alone hasn’t moved the needle on fertility in China. However, in places like Tianmen, where broader pro-natalist strategies were implemented, including porn bans, there’s evidence those multi-pronged efforts had measurable impact. What’s less clear is the claim that pornography is inherently harmful to children’s development or wellbeing, the research is mixed at best. And the justification that age-gating websites and apps is purely about safety remains deeply unconvincing. So then either this effort is misguided, a hollow gesture for optics, or a small piece of a broader agenda that hasn’t been made explicit. It just seems to me that this is creating a lot of chaos for a hollow gesture.
- pyman 1y agoI get your point about the research being inconclusive, but the real question is whether child protection should be the default, or if we're okay with giving kids access to porn until we're sure it's harmful. That seems backwards to me.
- commandlinefan 1y agoJust because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean the government won't try it anyway.
- pyman 1y agoI'm not sure I agree that the government makes businesses ask for ID because of some hidden agenda, beyond protecting minors and collecting taxes, which are both pretty standard.
- Manuel_D 1y agoExcept in Britain you can be arrested for complaining about the quality of your school, or an offensive Halloween costume: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr... This isn't about protecting people.
- pyman 1y agoI'm not from the UK, but what you're saying comes across as a bit dismissive of the effort British people there have made to protect students and keep schools safe from violence. They've worked hard to introduce laws and regulations that actually make a difference. Maybe we should focus on things that matter, rather than getting caught up in Halloween costumes.