9 ms·

You’re going to see more of this heavy-handed response, especially from smaller sites or decentralized services. As I’ve argued on past threads about these law

You’re going to see more of this heavy-handed response, especially from smaller sites or decentralized services. As I’ve argued on past threads about these laws: the internet was neither built nor intended for children. Nobody can get online without some adult intervention (paying for an ISP), and that’s the only age check that’s ever needed. For everything else, it’s up to parents or guardians to implement filters, content controls, and blocks.

rtkwe 1y ago
There are significant factions who would prefer porn be eradicated in it's entirety and laws like this just use 'protecting children' as the more agreable face to their crusade. Ironically the same people who often crow about parental autonomy and how they should be in complete control of their children's education and lives.
- ForOldHack 1y ago
  The hypocrisy is very clearly evident. And there is nothing on Blue sky that is not appropriate for children over 13-with parental guidance. They do need to keep the morons, and knuckle dragging lawyers off the platform simply because of their felonious actions and prison records.
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    > And there is nothing on Blue sky that is not appropriate for children over 13-with parental guidance. I've heard that it's full of furry porn and worse. Is that not the case?
    - TheCleric 1y ago
      I wouldn’t say “full of”, but like other mostly uncensored social media sites like Twitter, it’s definitely there if you’re looking for it (and sometimes even when you’re not).
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      It is. OP has cleverly redefined everything as being age appropriate with guidance, for convenience.
    - kemayo 1y ago
      It's certainly not "full of", though I'm sure it's there. I never see it, but then I don't follow people who post it. I certainly see less random pornographically-tinged content showing up in my day-to-day usage than I did when I was on twitter. The default view being literally only stuff I've explicitly followed does rather change that experience.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    There's absolutely porn on there if that's what you're after
    - spauldo 1y ago
      Which is where the parental guidance comes in. My dad gave me my first porn magazine. It was a good thing, too, since by the time I could legally buy a picture of naked ladies I'd already spent a good deal of time in their company.
  - ForOldHack 1y ago
    I forgot the beaten path. I wondered where the porn was, like where is all the baseball( both insipidly boring), and then my boss did a web search for gramophone and there were only a few results, but banging rocks together? Millions. He looked for something related to goats and then I had to reload his machine from scratch. ( Dropper+payload) Like he blew a transmission.
- hobo_in_library 1y ago
  To be fair, their concern tends to be a more consistent "Don't push these corrupting agents towards me or my society" If the school curriculum aligned with their belief system, they won't be talking about a need for control
  - Loughla 1y ago
    If they had control of the school they wouldn't be talking about needing control of the school?
    - elteto 1y ago
      Just yield and do as they say, and they’ll maybe spare you.
    - susiecambria 1y ago
      Well, they would be talking about maintaining control. Control requires constant vigilance to reinforce compliance coupled with making sure there is no disobedience. The latter speaks to "needing control." Does this make any sense or am I full of hot air?
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    > If the school curriculum aligned with their belief system, they won't be talking about a need for control No they wouldn’t. They don’t want anyone accessing materials they disagree with. Having such materials available on the internet feels like a threat to themselves and their children. They don’t care about collateral damage, they just want more control.
  - solid_fuel 1y ago
    Except “corrupting” in this case often just means “LGBTQ”. In exactly the same way “corrupting influence” used to mean “music made by black people” or “anything pro-worker”. Corrupting ideas don’t exist. There is truly no such thing as an infohazard. We, as humans, are capable of making up our own minds about things and we don’t need to give this power of censorship over to people who are not acting in good faith.
- nilespotter 1y ago
  > crow about parental autonomy and how they should be in complete control of their children's education and lives. Ah yes, those monsters
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    They are monsters because of what they will do to obtain their goals.
  - hyperadvanced 1y ago
    Evil little fuckers. Who even thinks that the US Federal Government isn’t totally qualified to be in complete control of their children’s education and lives, anyway? Probably some racist Ruby Ridge types (/s)
  - john01dav 1y ago
    Children are human beings who need growing autonomy as they mature, not property of parents. I have several (adult, to be clear) friends who have suffered serious damage due to overly authoritarian parenting.
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      Really? Now do the math on all the kids harmed by overly lax parenting. Many of them are literally dead.
      - tomrod 1y ago
        [flagged]
        gjsman-1000 1y ago
        My point remains unchanged: Strict parenting has killed far less people than lax. Strict parenting can generally be recovered from; lax parenting, you’ll be dead before you even recognize it.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  This isn't even really it. If you read the section of Project2025 about porn and these sorts of age laws, then barely talk about porn at all. They lead with "transgender ideology" and such. The goal isn't to keep porn away from kids. The goal is to keep anything that offends their desired hierarchy away from kids.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    Everybody has a desired hierarchy; and you have one too. Own it; fight for it if you can; and recognize someone has to lose.
    - some_furry 1y ago
      Hierarchies are in and of themselves stupid. If you think they exist naturally, you're only looking at one of thousands of independent variables. If you average them out, we all tend towards mediocrity. When someone appeals to hierarchies (e.g., "there's always a bigger fish"), they're just admitting to using a painfully one-dimensional worldview.
      - librasteve 1y ago
        strictly speaking a tree requires at least two dimensions
        tomrod 1y ago
        An infinite tree has a fractional dimension. Ref: p-adics and fractals
    - dwattttt 1y ago
      With no recognition of what harm the desires result in? This is a fast way to all out war. Have you considered finding middle ground and compromises? Or is war the only option?
      - 1y ago
- yibg 1y ago
  For all the talk about free speech and freedoms, a significant portion of the US doesn’t actually want free speech. They want free speech only for things they agree with.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    I noticed that none of our human rights are actually in the Bible.
    - LadyCailin 1y ago
      In fact the Bible normalizes many anti-human rights. Subjugation of women, slavery, child abuse, etc.
      - sarchertech 1y ago
        2,000 years ago the accepted belief of nearly every culture we have records for was that rich people were morally superior to poor people because they were favored by whatever gods you believed in, and that slavery was justified because you must have done something to deserve it. But then the books of the New Testament were written with themes like this: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
        Refreeze5224 1y ago
        Trying to use the New Testament as a paragon of enlightened thinking, especially regarding slavery, is going to be a tough sell.
        sarchertech 1y ago
        Compare it to the rest of the world in the first century, and it’s extremely enlightened. Compared to most of the world today, even many self-professed “Christians”, the teachings on rich vs poor, pacifism, and forgiveness are downright radical. In addition the New Testament doesn’t endorse slavery as something that people should do or something that is morally correct. It instructs people who happen to be slaves to obey their masters in the same way it instructs non slaves to obey their authorities. The principle is the same as when Jesus refuses to fight back against the Roman soldiers arresting him. Jesus isn’t endorsing the Roman soldiers’ behavior. He’s saying that the Christian response is not supposed to be rebellion (in most cases at least).
sarchertech 1y ago
I know people whose kid got a hand me down android from a friend and connects through neighbors open WiFi, public open WiFi etc… And from what I’ve heard it’s not that uncommon for kids to do something similar when parents take away their phones. It’s easy to say that parents should just limit access and I think they should. I definitely plan to when my kids are old enough for this to be a problem. But kids are under extreme peer pressure to be constantly online, and when a kid is willing to go to extreme lengths to get access, it can be nearly impossible to prevent it. There’s also more to it than what parents should do. It’s about what parents are doing. If something is very hard to do most people won’t do it. As a society we all have to deal with the consequences of bad parenting. We don’t know the consequences of kids having access to porn, but we have correlative studies that show they probably aren’t good. I’m more concerned with social media than porn though. The correlation between social media use and the rise in teen suicide rates looks awfully suggestive.
- ForOldHack 1y ago
  So you are saying that we should buy stock in VPN companies that serve Missashity?
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  "As a society we all have to deal with the consequences of bad parenting." Then why isn't that significantly regulated?
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    It is. We force parents to send their children to school until they are 16 or educate them themselves—along with many other regulations on how you can raise your kids. We also put limits on brick and mortar business to help parents. We don’t allow liquor stores to sell alcohol to kids. You could argue that parents should be the ones preventing their kids from buying alcohol, and requiring everyone to submit ID in order to prevent underage drinking is the state doing parent’s job for them.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    Find yourself on the bad side of child protective services (rightly or wrongly) and you'll discover rather quickly how hard the government can come down on your rights as a parent.
aprilthird2021 1y ago
> As I’ve argued on past threads about these laws: the internet was neither built nor intended for children. Nobody can get online without some adult intervention (paying for an ISP), and that’s the only age check that’s ever needed. > For everything else, it’s up to parents or guardians to implement filters, content controls, and blocks. Well, they are implementing the block through political pressure, and it's working
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Bender 1y ago
For my silly little semi-private sites I will likely shut off the clear-web daemons and stick with .onion hidden services. Some will leave and that is fine with me. It's just hobby stuff for me. I will still use RTA headers [1] in the event that some day law makers come to their senses. Curious what others here will do with their forums, chat servers, etc... [1] - https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single
thayne 1y ago
> For everything else, it’s up to parents or guardians to implement filters, content controls, and blocks. First of, I'd like to be clear, I don't think laws like this are the right way to go. But to be fair, even if you are tech literate, which most parents aren't, this is actually pretty difficult to do. And there are really three approaches you can take to this. You can use an allowlist of sites, but that is very restrictive, and limits the ability to explore, research, and learn how to use the internet generally. You can use a blocklist, but then you will always miss something, and it is a game of whack a mole. Or you can use some kind of AI, but that will probably both block things you don't want blocked, and allow things you do want blocked, and will probably add significant latency. One possible way this could be improved is if websites with adult or mature content, or potential dangers to children (such as allowing the child to communicate with strangers, or gambling) returned a header that marked the content as possibly not suitable for children with a tag of the reason, and maybe a minimum age. Then a browser or firewall could be configured to block access to anything with headers for undesired content. Although, I think that would be most effective if there were laws requiring the headers to be honest.
- novemp 1y ago
  > even if you are tech literate, which most parents aren't 18 years ago was 2007! If "most parents" of underage children don't understand the internet, where the hell have they been?
  - thayne 1y ago
    By "tech literate" I meant "someone with a solid understanding of technology, who is comfortable installing software and troubleshooting computer problems, and has at least a basic understanding of how computer networks work and how to manage a home lan network". Maybe "tech literate" wasn't the best term.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    Consider the nature of this forum and how much of a bubble you're in. I have multiple people in my circles who struggle with reading out loud never mind working computers.
kennyloginz 1y ago
I mostly agree with you , except there are plenty of ways for non-adults to get access to the internet without adult intervention. ( libraries, friends, McDonald’s hotspots. )
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- stego-tech 1y ago
  An adult still has to pay for that internet service, and at that point it's up to the adult in charge to implement sensible filters or protections. Libraries do it, schools do it, and I'm increasingly seeing it on flights and hotspots. Now of course, a smart kid can bypass those filters (I did just that in HS), but kids will always find a way around whatever filter or guardrail you throw up as an obstacle if they really, really want something - just like how they'll pay a homeless person money to buy them booze or R-rated movie tickets or porno mags back in the day, or using fake IDs to get into bars and clubs. But 99% of kids will be deterred simply by the existence of it. And that's enough.

rtkwe 1y ago

There are significant factions who would prefer porn be eradicated in it's entirety and laws like this just use 'protecting children' as the more agreable face to their crusade. Ironically the same people who often crow about parental autonomy and how they should be in complete control of their children's education and lives.

ForOldHack 1y ago
The hypocrisy is very clearly evident. And there is nothing on Blue sky that is not appropriate for children over 13-with parental guidance. They do need to keep the morons, and knuckle dragging lawyers off the platform simply because of their felonious actions and prison records.
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  > And there is nothing on Blue sky that is not appropriate for children over 13-with parental guidance. I've heard that it's full of furry porn and worse. Is that not the case?
  - TheCleric 1y ago
    I wouldn’t say “full of”, but like other mostly uncensored social media sites like Twitter, it’s definitely there if you’re looking for it (and sometimes even when you’re not).
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    It is. OP has cleverly redefined everything as being age appropriate with guidance, for convenience.
  - kemayo 1y ago
    It's certainly not "full of", though I'm sure it's there. I never see it, but then I don't follow people who post it. I certainly see less random pornographically-tinged content showing up in my day-to-day usage than I did when I was on twitter. The default view being literally only stuff I've explicitly followed does rather change that experience.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  There's absolutely porn on there if that's what you're after
  - spauldo 1y ago
    Which is where the parental guidance comes in. My dad gave me my first porn magazine. It was a good thing, too, since by the time I could legally buy a picture of naked ladies I'd already spent a good deal of time in their company.
- ForOldHack 1y ago
  I forgot the beaten path. I wondered where the porn was, like where is all the baseball( both insipidly boring), and then my boss did a web search for gramophone and there were only a few results, but banging rocks together? Millions. He looked for something related to goats and then I had to reload his machine from scratch. ( Dropper+payload) Like he blew a transmission.
hobo_in_library 1y ago
To be fair, their concern tends to be a more consistent "Don't push these corrupting agents towards me or my society" If the school curriculum aligned with their belief system, they won't be talking about a need for control
- Loughla 1y ago
  If they had control of the school they wouldn't be talking about needing control of the school?
  - elteto 1y ago
    Just yield and do as they say, and they’ll maybe spare you.
  - susiecambria 1y ago
    Well, they would be talking about maintaining control. Control requires constant vigilance to reinforce compliance coupled with making sure there is no disobedience. The latter speaks to "needing control." Does this make any sense or am I full of hot air?
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > If the school curriculum aligned with their belief system, they won't be talking about a need for control No they wouldn’t. They don’t want anyone accessing materials they disagree with. Having such materials available on the internet feels like a threat to themselves and their children. They don’t care about collateral damage, they just want more control.
- solid_fuel 1y ago
  Except “corrupting” in this case often just means “LGBTQ”. In exactly the same way “corrupting influence” used to mean “music made by black people” or “anything pro-worker”. Corrupting ideas don’t exist. There is truly no such thing as an infohazard. We, as humans, are capable of making up our own minds about things and we don’t need to give this power of censorship over to people who are not acting in good faith.
nilespotter 1y ago
> crow about parental autonomy and how they should be in complete control of their children's education and lives. Ah yes, those monsters
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  They are monsters because of what they will do to obtain their goals.
- hyperadvanced 1y ago
  Evil little fuckers. Who even thinks that the US Federal Government isn’t totally qualified to be in complete control of their children’s education and lives, anyway? Probably some racist Ruby Ridge types (/s)
- john01dav 1y ago
  Children are human beings who need growing autonomy as they mature, not property of parents. I have several (adult, to be clear) friends who have suffered serious damage due to overly authoritarian parenting.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    Really? Now do the math on all the kids harmed by overly lax parenting. Many of them are literally dead.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - gjsman-1000 1y ago
        My point remains unchanged: Strict parenting has killed far less people than lax. Strict parenting can generally be recovered from; lax parenting, you’ll be dead before you even recognize it.
UncleMeat 1y ago
This isn't even really it. If you read the section of Project2025 about porn and these sorts of age laws, then barely talk about porn at all. They lead with "transgender ideology" and such. The goal isn't to keep porn away from kids. The goal is to keep anything that offends their desired hierarchy away from kids.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  Everybody has a desired hierarchy; and you have one too. Own it; fight for it if you can; and recognize someone has to lose.
  - some_furry 1y ago
    Hierarchies are in and of themselves stupid. If you think they exist naturally, you're only looking at one of thousands of independent variables. If you average them out, we all tend towards mediocrity. When someone appeals to hierarchies (e.g., "there's always a bigger fish"), they're just admitting to using a painfully one-dimensional worldview.
    - librasteve 1y ago
      strictly speaking a tree requires at least two dimensions
      - tomrod 1y ago
        An infinite tree has a fractional dimension. Ref: p-adics and fractals
  - dwattttt 1y ago
    With no recognition of what harm the desires result in? This is a fast way to all out war. Have you considered finding middle ground and compromises? Or is war the only option?
    - 1y ago
yibg 1y ago
For all the talk about free speech and freedoms, a significant portion of the US doesn’t actually want free speech. They want free speech only for things they agree with.
- Yeul 1y ago
  I noticed that none of our human rights are actually in the Bible.
  - LadyCailin 1y ago
    In fact the Bible normalizes many anti-human rights. Subjugation of women, slavery, child abuse, etc.
    - sarchertech 1y ago
      2,000 years ago the accepted belief of nearly every culture we have records for was that rich people were morally superior to poor people because they were favored by whatever gods you believed in, and that slavery was justified because you must have done something to deserve it. But then the books of the New Testament were written with themes like this: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
      - Refreeze5224 1y ago
        Trying to use the New Testament as a paragon of enlightened thinking, especially regarding slavery, is going to be a tough sell.
        sarchertech 1y ago
        Compare it to the rest of the world in the first century, and it’s extremely enlightened. Compared to most of the world today, even many self-professed “Christians”, the teachings on rich vs poor, pacifism, and forgiveness are downright radical. In addition the New Testament doesn’t endorse slavery as something that people should do or something that is morally correct. It instructs people who happen to be slaves to obey their masters in the same way it instructs non slaves to obey their authorities. The principle is the same as when Jesus refuses to fight back against the Roman soldiers arresting him. Jesus isn’t endorsing the Roman soldiers’ behavior. He’s saying that the Christian response is not supposed to be rebellion (in most cases at least).

sarchertech 1y ago

I know people whose kid got a hand me down android from a friend and connects through neighbors open WiFi, public open WiFi etc… And from what I’ve heard it’s not that uncommon for kids to do something similar when parents take away their phones. It’s easy to say that parents should just limit access and I think they should. I definitely plan to when my kids are old enough for this to be a problem. But kids are under extreme peer pressure to be constantly online, and when a kid is willing to go to extreme lengths to get access, it can be nearly impossible to prevent it. There’s also more to it than what parents should do. It’s about what parents are doing. If something is very hard to do most people won’t do it. As a society we all have to deal with the consequences of bad parenting. We don’t know the consequences of kids having access to porn, but we have correlative studies that show they probably aren’t good. I’m more concerned with social media than porn though. The correlation between social media use and the rise in teen suicide rates looks awfully suggestive.

ForOldHack 1y ago
So you are saying that we should buy stock in VPN companies that serve Missashity?
Braxton1980 1y ago
"As a society we all have to deal with the consequences of bad parenting." Then why isn't that significantly regulated?
- sarchertech 1y ago
  It is. We force parents to send their children to school until they are 16 or educate them themselves—along with many other regulations on how you can raise your kids. We also put limits on brick and mortar business to help parents. We don’t allow liquor stores to sell alcohol to kids. You could argue that parents should be the ones preventing their kids from buying alcohol, and requiring everyone to submit ID in order to prevent underage drinking is the state doing parent’s job for them.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  Find yourself on the bad side of child protective services (rightly or wrongly) and you'll discover rather quickly how hard the government can come down on your rights as a parent.

aprilthird2021 1y ago

> As I’ve argued on past threads about these laws: the internet was neither built nor intended for children. Nobody can get online without some adult intervention (paying for an ISP), and that’s the only age check that’s ever needed. > For everything else, it’s up to parents or guardians to implement filters, content controls, and blocks. Well, they are implementing the block through political pressure, and it's working

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Bender 1y ago

For my silly little semi-private sites I will likely shut off the clear-web daemons and stick with .onion hidden services. Some will leave and that is fine with me. It's just hobby stuff for me. I will still use RTA headers [1] in the event that some day law makers come to their senses. Curious what others here will do with their forums, chat servers, etc... [1] - https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single

thayne 1y ago

> For everything else, it’s up to parents or guardians to implement filters, content controls, and blocks. First of, I'd like to be clear, I don't think laws like this are the right way to go. But to be fair, even if you are tech literate, which most parents aren't, this is actually pretty difficult to do. And there are really three approaches you can take to this. You can use an allowlist of sites, but that is very restrictive, and limits the ability to explore, research, and learn how to use the internet generally. You can use a blocklist, but then you will always miss something, and it is a game of whack a mole. Or you can use some kind of AI, but that will probably both block things you don't want blocked, and allow things you do want blocked, and will probably add significant latency. One possible way this could be improved is if websites with adult or mature content, or potential dangers to children (such as allowing the child to communicate with strangers, or gambling) returned a header that marked the content as possibly not suitable for children with a tag of the reason, and maybe a minimum age. Then a browser or firewall could be configured to block access to anything with headers for undesired content. Although, I think that would be most effective if there were laws requiring the headers to be honest.

novemp 1y ago
> even if you are tech literate, which most parents aren't 18 years ago was 2007! If "most parents" of underage children don't understand the internet, where the hell have they been?
- thayne 1y ago
  By "tech literate" I meant "someone with a solid understanding of technology, who is comfortable installing software and troubleshooting computer problems, and has at least a basic understanding of how computer networks work and how to manage a home lan network". Maybe "tech literate" wasn't the best term.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Consider the nature of this forum and how much of a bubble you're in. I have multiple people in my circles who struggle with reading out loud never mind working computers.

kennyloginz 1y ago

I mostly agree with you , except there are plenty of ways for non-adults to get access to the internet without adult intervention. ( libraries, friends, McDonald’s hotspots. )

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
stego-tech 1y ago
An adult still has to pay for that internet service, and at that point it's up to the adult in charge to implement sensible filters or protections. Libraries do it, schools do it, and I'm increasingly seeing it on flights and hotspots. Now of course, a smart kid can bypass those filters (I did just that in HS), but kids will always find a way around whatever filter or guardrail you throw up as an obstacle if they really, really want something - just like how they'll pay a homeless person money to buy them booze or R-rated movie tickets or porno mags back in the day, or using fake IDs to get into bars and clubs. But 99% of kids will be deterred simply by the existence of it. And that's enough.