3 ms·

Parents can protect their children. Source: I’m a parent. My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. This doesn’t affect the free exchange of idea

Parents can protect their children. Source: I’m a parent. My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. This doesn’t affect the free exchange of ideas that my fellow countrymen enjoy. Governments getting involved absolutely, unequivocally will be used to clamp down on the free exchange of ideas.

delusional 6mo ago
That wasn't the point i was asking for an argument for. What I wanted to know is how age verification is worse then allowing children to watch porn. To make that argument. > Source: I’m a parent. My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. Are they above the age of 16? Because then you're either Amish or out of touch.
- carlosjobim 6mo ago
  Age verification isn't the problem. It is just a tool for censorship. It's censorship which is the problem.
  - delusional 6mo ago
    So to put the bricks together: Age verification is worse than allowing children to watch pornography, because age verification is censorship. I hope you can see how that argument is not compelling.
    - afpx 6mo ago
      It’s not only compelling to a lot of Americans, it’s foundational.
    - carlosjobim 6mo ago
      Age verification will be implemented as identity identification. And that means anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity, registered by the government and other organizations, and used against you as an individual. Do you understand now? Or will you only understand when you get fired from your job and they won't tell you the reason?
      - delusional 6mo ago
        > Age verification will be implemented as identity identification. Thank you for bringing an argument. I want to start by tackling your argument head on. What if it's not though. What if it's implemented by attestation and signatures rooted at your local national government? Nobody will be able to tie whatever you watch or write to your identity, because they won't have it. To my understanding, that's what's proposed here, and that won't feasibly lead to any of the spooky consequences you're predicting. There's another leg to it also. "anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity" is already true right now. Google is already, at this second, tracking my every move online and using it against me in a targeted advertisement campaign to change my spending habits, but my political affiliations too. If you're truly afraid of that outcome, I believe there are much more prescient and immediate things you should oppose than this.
        bigbadfeline 6mo ago
        > signatures rooted at your local national government? > Google is already, at this second, tracking my every move online Apparently you haven't figured out yet that these two are partners. The government restrictions are needed in order to allow other players to perform correlation tracking and deducing your identity. > Nobody will be able to tie whatever you watch or write to your identity, because they won't have it. This is untrue in the light of what I said above. The proposed scheme lacks any proof of immunity against tracking and deducing identity. I haven't seen anything like a proof being discussed, while an honestly implemented scheme would require a long and well publicized discussion of the means of protection - to make sure it cannot be abused for political reasons. The lack of such a discussion is actually a proof that the purpose of the proposed scheme is precisely abuse.
        galangalalgol 6mo ago
        I realize this thread is a half day old, but porn is like the least concerning thing I prohibit my child from consuming off the internet. I grew up on a farm, animals work just like we do. There is obviously some messed up stuff some people find enticing, but youtube kids is way more damaging than even the weird stuff. Kids mostly have standard adult disgust filters. Ytk and similar addictive feeds bypass that with things that are far more subtle.
    - kbelder 6mo ago
      That argument is hugely compelling.
- roenxi 6mo ago
  If you want the logical approach; the premise you're suggesting you want people to argue from is faulty. The argument kicks in at a slightly deep level. Age verification is unrelated to allowing children to watch porn. Someone needs to make an argument showing that age verification would lead to blocking porn, and that argument seems to be impossible to make (age verification is a much lighter standard than the bans on torrent websites, for example, and torrenting is still as easy as it ever was). To block kids viewing porn there'd need to be a - probably global - system of censorship that exerts total control over what people can POST and GET on the internet. The likes of which we have not yet seen and would likely have catastrophically negative political consequences.
drysine 6mo ago
>My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. You sure about that? )))
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  Yes
  - voidfunc 6mo ago
    [flagged]

delusional 6mo ago

That wasn't the point i was asking for an argument for. What I wanted to know is how age verification is worse then allowing children to watch porn. To make that argument. > Source: I’m a parent. My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. Are they above the age of 16? Because then you're either Amish or out of touch.

carlosjobim 6mo ago
Age verification isn't the problem. It is just a tool for censorship. It's censorship which is the problem.
- delusional 6mo ago
  So to put the bricks together: Age verification is worse than allowing children to watch pornography, because age verification is censorship. I hope you can see how that argument is not compelling.
  - afpx 6mo ago
    It’s not only compelling to a lot of Americans, it’s foundational.
  - carlosjobim 6mo ago
    Age verification will be implemented as identity identification. And that means anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity, registered by the government and other organizations, and used against you as an individual. Do you understand now? Or will you only understand when you get fired from your job and they won't tell you the reason?
    - delusional 6mo ago
      > Age verification will be implemented as identity identification. Thank you for bringing an argument. I want to start by tackling your argument head on. What if it's not though. What if it's implemented by attestation and signatures rooted at your local national government? Nobody will be able to tie whatever you watch or write to your identity, because they won't have it. To my understanding, that's what's proposed here, and that won't feasibly lead to any of the spooky consequences you're predicting. There's another leg to it also. "anything you read or write or watch or say will be tied to your identity" is already true right now. Google is already, at this second, tracking my every move online and using it against me in a targeted advertisement campaign to change my spending habits, but my political affiliations too. If you're truly afraid of that outcome, I believe there are much more prescient and immediate things you should oppose than this.
      - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
        > signatures rooted at your local national government? > Google is already, at this second, tracking my every move online Apparently you haven't figured out yet that these two are partners. The government restrictions are needed in order to allow other players to perform correlation tracking and deducing your identity. > Nobody will be able to tie whatever you watch or write to your identity, because they won't have it. This is untrue in the light of what I said above. The proposed scheme lacks any proof of immunity against tracking and deducing identity. I haven't seen anything like a proof being discussed, while an honestly implemented scheme would require a long and well publicized discussion of the means of protection - to make sure it cannot be abused for political reasons. The lack of such a discussion is actually a proof that the purpose of the proposed scheme is precisely abuse.
      - galangalalgol 6mo ago
        I realize this thread is a half day old, but porn is like the least concerning thing I prohibit my child from consuming off the internet. I grew up on a farm, animals work just like we do. There is obviously some messed up stuff some people find enticing, but youtube kids is way more damaging than even the weird stuff. Kids mostly have standard adult disgust filters. Ytk and similar addictive feeds bypass that with things that are far more subtle.
  - kbelder 6mo ago
    That argument is hugely compelling.
roenxi 6mo ago
If you want the logical approach; the premise you're suggesting you want people to argue from is faulty. The argument kicks in at a slightly deep level. Age verification is unrelated to allowing children to watch porn. Someone needs to make an argument showing that age verification would lead to blocking porn, and that argument seems to be impossible to make (age verification is a much lighter standard than the bans on torrent websites, for example, and torrenting is still as easy as it ever was). To block kids viewing porn there'd need to be a - probably global - system of censorship that exerts total control over what people can POST and GET on the internet. The likes of which we have not yet seen and would likely have catastrophically negative political consequences.

drysine 6mo ago

>My kids haven’t seen porn and can’t access the internet. You sure about that? )))

bigbadfeline 6mo ago
Yes
- voidfunc 6mo ago
  [flagged]