• Polar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    America is such garbage lol. You guys should really focus on the important stuff.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    My parents had a porn blocker, and all it made me do was learn enough about computers to circumvent it. Even if they put age verification in front of every porn site in the world there’s still torrents and chat rooms and forums all over where you can find it, and kids will find it. Next thing they’ll mandate is putting toothpaste back in the tube.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      When my wife insisted I put a porn blocker on the internet, I did some simple DNS tinkering, then told my son not to let his mother catch him bypassing the “blocker” I put on.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        When I was growing up we had the ultimate porn blocker.

        Dial up internet was far too slow to load more than about half an image per hour.

      • LuckyCat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        This blows my mind. Why not just push back on your wife for being ridiculous? I say this as a woman with two boys who has been married for 10 years.

    • Muddobbers@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Not only will they find it, they’ll end up going to the sketchier sites that don’t do the age verification because they’re not well known enough and not following the laws and they’ll likely get something infected on the computer/network or worse.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not only will they find it, they’ll end up going to the sketchier sites that don’t do the age verification because they’re not well known enough and not following the laws and they’ll likely get something infected on the computer/network or worse.

        It’s like that time we declared a war on drugs and then there were no drugs. Wait, actually that led to a massive black market and tons of violence.

        Point being, you’re not gonna stop it. You’re just gonna make it less safe.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Mine straight up used Spyware. I learned to make multiple copies of older sessions to cover up anything I wanted, then I replaced current sessions just like they did on security cameras in the movies lol.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Funny you should mention putting toothpaste back in a tube, because I actually helped someone do that last night. It’s possible, but also a huge pain in the ass. That’s not a commentary on anything besides literal toothpaste.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          My housemate was going on a trip to Alaska the next morning. She had a mostly empty 3 oz toothpaste tube and she was trying to refill it from a larger tube. No idea what she was so opposed to just buying toothpaste when she arrived. I think she was mostly just doing it because she could.

          The solution involved holding the tubes end to end and squeezing the larger tube, alternating with using a stirring rod to pack the toothpaste into the smaller tube.

    • Achird@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I just think of it as a safety net to prevent (or at least reduce the risk) of young children accidently stumbling upon something nasty or graphic that they didn’t mean to.

      This should also be done by proper parenting and supervision but as technology and internet devices are friggin everywhere I don’t think it’s a bad idea for parents to also have some decent filters on their internet connection.

      Doesn’t stop someone who even knows half way what they are doing, but by that point hopeful parents will have talked and educated their children about things before there’s a concern about intention seeking stuff out.

      Edit: with all the downvotes my comment might be misunderstood (or might not) - I am talking here about parents (or whoever is in charge of their own network) making use of something like a pi-hole or nextdns to put a bit of controls on the internet - useful for blocking spam, adverts, scams and yes, explicitly or graphic sites which may not be appropriate if there are young children who could end up on the internet at home. This isn’t a replacement for proper supervision and parenting but it seems sensible.

      Hell I’d advise anyone to put decent controls on their network as it makes a world of difference browsing when you are properly blocking adverts trackers scam sites (or whatever else you don’t want on your connection)

      I am not advocating for these controls to be in the hands of the government or for websites to collect private personal data. Just that there is nothing wrong with parents (or anyone who is charge of their network/internet) to apply filters they deem appropriate

      (Or the downvotes may have not misunderstood me at all and disagree that home network filters shouldn’t ever be used. In which case fair but enough we on that point)

      (Or the downvotes could be just cause of my poorly written comment regardless of the point it was trying to make one way or another)

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Porn sites have had “Confirm you are over 18” since the dial up days. That’s about as much of a safety net as I think is necessary or practicable.

        • Achird@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          A decent filter on a network (think pi-hole and next dns and the like) helps block adverts, trackers, scam sites, shady pop ups as well as bog standard porn sites etc

          Internet is full of things that it’s easy to accidentally stumble on that you wouldn’t want a young kid to see and I think it’s a reasonable step to have some basic levels of controls on your own network

          The onus is on the parents to manage internet access in a way the feel best and shouldn’t be forced or assumed. definitely not to porn sites (or any other site!) to collect entirely unnecessary personal data which would inevitably get leaked.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Jesus, at this point over half the country will ban porn because of religious extremists who hate freedom. Fascism and anti free speech.

    • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Age verification for pornography has something like a 70% approval rating. It’s not a religious extremism issue, it’s a “normies don’t want or care about their freedoms issue”.

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        “Are you over 18: Yes/No”

        Think nobody is arguing against that. I’d rather not give 1000 different private companies my government ID who get hacked all the time. The same people passing these laws had nude magazines growing up too.

      • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        70% approval rating but what’s the base? If it only surveyed 10 people and 7 say yes, it is 70% but means nothing.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        The concept is not terrible, the implementation is. Passing this law with no secure way of proving identity is where it’s clearly just a Christo-fascist power move.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Not sure where stating that means there’s any difficulty in understanding anything. That’s such a naive perspective to take. No one is claiming a Texas state senator that is a Democrat is the same as a Democrat in a deep blue state. It’s all relative and only fools or liars would claim otherwise.

            • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              No, not “no one is claiming that”, because I am claiming that. Contrary to your apparent belief, large swathes of urban Texas are little different politically from a blue city anywhere else in the country. A state rep for Austin fought prescription drug companies and against putting the 10 Commandments in classrooms. Does that sound Christofascist to you? Because he voted for the bill. Close to 40% of the State legislature are Democrats and the majority of them approved this bill. Acting like a representative for Austin and a representative for rural Texas are both Christofascists because they come from the same state is actively counterproductive to gaining a better understanding of the situation. If you’re tilting at windmills and blaming imaginary enemies you’re going to miss the real forces that are driving these decisions.

              • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Even if they aren’t Christian, there is a stream rolling effect on “protect the kids” bills where going against it is going to get you thrown out of office. That’s the kind of political climate we are in unfortunately.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The concept is fine, but even the best known implementation is impossible without putting an unacceptable level of trust in one group.

          This should be parental controls - make websites declare a rating, then let the owners lock down devices

          Nothing is going to be absolute, but we have to prioritize freedom or soon our Internet will look like China’s. They’ve already been talking about banning vpns and kosa would make you tie ID to anywhere you can post - all social media is considered possible adult content by default

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I like this idea. Have the W3C create a rating system that sites self-select, and then work with Microsoft, Apple, etc to adhere to those ratings in their parental-control systems. I also approve of Apple’s idea of CSAM or explicit image scanning on devices where it blurs it out for minors. All of which can be controlled by parents, not governments.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Oh, don’t forget kosa, it has bipartisan support

      They want to hold sites responsible for children accessing NSFW content on them. Which means ID of some kind

      It would also apply to user posted content

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The only porn left will be yiff, because sites struggle to classify it as porn (it even makes it past google’s filters). And a new generation of furries will be born. Their ban will be their undoing, lmao.

      “The elder scrolls told of their return. The defeat was merely a delay.”

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I doubt it could be actually banned. The US had this fight decades ago and Porn was given 1A protections. If they could ban it they would but they can’t so they are doing the next best thing by making it inconvenient and uncomfortable for people to get to.

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        The problem though is that all those things we fought for before and being rolled back. You could have said the same about abortion, but then we regressed because of religious extremists.

  • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    The sicko in me hopes they spend the next two weeks linking every policymaker in the state to their pornography habits and just dump the whole dataset online. Yeah, it would probably counterproductive and not great for democracy but I wouldn’t it be the sickest burn of all time?

  • poshKibosh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    Even if there was some secure, hardened way of verifying people’s ages without handing over PII to random websites, these age verification laws are still utterly ridiculous.

    It’s not the government’s job to parent your kids on the internet. If you don’t want your kids visiting specific websites or viewing specific content, you take 15 minutes out of your goddamn day to do your job as a parent, and set up a content blocker on your home network.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    From reading about the law it sounds like they are trying to take a page from CA’s overreaching prop 65 law that effectively labels everything a potential carcinogen. Based on the data the main beneficiary of this are a handful of law firms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this law is backed by a few law firms who smell easy money.

  • Yeather@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Guess a state with a big enough user base finally tried this horse shit lol.

  • primbin@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m pretty disturbed by the attitude of lot of the comments on this thread. While this law is probably not going in the right direction, this knee jerk reaction of calling any regulation of porn “puritanical” and an infringement of your rights is crazy to me. I feel like access to internet porn is not a fundamental human right, and it’s not puritanical to maybe want to prevent kids from being unwittingly exposed to a shitload of porn at a young age.

    • IdleSheep@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Regulations that require you to expose your personal data for no benefit are all those things and more.

      Educating children about sex so they can consume porn in a healthy manner (because spoiler alert: these laws do nothing to stop them watching it) is 100 times more productive and positive than invading the privacy of law abiding adults. But that would actually require time and money which none of these law makers want.

      It’s never about protecting children or making the world a better place. It’s about moral posturing and pretending you’re doing something so you can get votes.

  • wheresmypillow@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think a lot of these states are going about this wrong. We should be helping parents restrict access for their children rather than trying to verify identities of adults who likely want to remain anonymous.