Archived version: https://archive.ph/1rtQu
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230901022438/https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/pornhubs-texas-age-verification-law-violates-first-amendment-ruling-1235709902/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This group has been demanding the censorship of porn, consequences be damned, for decades now. They have failed thus far, and the sky has not fallen as a result, so it's pretty clear that it's safe for society and the courts to continue to dismiss their irrational hysteria.

[–] Otome-chan@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Personally I believe that there should be at least some attempt to protect kids from seeing adult content online. Ideally of course it'd be parental responsibility, but having some sort of system in place would be good. I think the tech around porn as it currently exists is deeply harmful, both for children and for women. I'm not against porn as a thing, but like.... come on, we can't just be spreading around videos without any sort of filters and removing it from the control of the people featured in the video.

There's not a good technical solution for these problems just yet it seems. I think the idea of age verification on-device, and then sending an 18+ or minor flag to apps/sites/etc. would be a good solution. We already click on a "I'm 18+" button, and this is functionally the equivalent but having age verification going on completely offline. Yes, people could bypass that with technical knowhow, but the point isn't to stop adults, it's to largely prevent kids from seeing this stuff.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It should be up to the parents. If they give a shit then they should deal with it. If they don't then whatever. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide and regulate it because they're going to do a poor job creating the rules, and probably some conservatives are going to have things blocked that aren't porn and are helpful to some kid's sexual education because they're regressive.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

some conservatives are going to have things blocked that aren’t porn and are helpful to some kid’s sexual education because they’re regressive.

That sounds like the real motivation for this nonsense: not to protect kids from harm, but to protect their parents from the responsibility of properly educating them.

[–] Otome-chan@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

as people say for hate speech laws: "if you aren't wanting to show children anything sexual, then there shouldn't be a problem. what do you wish to show kids that you think may be considered sexual?"

naturally gov overreach is a concern even for speech but that doesn't stop people from trying to regulate speech.

I think ultimately though with the system in place mentioned, it wouldn't completely block access to educational materials as parents could easily show that stuff to their kids if they so choose.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You severely underestimate kids' technical know-how. If it can be broken, they will break it.