Can we even prove its harmful?
I'm far more worried about a jordan peterson video than some benign porn, a gaping anus, or even zionazis murdering children.
Can we even prove its harmful?
I'm far more worried about a jordan peterson video than some benign porn, a gaping anus, or even zionazis murdering children.
Two things to remember:
Anyone who thinks putting barriers up will keep horny kids from finding porn doesn’t remember what it was like to be a horny kid.
Do you know what we had to do to see a single boob in the 80s? And we still did it, even if it wore out the movie on pause or involved sneaking into a creepy forest for a porn stash or watching scrambled channels for hours.
The only thing that taught me more about computers than pirating games was figuring out how to hide my porn.
Politics has always been over 90% show and/or spin so they can claim to be "doing something" about a problem. The problems are too complicated in most cases for the average voter to spend enough time learning about and understanding the complexities involved, but heaven forbid you should accuse them of not knowing what they're talking about or voting for - they're too afraid of being seen as "stupid" to admit the truth of the accusation. So they cover it up with arrogance and bravado.
Most of the politicians are just grifters who will tell their voters what they think they want to hear. The voters who have spent their entire lives too afraid of being bullied to feel comfortable admitting when they don't actually know what the best solutions are tend to be the real problem. Then they double-down & dig in further when things go wrong in order to avoid admitting they screwed up, which they keep doing in a vicious loop this making things progressively worse - all because they don't know how to be confident in themselves while also admitting they don't understand something that supposedly matters so much to them. So we wind up doing the same stupid things over and over again because the voters think they sound good at first blush to these obstinate idiots - "idiots" only because they keep doing the same things over and over expecting a different result. They refuse to be open and honest with themselves, let alone anybody else - all because they're too afraid to do so.
A politician cannot admit error or ignorance or their opponents will eat them alive. Sorry, that's just realpolitik, always been that way, always will be. Hell, I'd even argue that we evolved to follow the strong leader who's always "right" and see admission of fault or error as a weakness.
That may not be true for you or I, not on an interpersonal level, but the masses will never change.
I wasn't really talking about the politicians admitting anything because we all know better. I'm talking about the arrogant voter who "knows" they're "right," but can't logically justify that claim. By now almost the entire country should be against Trump for all the shit he's been doing, but his supporters will "rationalize" virtually anything to avoid having to admit they were fools. So the holes needlessly get progressively deeper because of the false bravado they just can't let go of.
if those politicians could read they would be very upset
They can and they know. The people voting for them though....
I just recently found out that UKs biggest export is money laundering. I mean I knew they did it, but didn't expect it to be that much.
These laws are designed to harm children
How would they harm children exactly?
Imagine you're a teen dealing with a serious parental abuse issue. You don't wanna give that info up to just anyone, so you rely on forums for people that are having or have had the same type of problem. Suddenly, under the new law, you are either geoblocked from the site entirely or you must provide some form of age verification.
Your options are either get a VPN ( which could very well be being blocked soon enough ) or you could find a free speech forum on the edge of the web that doesn't require any of that. For people with even just slightly above average tech skills, a VPN wouldn't be that hard to get.
For the forum, I can guarantee there are gonna be people looking to make you feel welcome, only to suddenly change once you're comfortable and start demanding illicit content. Although this probably happens a lot on big platforms like ex-twitter, you have more options to deal with the people on there. The admins/mods of free speech sites probably aren't gonna care as much if you're getting abused on their free speech for all forums, so long as you don't report their site to the government.
If neither of those are a good enough answer, imagine any company responsible for all the age verification stuff. Imagine they keep all the info they collect, whether that's the verification for adults or minors. You know they aren't getting rid of that data because it's worth more kept and constantly being sold than if it was being deleted. What would happen if their repository of age verification data got hacked? A matter of when, not if, they get hacked, and suddenly every single person who submitted an ID, including the IDs of minors, gets stolen and suddenly any minor in their database is now a very likely victim of ID theft and fraud before they're even considered a legal adult.
The people who write these laws are pro child abuse and want to take away tools to help kids and teens protect themselves on purpose
Fair enough. The last paragraph, I agree with you. I am 100% against this law (although there are good things in there like a ban on epilepsy trolling). It's just I was curious about the narrative about the law actively harming children.
So essentially, you are basically saying "keep kids where we can see them". Kinda like how if they are going to do something risky, best to have it in a controlled and regulated environment.
One way that comes to mind is encouraging the use of either sketchy sites that don't verify, or potentially sketchy sites to download VPNs (there are good VPNs but finding them might prove difficult for a non-techy child).
The main question I'd have isn't whether these laws harm children, but whether they do anything to "protect" children. It seems to me like the obvious answer would be no?
There's a similar bill working it's way through the Senate here in the US.
The Kid's Online Safety Act has the same problems as the one in the UK, and people here like the EFF have been sounding the alarm. I've written to my Congresscritter about it, but sadly, they're a bloody co-sponsor of the bill. Like the article said, they think the internet is made up of Facebook and Google, and they're ignoring the impact it will have on the small players, like Lemmy server operators.
In this case, I don't think just a VPN will help -- I think Tor might, as long as the small operators don't mind being borderline outlaws.
Yes. People interested in news about that should consider subscribing to !bad_internet_bills@lemmy.sdf.org where I regularly post news articles I can find about it. I don't always crosspost them here.
The Patriot Act wasn't enough already?
Good grief. It makes me sad that the internet is becoming a major source for data harvesting. It goes against what I think it should be about. Free, open, knowledge sharing.
Another point, if protecting children online is indeed a legitimate argument, and not an scapegoat to make passing the law easier, shouldn't be the parents to decide what the children see online?
Sane argument made for every form of media that ever existed.
Issue comes when xealots refuses to allow parents to make that choice. And instead enforce their own guidelines. AS THEY HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO DO.
This is no new argument. It has existed since the creation of the printing press.
... but repeating lies until they sound truthy is what all the latest crop of popular politicians are doing... are you sure? /s
all 2 comments