• 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    234
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year 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
      35
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year 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”.

      • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        70
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think there’s a lot of vague support for keeping porn away from children that evaporates in the context of the actual issue at hand where porn sites are being mandated to collect and store the IDs of every visitor.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The way the US is going, with anti-LGBT laws popping up all over the place, I have less trust for the government collecting that information than the sketchy porn sites themselves.

        • Obsession@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The only implementation I would support is one where the asking website doesn’t know your ID, and the verifying website doesn’t know what you’re trying to visit. Essentially just asking for a one-time use token that verified your age, and providing that token to the website you’re trying to visit.

          Edit for a bit more detail: User authenticates to ID website, which provides them a token with age verification (true/false) and a short (10 minute?) TTL. This token is encrypted by the ID website. User then provides this token to the asking website (eg: pornhub). Pornhub then sends the token back to the ID website to decrypt it. All pornhub knows about you is whether or not you’re of age, and the verifying website never knows what the token is for.

          • NecroSocial@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            There would be too much value in tracking that token for such a scheme to stay secure. Governments or shady corporations or illegal black markets or all of the above would be all over keeping tabs on what sites are visited by which tokens and matching them to identities.

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

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That just means that almost every politician on both “sides” are pushing a Christo-fascist power move.

            The Democratic party is only better than the Republicans on this in relative terms. As a non-American looking in, both of them are right-wing parties that bow to religious interests. It’s just that one of them is waaaay off to the right wing, out in the reeds of loonieville, whereas the other has kept at least within spitting distance of center most of the time.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year 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
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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
                ·
                1 year 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.

        • Erasmus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not Christi-fascist, both parties - if not the entirety of the US government want a Chinese type internet. Don’t fool yourself into thinking they don’t.

          The Patriotic act was never revoked was it? I mean that thing was written in advanced of 9/11 just keep that in mind. There are probably stacks of legislation that is prepared and just waiting to be pushed through on a moments notice.

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            One side is actively banning books…

            This “both sides” bullshit needs to fucking stop.

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It doesn’t need to stop, it needs to change. Before assuming it’s doomerism or attempts to dissuade people from voting, learn the perspective. The example above was the Patriot Act, a bill written before 9/11 even occurred, passed (and continually passed until 2019) with overwhelming support, and is a fundamental attack on privacy. Things like the Patriot Act don’t come from just one side.

      • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year 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
        10
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • mountainCalledMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Genuinely curious where you’re getting these numbers. I can’t seem to find any formal public opinion polls on the enacted or proposed bills

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

          There was a Politico article about this last week:

          https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/08/age-law-online-porn-00110148

          The public is also on her side. “You poll this, it’s like an 85-15 issue,” explained Jon Schweppe, the policy director for the socially conservative think tank American Principles Project. Age-verification for porn is not his think tank’s only priority, but when they poll it against other priorities in swing states, age-verification blows the rest out of the water, with 77 percent in support and 15 percent opposed.

          Here’s a Pew survey suggesting that the majority of Americans consider porn harmful:

          A large 70%-majority of Americans reject the idea that “nude pictures and X-rated videos on the internet provide harmless entertainment for those who enjoy it”; only 27% agree; in general, opinions about pornography have become slightly more conservative over the past 20 years. Currently 41% agree that “nude magazines and X-rated movies provide harmless entertainment for those who enjoy it,” while 53% disagree. The number saying such material is harmless has fluctuated, declining from 48% in 1987 to 41% in 1990 and then varying by no more than four percentage points thereafter. The pattern is more mixed for other values related to freedom of expression.

          Note that trends in this space are getting more conservative, rather than less. This tracks with my experience with Gen Z.

          Admittedly, I have not seen any polling about specific legislation. It hasn’t been long since these bills were passed, and I don’t know if it’s a priority for pollsters. But if nothing else, just look through the thread. Lemmy leans way further left that the general public, and even here most people’s problems with it are about execution rather than intent.

          • NecroSocial@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A lot of Gen-Z, of Gen-Y and Millennials are re-adopting 1950’s prudishness. That has the potential to really be horrible for a generation or two before the repression sparks another sexual revolution.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Edit: oh, something that really changes how these stats are viewed. The poll was conducted solely by phone.

            I do think it’s worth noting that they specifically polled swing states. It’s a bit different imo to address political stances in specifically swing states and to use that to judge the beliefs of society overall. I think it’s also worth noting exactly how they phrased the questions. These answers also make me think that these aren’t really swing states at all. I’m appalled by them.

            • Women’s Sports: 56 percent supported (33 percent opposed) laws to protect women’s sports at the K-12 and collegiate levels.

            • Sex Changes for Minors: 56 percent supported (31 percent opposed) laws banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and physical sex change surgeries for children.

            • Sexual Topics in Schools: 60 percent supported (34 percent opposed) laws banning instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade.

            • Parental Notification: 59 percent supported (30 percent opposed) laws requiring schools to notify parents if their child identifies in class as transgender.

            • Age Verification for Porn: 77 percent supported (15 percent opposed) laws requiring age verification for accessing online pornography. Reining in Big Tech: 50 percent supported (36 percent opposed) laws preventing censorship of political speech by Big Tech.

            https://americanprinciplesproject.org/media/new-app-poll-swing-state-voters-strongly-oppose-transgender-agenda/

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.”

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year 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

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • Master@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      and then those same people who want it banned close their curtains and start watching it.

      • Arobanyan@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        When we started opening up about sexuality, sexual assaults tanked. It also tanked when we started teaching sex ed to kids

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        LOL, you went with a strawman & personal attack because you know your actual argument is garbage.

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh the attack isn’t personal. I did refer to all republicans , there’s enough of my disgust to go around.

          Keep in mind that the republican party is the one that is courting Fuentes, and the meak attempts of republicans trying to curb pornography, sex ed, and LGBTQ content in public libraries is based off of a conservative Christian attempt to control and curb the dissemination of information related to sex and gender.

          I do find this whole discourse sad and pathetic since this kind of control over content and identity never ends up having any positive lasting effect. The children of conservative parents generally become fed up with their repressed out of touch parents and becoming liberals. Or they end up in a hate filled exclusionary community that only accepts them based off of some form of restriction of expression and personhood.

          To the majority of republicans, I will say that you’ve made your vision for the future plain. We all get that you want a future where generally white male strongmen determine the course of humanity. And to that I say fuck off.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trying to stop people from doing something is a sure fire way to guarantee they will do that thing.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        63
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not that. It’s that if you tell a horny teenager that there’s pictures of naked people somewhere they’ll move heaven and earth to get to it.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        60
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guess we shouldn’t have any laws about anything, then.

        • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bit of a leap, my dude.

          Of course we should have laws.

          But for things that are actually harmful.

          For everything else we should have regulation.

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            46
            ·
            1 year ago

            If your single point is “trying to stop people only makes them do it more”, than no, it’s not a “leap”. That invalidates the very idea of having laws in the first place.

            And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.

            • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We didn’t say this about everything (although it is true that some kinds of people are attracted to anything forbidden). We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.

              • Ech@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We said it’s true of teenagers and porn. Duh.

                I don’t see any such qualifiers. Do you?

                • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Semi-Hemi-Demigod said:

                  It’s not that. It’s that if you tell a horny teenager that there’s pictures of naked people somewhere they’ll move heaven and earth to get to it.

            • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              And fwiw, I’m not arguing in favor of this law, just against the idea you replied with.

              Whatever you’re arguing for or against, you’re arguing like a drunk uncle. You’re taking it to an extreme that it’s obvious no one actually intended, and then arguing against that extreme like it was the original point.

              • Ech@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not arguing against extremes, I’m arguing against a bad argument. And I’m not drunk, I only wish I were.

    • Muddobbers@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep. Who among us as idiot teenagers hasn’t downloaded “$current_starlet full nude sex tape.exe” from some shady site?

          • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think you were the exception not the rule. Or maybe I’m just old. Back in my day you would try to open that linkin_park.mp3 that you downloaded off of limewire, and who knows what you were actually gonna get. Normally some heinous porn or gore video, but I’m sure there was an executable or three in those, too.

            I think nowadays this is harder to do, but I could still see some kid getting fooled on some shady tracker site or something.

            • TheRedSpade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I definitely got my share of stuff that didn’t match the title from Limewire, but the only .exe I ever downloaded from it was Limewire Pro. It took zero effort to check the file name for the extension.

            • casualucco3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              For me learning about file extensions was definitely heavily influenced by early Kazaa / Limewire / DC++ days :) Fool me once etc…

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year 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
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        11
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It would loan line by precious line. Should I look now and enjoy the suspense or wait ten minutes and see the whole pic in all of its glory? Usually I would be weak and sit there enjoying the anticipation…one line at a time…then finally, when you were so horny you just couldn’t take it anymore…you see her penis :/

          Kids today don’t know how good they got it.

      • LuckyCat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • Achird@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I totally agree and I put in a good faith effort to block that stuff from my kids’ devices using a pihole and what’s available on their phones. But I remember being their age and getting away with things because I figured out the workarounds.

            At the very least it’ll teach them a little about networking and computers which will serve them well in their careers.

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

              Absolutely, that’s why I keep saying “accidentally” - anyone who thinks an internet filter will stop someone with any determination is kidding themselves.

        • misterundercoat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Instead of the age confirmation dialog, they should implement an age-captcha, like “identify these musical artists” or “click on all the squares with physical storage media.”

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am a parent and I have decided not to worry about this stuff. Teens will look at porn and that is just a fact about our existence. I don’t have to like it or approve of it or concern myself with it.

        • Achird@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Teenagers will. Young children though may accidentally stumble upon something nasty which is far from age appropriate and something they aren’t ready for.

          Having good network controls can help with that, but so does good supervision and education about internet safety.

  • Polar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • TwoGems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s garbage because brainless rednecks voted in Trump and Republicans

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Republicans existed before Trump. How can you fail to understand the basic concept of persistence? The Republicans that are still helping to screw up what Trump started were here before, also screwing things up. They didn’t poof in to existence with Trump.

          Stop pretending like anyone is saying it was unicorns and rainbows. A false dichotomy is patheticlly inept thinking skills on your part.

          • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The republicans of the 50s are far different than those of the 80s and today. You don’t expect everyone to have the exact same beliefs as you do you?

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The person they were responding to specifically referenced Trump and modern Republicans. My point does not require Republicans having kept the same ideals throughout many decades of time. The 80’s were almost half a damn century ago.

    • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its full of evangelical Christians. That and Anglo-Saxon culture even minus the evangelical Christians is very squeamish around sex. Just look at the different attitude towards talking to kids about sex that you find in the UK and on the Continent, even the Germanic countries tend to be a lot more open about this stuff than the UK.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its full of evangelical Christians.

        That number has been shrinking for decades, while at the same time the christo-faccists are getting more pushy.

        • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who are these “christo-fascists”? I’m a big skeptical when people throw that f-word around. I might generally agree with their points but they almost always have a political ax to grind. Hence the hyperbole.

          • serinus@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Ohio Republican party just made a brazen attempt to consolidate power (and failed).

            They tried to effectively remove citizen initiatives, because the legislature doesn’t control those.

          • Zyxil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m late to this, but I think you were unfairly downvoted for asking a legitimate question. The modern definition of fascism that is separate from the Italian political party comes from Umberto Eco’s essay Ur-Fascism: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism

            His 14 points closely align with the US Christian right wing and more generally the rise of right wing authoritarianism globally.

            • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks, I appreciate your response. But don’t worry. I am here to help out FOSS software, and because I believe in the Lemmy project.

              I am perfectly happy to share my honest opinions and be downvoted.

            • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              At any case, to respond more precisely to what you were saying. I will read the Umberto Eco essay at some point (sorry, its long and I’m busy). Nevertheless, I feel as though a redefinition of the term clearly has a political motivation behind it. Why not simply call right wing Christians by another name? I feel the word fascist is used because of its historical connotation and because it helps people with a far-left agenda get what they want. It’s an effective strategy because conservatives end up defending themselves and trying go prove they’re not Hitler rather than talking about something a bit more substantive.

              • Zyxil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No worries. It’s a short read as far as essays go. Both the Nazi and Fascist parties were authorization but neither were left or right in the modern US instances. Eco’s whole point was to divest the cultural and time trappings of this brand of authoritarianism into a general definition of modern populist authoritarianism. It’s a good read.

      • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Brits seem to have an obsession with pedophilia on par with the far-right in the US that you don’t see in other countries.

        • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It really is profoundly Anglo-Saxon (whether in Britain or the States). I really don’t know why they’re like that.

          • Kornblumenratte@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s definitely not Anglo–Saxon as in “inherited from the Germanic tribes of Angles and Saxons”, afaik medieval and early modern English society was quite open about sex.

            After the Reformation, England bred or harboured quite a few fundamentalist Christian sects which had a huge impact on English and especially American society.

      • Polar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And they’re doing nothing wrong.

        Texas, the American State, is wrong.

          • s20@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude you can’t deny facts just 'cause they’re uncomfortable. Texas is American.

            I know it hurts, and I know it’s hard, but you can’t treat cancer by ignoring it. It can be cut out or medicated, but if you ignore it, it kills you.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              They’re the ones that keep talking about how they used to not be America and “threatening” to secede.

              At this point I’m not sure we shouldn’t kick them out.

              Maybe give the land back to Mexico?

  • poshKibosh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah, it’s easier if I have the state do it for me while inconveniencing everyone else. /s

      • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure why you’re being downvoted, you’re right. The average parent has no idea how to block their kids from visiting pornhub. I don’t think that’s an excuse to make age verification required. Parents should educate themselves on this stuff.

  • qwamqwamqwam@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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?

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ironically it would be so much easier to do that if they actually implemented the law they’re suing over, which demands they record the ID of everyone who uses the site.

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

        Exactly. Malicious compliance, while reminding people exactly why they shouldn’t be so quick to give up their anonymity on the internet.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see what you’re saying about it not being good for democracy…we shouldn’t have politicians making decisions based on their personal use, and trying to avoid scrutiny of that use…but at the same time, we have that anyway. Honestly, at this point, burn it all down. Make the entire apparatus of government so transparent that the shitheels currently in office can’t justify staying on. Make it to where the only people who can function in elected positions are political monks.

  • wheresmypillow@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • Khotetsu@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, anytime you see somebody making the “think of the children!” argument, look at what the possible end goal could be with that removed. Protecting kids is a favorite smokescreen because kids can’t speak up for themselves in these cases.

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I think that’s the proper route. Parents who want to restrict what their children see need to take responsibility for doing so and not try to make the government do it for them at the expense of everyone else’s privacy.

    • Eggyhead@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m of the opinion that protecting children has little to do with the actual intended purpose of laws such as these.

    • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Make a kid safe tld that requires whatever government certification. Done. Now parents, if they choose, can filter all but the kidsafe tld. Trying to instead blacklist is never going to work.

      Whether companies choose to certify and publish there is something those who want this type of thing should provide incentives for.

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “You show me some lazy prick who’s laying around all day watching game shows and stroking his penis and I’ll show you someone who’s not causing any fucking trouble”

    -George Carlin

    Republicans really believe shit like this and banning abortion will be successful at restoring the nuclear family… at gunpoint.

    What it will really do is increase sexual assault, suicide, violence in general…

    Of course that will be everyone else’s fault for not submitting to their attempts at coercion correctly. Republicans insist on personal responsibility, exclusively for their many enemies and explicitly not for themselves.

    The funniest bit is, they are the reason for the death of the nuclear family and the reason it won’t be restored. If you give the owner class all the money out of the asses of the working citizens that would have kids, herp derp they won’t have kids.

    If they really wanted the “traditional American family” to come back, they need only restore tax levels to pre-reagan levels, and actually enforce them. Instead they’d rather threaten everyone for masturbating instead of making new wage slaves they can’t afford to raise so Republicans can also get that dopamine hit of schadenfreude by calling them irresponsible for having kids they can’t afford.

    • sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      You want to restore the nuclear family? Make it financially viable for us to have one.

      One of the main reasons I don’t have children is because it’s too goddamn expensive.

      Also I’m sterile. But there’s nothing anyone can do about that.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Fertility issues are also massively on the rise, probably just another side effect of all the pollution we let oligarchs inflict for private profit.

        And Nero Bezos/Walton/Buffet/Koch/etc counted while humanity burned.

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I want kids. But I need government programs like Universal Healthcare, real paternity leave rights, and maybe even extreme stuff like subsidized surrogacy to make that happen. My family in Japan has that. My SO in Canada has that. Why can’t we have that here in the US?

  • yeather@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Porn hub should make a VPN and offer it for free to people in texas They could call it VaginaPenisNards

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.