Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 153 posts

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#91

Post by alienicecream »

brabel wrote: post #62
inDigiNeous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I dont do that. But what are you going to do about the majority of people doing this ? And children looking at their phones. I've heard of tales of second graders looking at porn together while on recess, that is the world we now live in. There should be some good defaults. I agree with you totally, it makes no sense to give under 10 year olds smart phones.

> But what are you going to do about the majority of people doing this ? What the hell, why do you care what other parents do or not do?? How about we let them make their own choices?! Geez, what kind of authoritarian mindset is this kind of argument coming from?

Do you have children?

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#92

Post by CommanderData »

dns_snek wrote: post #89
CommanderData wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a middle ground. Sex is not equal to porn either. No parent wants their child accessing porn but locking devices is the wrong step. ISPs should do a better job at completely blocking porn access. It's poorly implemented in the UK.

Locking devices is the wrong step, but deploying nation-scale firewalls to block content you happen to find objectionable, isn't? If you want to block porn in your own home, there's plenty of consumer gear out there that allows you to do just that. Why do you want to voluntarily expand power of the government to moderate content that you're allowed to access?

Consumer gear for all families is an extra step.

I don't like national firewalls either but we're already here and have been for 10+ years, ie piracy sites.

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#93

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

I thought they already did censor like that. You can only see lewd stuff in a browser because they censor the fuck out their app stores. I guess this would target browsers too which is why you should be free to run your own software on a phone.

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#94

Post by sh4rks »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #87
Gustomaximus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also who defines 'porn'. Is porn any photo that shows nudity, or where do you draw the line on vanilla videos vs more extreme. You might end up with devices blocking all photos of a woman topless, or naked men, even art. Does Michelangelo's David statue get his privates covered or blocked? Or like in China where they increasing block things like picture/videos of women eating bananas as that is taken as sexual (and t…

The same religious people pushing this law claim that books acknowledging the existence of queer people is pornographic. Forgive me for my cynicism but I think this is less about pornography and more about providing a legal framework for Christians to censor information about queer identities, reproductive healthcare, and things of that nature.

[flagged]

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#95

Post by 4ggr0 »

sh4rks wrote: post #94
SauciestGNU wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same religious people pushing this law claim that books acknowledging the existence of queer people is pornographic. Forgive me for my cynicism but I think this is less about pornography and more about providing a legal framework for Christians to censor information about queer identities, reproductive healthcare, and things of that nature.

[flagged]

> Modern porn isn't like your grandpa's playboy magazines

I'm sure there was very extreme porn when grandpa was reading his magazines. Maybe access to it is easier today, but I'm sure humans have been into extreme sexual activities for a veeeeeeery long time.

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#96

Post by Fatnino »

CommanderData wrote: post #92
dns_snek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Locking devices is the wrong step, but deploying nation-scale firewalls to block content you happen to find objectionable, isn't? If you want to block porn in your own home, there's plenty of consumer gear out there that allows you to do just that. Why do you want to voluntarily expand power of the government to moderate content that you're allowed to access?

Consumer gear for all families is an extra step. I don't like national firewalls either but we're already here and have been for 10+ years, ie piracy sites.

And this is exactly what people complained would happen back when the piracy blocks went into place. "this is going to be abused to block other things".

But at least piracy has been solved /s

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#97

Post by SauciestGNU »

sh4rks wrote: post #94
SauciestGNU wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same religious people pushing this law claim that books acknowledging the existence of queer people is pornographic. Forgive me for my cynicism but I think this is less about pornography and more about providing a legal framework for Christians to censor information about queer identities, reproductive healthcare, and things of that nature.

[flagged]

Not a troll, just someone whose life experience leads to the conclusion that people trying to ban "pornography" in the United States are motivated almost exclusively by Christian religious motivations. Especially the ones who are demanding legal solutions that will be a detriment to the freedom of everyone.

Furthermore, the notion of the state forcing computer makers to inspect for and block certain content dovetails nicely (if one's goal is the eradication of queer people in the public sphere) with states prohibiting the discussion of queer identities.

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#98

Post by sh4rks »

4ggr0 wrote: post #95
sh4rks wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Modern porn isn't like your grandpa's playboy magazines I'm sure there was very extreme porn when grandpa was reading his magazines. Maybe access to it is easier today, but I'm sure humans have been into extreme sexual activities for a veeeeeeery long time.

Yep, accessibility is my concern. Think about the most vile, extreme porn you've seen. Now multiply that vileness by 10. That content is just as easy to access (via the Internet) as some innocent nude selfie.

Again, I think adults should be able to watch what they want. The concern is for the children who are given unrestricted access to the Internet from a young age.

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#99

Post by MandieD »

brabel wrote: post #62
inDigiNeous wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I dont do that. But what are you going to do about the majority of people doing this ? And children looking at their phones. I've heard of tales of second graders looking at porn together while on recess, that is the world we now live in. There should be some good defaults. I agree with you totally, it makes no sense to give under 10 year olds smart phones.

> But what are you going to do about the majority of people doing this ? What the hell, why do you care what other parents do or not do?? How about we let them make their own choices?! Geez, what kind of authoritarian mindset is this kind of argument coming from?

Because unless I want to be one of those snotty mothers who will only allow my child to associate (play, do sports, go to school) with the children of other parents who don’t allow their children unsupervised access to mobile devices, my child will effectively also have unsupervised access to mobile devices. Probably not when he’s 6 or 7, but definitely by the time he’s 9, if one of his less-supervised classmates has a smartphone, my kid will be seeing all sorts of things I’d rather he not see before he’s in his teens.

I’d like for my kid to grow up with kids from all backgrounds, not just the children of those of us who have been exposed to tech for so long and so deeply that our concern for its downsides on our kids outweighs the temptation (which is less when your life is easier) to shove a mobile in a fidgety toddler’s hand or pay 10 EUR/mo to give a primary school kid a reliable distraction.

Re: Anti-porn bills could force device makers to censor sexual material

#100

Post by LinuxBender »

The most a device maker should be implementing is looking for RTA headers and then checking what options the device owner/purchaser set. This is not in any way a new concept. Implement child accounts and implement checks for RTA headers. This delegates the responsibility entirely to the device owner to raise their own children and website operators to set a simple header. This would be trivial to implement on both ends. Child visits site, device prompts for device owner password, then prompts to allow the site temporarily or permanently.

If a website is serving user-generated or adult content and not adding RTA headers then fine the crap out of them once the corresponding legislation is in place. There is financial incentive for governments to do this correctly and to create very simple laws and device manufacturers to implement very simple technology.

This will not stop people from sexting each other. Sexting would have to be addressed in parental controls on the device as to whether or not multimedia content is allowed to be received or sent to/from the device. Obviously a device owner that does not have children would never be subject to such restrictions.

Post reply on HN