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

121–130 of 153 posts

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

#121

Post by marak830 »

inDigiNeous wrote: post #28
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this logic, we could decide to censor violence, religion, social media, subcultures, sugar, the study of chemistry, and perhaps coffeine. I don't think it's a blind spot. It's a deliberate decision not to be overprotective. Should it be the government's responsibility to censor anything that people easily get into with bad consequences?

I'm not saying it should be the governments responsibility. And governments are already heavily censoring and trying to kill child pornography, religion and certain political views, so why would this be so different ? It should be our responsibility as humans and parents to protect our children. If we are not thinking about our children and protecting them from content that could be potentially life changing and addi…

"And governments are already heavily censoring and trying to kill child pornography, religion and certain political views, so why would this be so different ?"

Child pornography: of course! Religion: ... What ? Which ones? Certain political views: of course we ban Nazis... That's what you meant right?

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

#122

Post by jemmyw »

barrysteve wrote: post #116
jemmyw wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well given religions are all different and only one could be true, it's more correct to say they're all a lie. One might be true. However, as old ones have died away and new ones will be created and the current ones evolve it's not even possible to say that any one religion is subjectively true to itself.

They have different beliefs, but it's all the same God. You can't know enough in this lifetime to judge them to be objective or subjective lies. Just getting through the magisterium is more reading than one lifetime, let alone the other old judeo-christian 'usual suspects' faiths. Replacing your category of God and religion with 'its all a lie' is very dangerous and distasteful to read.

The inside and outside perspective. (1) If you're religious and inside then it's so important to you, it makes no sense to casually dismiss the ideas that are ingrained in your life about the ideas of God and religion.

(2) If you're like me, on the outside and not religious, can you understand that I can shrug those off and call them a lie very easily, because they don't matter to me at all? From the outside it is like people getting upset that you've insulted something in Harry Potter books.

Face to face with people I'm more mindful and just don't talk about this kind of thing unless its with like minded people. On a technical forum like this, I'm not going to hold back with my real opinion though. You have a choice to read or not, and to consider (2). I do not wish to offend you by writing off your beliefs. But to an atheist who does not think about religion much at all, it is a bunch of nonsense.

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

#123

Post by LinuxBender »

leereeves wrote: post #112
LinuxBender wrote: post #100

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 en…

> If a website is serving user-generated or adult content and not adding RTA headers then fine the crap out of them How could Utah fine a website from a foreign country?

I don't have a good answer for this. I guess it would be whatever would be done to handle a foreign website hosting something that is illegal in the US today. I hope the goal is not for the US to police the entire planet.

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

#124

Post by leereeves »

deserialized wrote: post #51
Moldoteck wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Dogmatic and wrong but at least you said it with confidence. This simplistic line of 'porn bad' is just the pretense for labeling anything out of line with your religion's prescribed morality as pornohrafic and therefore worthy of being expunged by violent means. This ideology never stops at videos containing nudity or sex but continues on to being directed at music, literature, women who don't cover their heads, Tra…

The opinion "porn bad" (for children) isn't limited to conservatives or religious people.

Here's what Unicef says:

> Pornographic content can harm children. Exposure to pornography at a young age may lead to poor mental health, sexism and objectification, sexual violence, and other negative outcomes. ...

> UNICEF is alarmed by the massive quantity of pornography available online, including increasingly graphic and extreme content that is easily accessible to children of all ages. Efforts to regulate content and restrict children’s access to pornography have not kept pace with technological shifts that have profoundly altered the landscape for the consumption of pornography.

https://www.unicef.org/harmful-content-online

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

#125

Post by jstarfish »

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]

As a parent, I'd sooner argue we should just give the kids a copy of Encarta and kick them off the internet.

Porn is a drop in the ocean of the problematic content out there. You don't wage war with the ocean. You keep kids away from it until they learn how to swim.

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

#126

Post by inDigiNeous »

marak830 wrote: post #121
inDigiNeous wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it should be the governments responsibility. And governments are already heavily censoring and trying to kill child pornography, religion and certain political views, so why would this be so different ? It should be our responsibility as humans and parents to protect our children. If we are not thinking about our children and protecting them from content that could be potentially life changing and addi…

"And governments are already heavily censoring and trying to kill child pornography, religion and certain political views, so why would this be so different ?" Child pornography: of course! Religion: ... What ? Which ones? Certain political views: of course we ban Nazis... That's what you meant right?

I did not mean Nazis. Have you even followed the censorship in Twitter for example and the situation that is unraveling now ?

We already ban certain views, but yet, pornography: no. It's not important enough, and as seen here by the downvotes, many people are addicted to it and cannot understand what I tried to message.

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

#127

Post by kar5pt »

leereeves wrote: post #124
deserialized wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogmatic and wrong but at least you said it with confidence. This simplistic line of 'porn bad' is just the pretense for labeling anything out of line with your religion's prescribed morality as pornohrafic and therefore worthy of being expunged by violent means. This ideology never stops at videos containing nudity or sex but continues on to being directed at music, literature, women who don't cover their heads, Tra…

The opinion "porn bad" (for children) isn't limited to conservatives or religious people. Here's what Unicef says: > Pornographic content can harm children. Exposure to pornography at a young age may lead to poor mental health, sexism and objectification, sexual violence, and other negative outcomes. ... > UNICEF is alarmed by the massive quantity of pornography available online, including increasingly graphic and ex…

OP didn't say "porn bad for children". They said "porn bad".

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

#128

Post by leereeves »

kar5pt wrote: post #127
leereeves wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opinion "porn bad" (for children) isn't limited to conservatives or religious people. Here's what Unicef says: > Pornographic content can harm children. Exposure to pornography at a young age may lead to poor mental health, sexism and objectification, sexual violence, and other negative outcomes. ... > UNICEF is alarmed by the massive quantity of pornography available online, including increasingly graphic and ex…

OP didn't say "porn bad for children". They said "porn bad".

I was responding to deserialized, who cited examples like public libraries where books are available to children.

(At least I'm not aware of any public libraries with adult-only sections.)

And in the context of the overall discussion of a bill attempting to restrict specifically children's (not adults') access to porn.

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

#129

Post by commoner »

Moldoteck wrote: post #101
Moldoteck wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

for all people replying. I' m referring to this https://fightthenewdrug.org/ (+some peer reviewed studies), not to some religion. Porn is literally bad, if somebody want to jerk off, better use imagination

> I' m referring to this https://fightthenewdrug.org/ (+some peer reviewed studies), not to some religion

"Fight the New Drug" is much more entangled with religion than its owners would like the public to believe.

> The group denies a formal affiliation with the Mormon church, though as journalist Samantha Allen notes, its founders are all Mormon, and its facts rely on claims from Mormon author Donald Hilton’s He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The group’s leader Clay Olsen has explicitly distanced his group from the larger sect. His group opts for a newer-age revelation, explaining on its website, “As young college students not too long ago, we came across the recent science of how porn affects the brain and we were shocked!”

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/a-crisis-...

> The leaders and presenters of FTND are not mental health nor sexuality professionals and do not have sufficient training in sexuality or human development to be addressing these subjects. Investigative journalists have recognized FTND as an LDS organization, which FTND continues to deny.

> The largest published neuroscience study of this topic to date, as well as a series of published behavioral studies, shows that those who report problems viewing sex films do not resemble any other substance or "behavioral" addictions. According to their own website, 90 percent of FTND attendees end up agreeing that "pornography releases the same chemicals in your brain as other hard drugs" compared to 43 percent who believed this prior to their presentation. FTND is advertising their ability to successfully spread false information.

> FTND claims they use "peer reviewed science and research" to back their information. A "sex/porn addiction" diagnosis does not exist in the DSM-5, which was explicitly rejected for "lack of scientific evidence."

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4409139&itype=CMSI...

Post reply on HN