271–280 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should that action be controlled?
Learning to control your actions doesnt necessitate controlling 'that' action, it gives you the option. Having the options beyond following your impulsive feelings is useful.
[flagged]
Huh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but forcing the age-verification onto websites is just moronic. Agree. > parents should be able to access a (password protected) setting in any browser that can exclude some types of websites (like porn). How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to news, no to weapons..."? Or if that's…
> How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to news, no to weapons..."? This isn't really an answer, but the same problem exists with current age verification laws. I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to…
What would reddit.com do?
> If not, they would be legally liable.
We already have CDA/230.
> Of course this introduces the problem that foreign entities not subject to the law are effectively exempt from the requirement.
And so this whole endeavor was just defeated with free trial to any of the _many_ VPN services out there. Even a genuinely incurious person will eventually trip over a free/cheap VPN offer just browsing youtube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to news, no to weapons..."? This isn't really an answer, but the same problem exists with current age verification laws. I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to…
Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content (allow this setting to be disabled and locked down in parental controls), then hold websites liable for willfully or negligently mislabeling. Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it.
We already have CDA/230
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kind of hierarchies we deem necessary are certainly different. In most of Europe (spoiler: overgeneralization incoming) nobody would have an issue with a child walking alone through a city, going into a bar and ordering a coke. Nobody is going to stop them from taking public transit to a book store, and nothing is legally or physically preventing them from looking at a couple pages in the latest playboy issue in…
> You will however be asked for ID before being allowed in a strip club, brothel or casino, or before being sold a DVD of some action movie. The action movie too? I’ve never seen that happen, and I’m certain I rented a whole bunch of age inappropriate DVD’s (or was it VCR’s?) back in the day. Maybe we were required to be ID’ed and the teenager behind the counter just gave zero fucks?
One time my parents got me in. They had made a deal with the owner that I'd be shielded by a parent from seeing anything in the store on my way to the small corner of "age appropriate" VHSs, so that I could pick out what I wanted and then I'd have to leave the store while my parents went to rent it, coz from the cashier's counter I'd see too much.
Of course today I understand but back then I was just like "WTF!, why not!?"
Funny to think about now. It was a tiny corner I could see and a huuuuuge store I wasn't allowed in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The data already exists, it's what bars use to scan IDs with handheld readers IIRC. Sorta, yeah. But the reason that works is because there's a human guarding the door that can assert that the hand presenting the ID is attached to a face that looks just like the one on the ID. Otherwise a very smart 17 year old would just get their hands on the UUID or whatever for literally any ID that belongs to somebody that's 1…
You're implying smart 17 year olds don't make it into bars. You rarely need anything approaching %100 compliance in order to have an effective policy, so if anything you're advocating for its effectiveness when you suggest the only people that would be in violation are the rare precocious kid.
Sarcastically, yes :).
It's a reference to the "you must be over 18/21 to enter this porn/alcohol site" banners. Even a "smart" 17 year old will figure the banner out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site I would think adblock lists are a pretty good example of similar efforts (that is, people classifying large amounts of random sites), so I don't think that would be impossible. Such things don't need to be perfect, either - just good enough. (I don't agree with age verification efforts or even parental control software; just pointing out…
> so I don't think that would be impossible. Ok, what bucket(s) does reddit fall into? > Such things don't need to be perfect, either - just good enough. I think we disagree about how "good" this effort will be given that it's a supremely subjective task. Your porn is my sexual education and wellness material... And if it's going to be down to individual parents to make the most appropriate choice for their kids, thi…
Well probably various. What is your point?
> it's a supremely subjective task
Yes, but this is beside my point. It can be good enough to meet people's subjective needs. All I meant was, solutions like this don't need to perfectly categorize every single site on the Internet to be good enough to be useful, for those who think such things are useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That doesnt make him prejudiced It is literally the dictionary definition of prejudice. From Merriam-Webster[1]: >1. b (1) - an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge They directly said "two dudes kissing... feels wrong to me but when I try to come up with an explanation I have none." That is an "adverse opinion" they immediately admit to holding "without just grounds".…
Which provides the nexus, are we being prejudiced when we arrest the couple banging on a park hill in view of public? Or is there actually some deteriorated outcome from that other than it don't seem right.
Why it's against the law is another discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Learning to control your actions doesnt necessitate controlling 'that' action, it gives you the option. Having the options beyond following your impulsive feelings is useful.
Okay, then why is that particular action "useful" to control?
What's useful is the option and ability to do either. I wouldn't want to let go of a hot pan only to have it fall on a baby, even though I'd otherwise drop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which provides the nexus, are we being prejudiced when we arrest the couple banging on a park hill in view of public? Or is there actually some deteriorated outcome from that other than it don't seem right.
for one it is against the law in a lot of places :) Why it's against the law is another discussion.
If you grill at the park, beer in hand, while grilling up an American classic of burgers and dogs for your onlooking happy family, in reality there is about 99% chance anyone seeing it is at worst going to ask you to put a coozy on it in the politest way (and rarely even that). Even though it is illegal. Now if you get sloppy and harass people, or look homeless, the calls will start.
Banging in the park in open sight on a hill? Odds are totally inverted. There's something more than law at play.