The premise is kind of nice, an opt-in solution for that audience.
However, a lot of those people could benefit from not being in a faux Christian echo chamber, just like their tv on Fox News 24/7 already.
New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
121–130 of 131 posts
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
actually sometimes you're in a normal website and there is an porn ad at the bottom.
Sorry that happened to you, I guess you should consider uh, switching phone networks?
Wonder if anyone will sue when they end up on a pornographic Twitter or racy Instagram account, which presumably can't be blocked (hope they don't require installing a root cert...).
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
actually sometimes you're in a normal website and there is an porn ad at the bottom.
Never seen this unless I’m on some shady sites. So have zero clue what you are talking about. We see you
Yeah, me neither. I mean I've seen models with busty substances covered in pretty sheer bikini tops… which might be pornographic for some. But that's the extent of it.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#124To fill the gap left by all the sites being blocked, the company intends to offer access to a library of religious content, including AI-generated Bible videos. Truly a serious and spiritual company. Maybe you can chat with AI Jesus instead of going to PornHub.
I'm looking forward to hallucinated bible videos with heretical content.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
... Well, I mean, taken at its most literal, _arguably_ the earth is flat. It's a bloody nonsense argument, but one might theoretically make it, and thus it is arguable. If you mean 'arguable' in its more conventional meaning, then, no it isn't arguable, don't be silly. > This is why there's been a burgeoning "LGB drop the T" movement in the past few years. So... As an experienced homosexual, I have met exactly one g…
[deleted]
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who knows under this administration though. That does not add anything of interest so you might as well leave it out unless you use it as an identity flag. There's plenty of 'special' mobile subscriptions with all sorts of filtering options. Most target parents who want their children to be able to do A but not B or C, some - like this one - target other groups.
There is previous history around the Trump administration, common carrier status for Internet providers, and net neutrality.
There is previous history with most administrations on this subject, e.g. the 'Biden' administration abused CISA to force social media companies to taking action against speech protected by the First Amendment. Obama abused the espionage act to prosecute whistleblowers and waged a campaign against journalists who used leaked material, setting a pattern which continues to this day through both 'democrat' as well as republican administrations. This is not a 'current administration' issue but a 'government' issue no matter the colours they present.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#127Why does it inspire anger/mockery in so many people in this thread for some other people to choose not to see porn?
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but in the case of this article, seems like it doesn’t affect anyone else but the consumers of this product.
And no one is stopping them. But they don't have the right not to be ridiculed, and I suspect a lot of people ridiculing them are fellow Christians. It's not as if anyone is going to chain them by their ankles to the back of a truck and drag them to death for being straight over it.
[deleted]
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the MIT Technology Review would not, upon hearing about a phone network that donates 10% of revenue to feed the poor, contact T-Mobile and request comment on whether such donations from a bandwidth reseller "violate any of its policies". Everyone agrees that you should be allowed to be charitable if you'd like. So there's no polarization pressure in that direction; Christians who want their phone network to b…
That's not quite what I meant. I'm not asking why this network exists rather than the other one. My point is that when we read the phrase "Christian phone network," we all immediately know that it's going to be something that blocks homosexual content rather than something that donates to feed the hungry, just from those three words. The rhetorical question is, why is that what the word "Christian" means now?
Because if it were a charity phone network,
1. It wouldn't be posted here or anywhere else, it wouldn't even be reported on.
2. It would just be called a charity phone network.
3. Generally you don't need to self-segregate unless the outer world is opposed to certain values you have. When something is a Christian alternative, it's an alternative against some societal trend (porn being common). If it isn't incompatible with society, it doesn't need to segregate, so wouldn't; it would just be a phone network that donates to charity and it would attract all kinds. So an X phone network is automatically about the parts of X that are not commonly shared values among society, not about any arbitrary value X holds.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't particularly aware of President Trump until he went for political power. I barely knew of him. I recall having seen him exactly once, in some documentary on the History Channel. He's mentally categorized to me as "politician" more than "rich guy", which is the wrong type of corruption for this case. I had much more exposure growing up to the "flexer" types as the archetypal idolizer of wealth. You should eng…
As a prominent figure who has corrupted tens of millions of Christians, I'd hope he'd be more in mind in this sort of discussion. This isn't just a random aside. My point is that you're focusing on the wrong things. For what I'd see as proper Christians, homosexuality and influencers just aren't very important. Homosexuality has zero temptation for the vast majority, and influencers are just jesters for the modern ag…
I think fewer Christians than you believe take their cues on right living from that man. Maybe I'm biased as a zoomer but I see the influence of "flexers" and tate and fuentes-style ingrates as vastly more harmful, because they function as perverse role models for young men in particular. You may think they are just jesters; that is not so. I wish that were true but it's like saying that "instagram beauty" doesn't affect young women's self-image. It shouldn't, but it does.
I don't see homosexuality as a particularly important issue, as I'm not a member of a denomination that believes it constitutes a Godly relationship. I am, for example, less concerned with it than I am with widespread gluttony and resultant obesity. However that doesn't mean that it's not of any concern, and Christian ethics don't easily accommodate a utilitarian-style ranking of units-harm-done. It was, however, the topic of this particular company and the article about it.