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

The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 598 posts

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#161

Post by microgpt »

jdsnape wrote: post #47
hoppp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just outlaw sex? If looking at sex is illegal they might as well go all the way.

Because in their philosophy sex serves a purpose (procreation and the deepening of the marital union). Anything that doesn’t support those two aims (contraception, abortion, gay marriage, pornography etc.) is therefore immoral but there’s nothing wrong with sex in its ‘proper’ context.

Their philosophy is extremely inconsistent. In reality it's emotionally driven. Not sure what specific emotions cause one to think sex is wrong except for reproduction, but a lot of the people who push this sort of thing turn out to be closeted gay homophobes.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#162

Post by shomp »

ethbr1 wrote: post #144
shevy-java wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is an organized attack. The lobbyists got their orders, now they pull it through. It is kind of fascinating to see though - I bet many people don't realise this coordinated attack. To me it is blatantly easy to notice. I am glad to not be the only one here.

One cannot use a handwavey "organized" and "coordinated" without a subject. Who specifically do you propose is ordering this?

If Facebook, in light of the 2021 "Facebook Papers," believed the legislation inevitable, what kind of legislation would maximize its advantage?

Noteworthily, the legislation moves age verification from individual apps to app-store operators [Apple, Google] which reduces Facebooks legal exposure for inaccurate/incorrect age verifications.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#163

Post by microgpt »

hoppp wrote: post #150
throw9398449 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What you mean no way to consent? We can talk or use non-verbal communication. Marriage is by itself not consent for sex and you can't sue somebody to get them to have sex with you either

It's a redpill/misogynist/incel/Tate-style talking point, they have this meme that women just file rape charges against everyone they ever regret having sex with.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#164

Post by microgpt »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #15

Wouldn't it be great if we could just legislate fixes for everything? /s This seems to be a result of what people call the uniparty system, but that's not really an accurate term: This actually embodies what the establishment on both sides of the aisle want: CONTROL They want this for many different reasons: they have an unbridled lust for power, or perhaps they are willing to burn down fair elections for the good of…

Anom caught way more E2EE terrorists than any other attack, and it wasn't even an attack on encryption.

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#166

Post by jdsnape »

microgpt wrote: post #161
jdsnape wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in their philosophy sex serves a purpose (procreation and the deepening of the marital union). Anything that doesn’t support those two aims (contraception, abortion, gay marriage, pornography etc.) is therefore immoral but there’s nothing wrong with sex in its ‘proper’ context.

Their philosophy is extremely inconsistent. In reality it's emotionally driven. Not sure what specific emotions cause one to think sex is wrong except for reproduction, but a lot of the people who push this sort of thing turn out to be closeted gay homophobes.

I’m not supporting it, but how is it inconsistent?

I can speak more to the Catholic view than the evangelical, but if you accept the initial premise that there is a creator God then the rest follows fairly naturally (you can look the ‘the theology of the body’ if you want to read more)

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#167

Post by Hizonner »

ethbr1 wrote: post #144
shevy-java wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is an organized attack. The lobbyists got their orders, now they pull it through. It is kind of fascinating to see though - I bet many people don't realise this coordinated attack. To me it is blatantly easy to notice. I am glad to not be the only one here.

One cannot use a handwavey "organized" and "coordinated" without a subject. Who specifically do you propose is ordering this?

[dead]

Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online

#169

Post by echelon »

graemep wrote: post #137
echelon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vendors of alcohol and nicotine products are responsible for age verification. You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol. This proposal puts your name right next to the category of porn you're into, which will be a great way to coerce all those politicians into voting for the "correct" bill. Would be a shame if they found out a state senator watched porn, so maybe they'd better vote yes on the proposal. In…

> as the US becomes more fundamentalist and Christian. As Christian I would say "more fundamentalist and less Christian". I am not sure this is religiously based. We have similar things happening in European countries that are not religious. Its a moral panic and "think of the children". > You don't wind up in a database for buying alcohol. My (just turned 18) daughter said a pub in the UK scanned her driving license…

I agree with you. It's less about the religion and more about the control.

Christianity is easy to reach for in the US, especially when there are sects and denominations that align with government-mandated censorship of certain ideologies.

Post reply on HN