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

Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

deseret.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#101

Post by Rebelgecko »

umvi wrote: post #27
willis936 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UT has more overbearing regulations than any other state. They are also far and away the most conservative state. Not all conservatives in the US are aligned with them, it’s just that the cult majority have regulatory capture.

> UT has more overbearing regulations than any other state Like what? Are you referring to alcohol laws? Because last I checked you could still by beer at the grocery store in Utah, but you cannot do that in Montgomery County, Maryland (most populous county of one of the bluest states).

Utah has actually made some interesting changes lately. Within the last few years they've legalized Budweiser and gotten rid of the Zion Curtain mandate (which seemed like an awful idea in terms of safety. One waiter told me they called it the "Cosby Curtain").

Maybe some day Utahns will be able to order a glass of wine at dinner before they've decided what they want to eat.

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#102

Post by giantg2 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #17
rootusrootus wrote: post #9

I thought Utah was a GOP state? What happened to 'small government'? This seems like shoving gov't down your throat.

GOP policies have never been “small government” (in my life). They just like to say it.

I think it depends on which topics one holds most dear.

If you are in the minority on an issue, you may feel something is overbearing but the other side may feel it's "reasonable". For example, if one isn't a gun owner, then they aren't something one has to know and deal with. So one may feel that more regulation is not infringing on rights or freedoms.

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#103

Post by lotsofpulp »

vinger wrote: post #89
umvi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UT has more overbearing regulations than any other state Like what? Are you referring to alcohol laws? Because last I checked you could still by beer at the grocery store in Utah, but you cannot do that in Montgomery County, Maryland (most populous county of one of the bluest states).

Montgomery has bars and they have liquor stores. Utah did requires a membership in a gentlemen club to drink in a public place. Perhaps this has changed. You can't buy beer in grocery stores in every province in Canada either. But the amount of alcohol in beer is double the US. Beer in grocery stores is a poor proxy for dem / rep

>Beer in grocery stores is a poor proxy for dem / rep

I don't think umvi claimed as much.

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#104

Post by ceejayoz »

umvi wrote: post #98
lotsofpulp wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that it's like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds" or "Qurans". There already exists a short word to refer to Muslims, which is Muslims. Mormon is an effective short form of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", which is a mouthful. And sometimes, you might want to refer to a specific type of Christian, such as Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, or in this case, Mormons.

> Mormon is an effective short form of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", which is a mouthful. I agree, but they've asked not to be referred to by that term. If we extend the courtesy to trans people who don't want to be referred to by certain terms, I don't see why we shouldn't extend the same courtesy to religious people who don't want to be referred to by certain terms.

If trans people were asking to be referred to as "people who were assigned a gender at birth but do not identify with that gender now" instead of "men" or "trans men" or whatnot, one might object to the lengthiness of that, too.

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#105

Post by wegs »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #17
rootusrootus wrote: post #9

I thought Utah was a GOP state? What happened to 'small government'? This seems like shoving gov't down your throat.

GOP policies have never been “small government” (in my life). They just like to say it.

GOP isn't a person. It's a loose confederacy of people. For small government freedom-loving Republicans, go to e.g. parts of Texas.

Utah is a religious conservative. That's an entirely different sort of person. It's a demographic which, in many ways, would align better with Democrats, if not for a few wings of the DNC such as:

* Dawkins-toting militant atheist wing

* Pro-choice feminist wing

That's a big part of why Mitt Romney so often sides with Democrats on key votes, and takes so much flack from other parts of the GOP. He was also governor of Massachusetts, which is about as blue as you get. It take a special kind of Republican to win there.

I don't agree with a lot of what Utah Republicans stand for, but I don't see much hypocrisy there. It's pretty consistent:

* Against: Porn, anti-abortion, homosexuality, drinking, smoking, drugs

* For: Helping poor people (although with a complex split of private charity, church, and government), good education, clean strong neighborhoods, community, families, churches

COVID19 went a bit wonky, but with a few exceptions like that, it's mostly straight-line honest Mormon views.

Curiously, pre-Romney, who seems among the least corrupt politicians in government, Utah was represented by Orrin Hatch, who seemed to be among the most corrupt of the senators at the time.

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#106

Post by octopoc »

> “One of the most difficult challenges I work with are the effects from pornography,” Gibson said. “Average age of first exposure, which is often accidental, is 10 to 11 years old. Anything we can do to help prevent that puts us in a proactive rather than a defensive position.

I'm sure many of us can confirm exposure at such a young age. My friends and I were all exposed around that age. I hate the fact that I was exposed before I had the capacity to understand what it meant.

This is absolutely a battle worth fighting. 10 year old children should not be exposed to anything so addictive. In my experience it all too often results in lifelong addiction that leads to broken marriages.

Many of us think this type of action by the government violates people's rights. But when a right enables suffering and wrongdoing on a large scale, it's time to rethink that right. Rights should serve humanity, not the other way around.

For example state's rights became a shield for slavery. The Civil War violated state's rights and ended thereby slavery. I think this is how it should work.

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#107

Post by IgorPartola »

rootusrootus wrote: post #9

I thought Utah was a GOP state? What happened to 'small government'? This seems like shoving gov't down your throat.

Small government means that when you see a family starving you don’t have enough to give them to get back on their feet because it’s all been spent on a military contract. It means that we can’t afford a healthcare program like every other civilized country in the world because we need to keep insurance companies from going under (except your kidneys; your kidneys have universal healthcare, did you know?). It means we can’t afford to build decent roads or pay for inner city schools because god forbid we educate people and they vote for their own economic interest. Small government means don’t regulate Wall Street because what if the stock market looks bad and boomers lose retirement portfolio value. And it means letting an 11 year old die in his own bed by freezing to death than forcing Texas to upgrade their power grid because companies saving a dime is more important and Texans would rather sacrifice lives than do anything about what had happened to them.

But also no porn, no abortions, no disrespecting POTUS (unless he is black), no access to healthcare or safe policing for brown people, and no vote unless you are male, white, and uneducated.

The GOP has been morally bankrupt since they took in the Southern Democrats and the parties flipped in ideology. They are the same party that thought owning human beings was justified as long as it padded profits and never really recovered from losing that argument. They are the party that unironically supports flying traitorous flags because it’s their heritage. They are the same types of people who would have sided with England in the American Revolution because you have to love your country no matter what. And they are the same people who are getting cozy with the people who fly swastikas because anything is apparently better than being a democrat.

Are you really surprised at this particular headline coming from a conservative state?

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#108

Post by colechristensen »

ceejayoz wrote: post #8
anm89 wrote: post #2

Does Utah actually have that much market power? Could manufacturers just stop selling to Utah?

Alternatively, could they close stores/facilities in Utah, and still sell to Utahans online? Commerce clause seems like it'd protect that.

Eh, it's a tossup. Commerce clause protections for interstate trade only go so far, some attempts by states to regulate what can be sold or how have passed court tests, others have not. It hinges on whether the regulation would be discriminatory or overly burdensome.

To get such a law struck down, phone sellers would have to prove to the court that setting up Utah-specific phones would be excessively difficult.

I don't think it would be struck down with the commerce clause, but it would be close.

Re: Utah bill would require activated porn filter software on new phones, tablets

#109

Post by bitdizzy »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #34

Let’s compare these sets of people: 1. who reacts most strongly to this story about deplatforming porn 2. who reacts most strongly to stories about deplatforming hate speech and incitement And try to figure out if the two groups have different principles about free expression, or perhaps the principles are irrelevant and only function as justifications when convenient for some kind of tribalism.

What do you mean by tribalism?

What is inconsistent about thinking hate speech should be deplatformed and porn shouldn't be? Or vice versa? It seems to me like you're implying that the only reasonable and honest principle of free expression is completely absolute and anything else is cynical.

People can agree on the value of free expression and agree that there should be limits which align with their values while their values diverge. Is people having different values tribalism?

Post reply on HN