101–110 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was an autobiographical comic about the Holocaust? How's that not a representation of history?
Never said it wasn't one. Just never heard of it. Wasn't aware it was considered obscene either. Will look into.
It's not hard 1) Get any porn site that is going to obey this to instead list themselves in some open way (TXT record in DNS, blockchain, some other form of list) 2) Get any provider in the UK to block access to those lists if the account owner wants it. That's ISPs and phone providers. I'd say it should be opt in, but opt out would be a reasonable compromise. That way I can be happy that my 12 year old won't acciden…
Currently, it's already opt-out on major UK ISPs. Anyone with the brains to download a free VPN app (which includes kids) can bypass those blocks, though. That's probably why the government moved from putting the blame on ISPs to putting the blame on web hosts.
I think an effective age block is only going to make things worse for teenagers. If all of the responsible, normal porn sites follow the rules and enforce an age gate, the niche/shady websites will be all vulnerable teenagers can access.
I'd rather see a distinction between "normal porn" and "extreme porn" when it comes to content filters, but the UK also tried that when regulating UK porn productions. The list of banned acts included "caning, aggressive whipping, and humilation" (which makes sense to be labeled extreme, IMO), but also "facesitting, female ejaculation and urolagnia", which I feel are more like someone writing laws revealing their personal icks in legal texts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the whole point of digital id. You won’t be sending a passport scan you’ll be sending a verifiable blob of data that says you’re over 18. Is it incompetent to ask for ID to purchase alcohol? Because that’s all this is, but more privacy respecting…
Do they have that implementation? When I looked into it I thought you had to send your passport scan to a vendor of some kind?
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-selective-d...
https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/presentations/2024/wpec2024...
It's not hard 1) Get any porn site that is going to obey this to instead list themselves in some open way (TXT record in DNS, blockchain, some other form of list) 2) Get any provider in the UK to block access to those lists if the account owner wants it. That's ISPs and phone providers. I'd say it should be opt in, but opt out would be a reasonable compromise. That way I can be happy that my 12 year old won't acciden…
It's very hard. Teenagers will teach each other to circumvent any of this within seconds. It's as old as the internet. But maybe it would be healthier if you discuss this topic with your 12-year-old. The reality is that they'll be able to find any kind of pr0n within seconds when they has access to an unfiltered computer or phone. At age 12 it's also expected that you start the transition from a child to an adult, so…
It's about being able to control and monitoring in the real world, where unlike the 90s the "family computer" isn't the thing in the corner of the living room.
There's 6 more years before they're an adult, 4 more years before they can legally have sex, and typically at least 4 years before they start heavy petting, plenty of time to transition.
Someone on their first driving lesson isn't dropped in the middle of the arc de triumph and told to drive to Rome, it takes a lot of lessons to get that far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it immediately makes me horny Some people suffer/enjoy getting aroused by cars, does that mean every car picture is sexual? Probably not. While fun to hear about others perspective, "suggestively sexual" usually requires at least some attempt at being suggestive, a pregnant woman just existing probably isn't suggestive, even though you find it so because of your sexual preferences. I don't know how old you are, but…
I wasn't debating "suggestive". The fine article claimed (and the parent quoted), "Absolutely nothing sexual"; that's what I disagree with. I agree that the photo is not suggestive; in other words, I fully agree that in the picture, she's not "soliciting" or even "provoking" (even without having any actual intent to participate). That's fine. She doesn't have to be suggestive, or to do anything other than exist and b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they have that implementation? When I looked into it I thought you had to send your passport scan to a vendor of some kind?
Yes. That “send your passport in” type of id verification is complete BS and everyone knows that. That’s why there is so much work going into modern cryptographic digital identity standards. You should be able to say “I have it on good authority that I’m over 18” and the other party simply computes the hash of that statement and checks that it matches one of the hashed claims in your digital credential. https://www.i…
The only things I've seen are friends having to submit a photo of their ID to discord to keep using it, etc. The GP was talking about the British version of this specifically right
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was an autobiographical comic about the Holocaust? How's that not a representation of history?
Never said it wasn't one. Just never heard of it. Wasn't aware it was considered obscene either. Will look into.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't debating "suggestive". The fine article claimed (and the parent quoted), "Absolutely nothing sexual"; that's what I disagree with. I agree that the photo is not suggestive; in other words, I fully agree that in the picture, she's not "soliciting" or even "provoking" (even without having any actual intent to participate). That's fine. She doesn't have to be suggestive, or to do anything other than exist and b…
I don't think an image can be defined as sexual based on whether or not it produces an arousal response in you or anyone else. If you looked an image featuring women who are from a culture where partial nudity is normal and not considered sexual, but you have an arousal response, does that make the image sexual?
It does, in the one particular context where I would be looking at it.
(I understand that this response of mine is unusable for labelling images, without the context that they are displayed and viewed in. That's fine. I'm indifferent wrt. labeling pictures on the internet, for the purposes of lawmaking.)
Consider this. Assume you have a nice big poster "featuring women who are from a culture where partial nudity is normal and not considered sexual". Assume you take it to your workplace, to an office where several ladies work, and you put it on display on the wall of your cubicle. I think the picture will be defined sexual in that context, and most women at the office will be uncomfortable with it. I, as a man, would get an arousal response, and therefore, in that context, I would also immediately feel uncomfortable with the poster (and I would also request that it be removed). Indeed I very frequently disagree with being exposed to arousing impulses, and I may try to protect my senses from that. Either way, such a picture is sexual, most of the time. It does depend on the context, so I guess I agree that without context, classification is futile (lacking sufficient nuance). Assuming some "default Western context" though, I still claim that the picture you are proposing is sexual. The context where that image is not sexual, is that culture where the picture originates from. But we are not that culture.
Again, I'm neither supporting nor opposing politicians in labeling and/or restricting images. I'm only talking about what the pregnant woman's picture in the fine article makes me feel, and what urges it generates in me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And it is a desire to label realistic representations of history such as Maus Dare I ask, wtf is Maus representation of history??
Maus is a depiction of Art Spiegelman's father's experience as a Holocaust survivor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't debating "suggestive". The fine article claimed (and the parent quoted), "Absolutely nothing sexual"; that's what I disagree with. I agree that the photo is not suggestive; in other words, I fully agree that in the picture, she's not "soliciting" or even "provoking" (even without having any actual intent to participate). That's fine. She doesn't have to be suggestive, or to do anything other than exist and b…
That’s saying something about you. It doesn’t say anything about the photo.