121–130 of 172 posts
How do sites that have porn but not their main purpose respond, or do they have to? Reddit and Twitter come to mind, I've stumbled across a lot of weird stuff on both.
The law says it applies if more than 30% of the content is adult content. So won't apply to reddit or Twitter at least but I could see this still leaving plenty of gray area for other sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think anonymous surveys wouldn't work here? (Genuinely asking and not being snarky, I expected to find lots of people doing surveys in this area but didn't readily find it, so I'm open to there being something I'm not understanding.)
I have no idea. Broadly speaking, I don't trust self-reporting on anything taboo even when it's anonymous; people both lie to themselves and have justified paranoia about precisely how anonymous any collected data is. ... But it's real hard to fake the actual server requests and human sourced usage patterns to the service provider at scale.
There's also the matter that, from what I've observed, women often prefer erotic literature. That seems very difficult to parse out from traffic.
For what it's worth, I did come across one article where researchers were using data from an analytics company to probe porn use[1], but it wasn't measuring what I was looking for, so I didn't look too closely.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2023.2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero-knowledge methods for verifying age are possible but there is almost no political will or interest in them. Sites would get a “yes” or “no” as to whether someone is of age, and no other information.
They could verify ID, associate you with an "ID verified" token, and immediately trash all the information they collected other than that token.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A Turnkey totalitarian state exists, who is going to turn that key? A totalitarian that will be recognized as such. The plausible deniability of the status quo is worth quite a bit.
Oh I think a certain presidential candidate is running under the “let’s stop pretending” thing. So in half a year we’ll know.
The attention economy overdid it. And corruption bloomed as a result. Which is typical for a totalitarian rise. Kleptocracies without checks and balances dont work and its quite visible to the outside.
Its just not a sensible path to go down on. Even looking past ethical and human perspective, totalitarianism is at its core dysfunctional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are leaving it out where anyone can get it (if their parents aren't watching), not showing it to unsuspecting pedestrians. Maybe teenagers have too much autonomy online but it's the place of their parents to take it away from them - not the state of North Carolina.
I think a reasonable analogy would be putting TV's playing porn outside of a school and covered them with a cloth and sign that said adults only. What would my liability be then? And I also sell advertising on the side of the tvs?
I think a reasonable analogy would be putting
TV's playing porn outside of a school and covered
them with a cloth and sign that said adults only.
Strongly suggest dropping the analogies entirely.
Like many digital concepts this just will never map cleanly to a real-world analogue.
This is like the millions of bad analogies related to music downloads back in the Napster days. Please, stop. This is an issue worth discussing, but every analogy is bad and every analogy pollutes and enshittifies the discussion.
Note that they do not object to age verification. They object to the specific way North Carolina is requiring it to be done: > Aylo has publicly supported age verification of users for years, but we believe that any law to this effect must preserve user safety and privacy, and must effectively protect children from accessing content intended for adults. > Unfortunately, the way many jurisdictions worldwide have chose…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I strongly disagree with this NC law, and others, your analogy is a bad one. As a society I think we've accepted that some things (cigarettes, alcohol, sex, etc.) should be restricted from children. That's a far cry from requiring ID every time I go to the grocery store. But, as long as I've been alive, you have had to show ID to purchase alcohol, and the sky hasn't fallen. Again, I think these types of laws ar…
You don't have to show ID if you look about 40 years old, generally.
Note that they do not object to age verification. They object to the specific way North Carolina is requiring it to be done: > Aylo has publicly supported age verification of users for years, but we believe that any law to this effect must preserve user safety and privacy, and must effectively protect children from accessing content intended for adults. > Unfortunately, the way many jurisdictions worldwide have chose…
Too complex. If I had the time and resources I'd love to work on a good internet "captcha" system for age verification. Basically training ML with responses from different age groups to certain patterns, text or imagery - not sure what exactly. It would not be perfect, one cannot classify "18 year old" accurately across the globe, but I'm quite sure a good AI, somehow, could get a ballpark maturity answer that would…
There would be close to no accurate test for the difference between an 17 year old and an 18 year old.
To those opposing this, do you think porn is harmful to children? Porn is a digital drug, how else do you propose solving this problem? I'm a bit confused as to why someone would want children to have access to porn...
People are upset about the privacy and free speech aspects of this law, as well as the annoyance of having to hand over your personal information for something as basic to human nature as your sexuality. I think there's a 100% chance that there will be a data breach at some point and a bunch of people will have their porn habits leaked to the web. Not to mention the chilling effects when it comes to something like looking up more taboo kinks and not wanting your ID associated with that.
It's not just porn. I'm a member of the furry fandom. I regularly publish fiction in that community, I have life long friends in that community, it's a community that has helped me through a lot of dark places in my life, a community where I can explore taboo subjects in a safe setting. For most people it may just be 'porn', material they use to jerk off, but the fandom is a major part of my life. E621 and other sites aren't even necessarily 'pornographic', I rarely look at 'furry porn' to masturbate as a matter of fact. I'm being 100% honest when I say I follow the artists I follow for the art. It's just that in the furry fandom things like depicting sexuality aren't necessarily taboo.
Preventing other people from participating in this community, whether it's fear that their identity is going to be leaked correlated to their fursona, concern over increased tracking of possibly undesired sexual minorities, or just the pain in the ass required to take that first plunge and sign up for E6, feels like an attack on a major part of my life.
And personally, I don't feel like I should have to take responsibility for some parent who freaks out every time their kid sees breasts, but isn't willing to install parental controls on their fucking computer.
[flagged]
I am going to say something that is not popular to say but has been on my mind for a while. Why is it bad for our kids to see two humans have sex? When you say porn is bad for kids, I think you mean that mainstream porn can be misogynistic, addictive (like most pleasurable things), and give people unrealistic body standards and expectations about what sex is like. All of which I agree with. Okay, so, if I had a websi…
Because porn is not sex. In the same way that candies are not food.