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

131–140 of 186 posts

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

#131

Post by mywittyname »

reissbaker wrote: post #32
chmod775 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... yes? Just pre-installing/enabling some parental control filter on phones is way cheaper than even losing out on a few millions worth of sales. It's pretty trivial to do since those filters already exist. It will probably end with retailers having to do that at the time of sale, but still, it's perfectly possible.

Doing that when building these devices at scale and handling support queries for it is probably not cheap. Most phone manufacturers don't allow retailers to tamper with the software on the phones/tablets (that opens up a can of worms in terms of security), so they'd have to do it very early, maybe even at the factory — which means earmarking which devices are bound to Utah. Responsible manufacturers (e.g. Apple) woul…

> I doubt the bill will pass, but if it does, I doubt many manufacturers would comply.

They'd probably comply. Most could strike a deal with an existing company to provide software for this. Hell, more than likely a company who makes such software is probably a campaign contributor to many of the supporters of this bill.

AFAIK, the law doesn't define how effective the filter must be. So any good-faith attempt is probably more than enough. Even if the software is just a skin of Chrome with a add-on installed that blocks a list of websites.

I won't lie though, I would find it hilarious if foxnews.com was put into this obscenity filter.

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

#132

Post by AnimalMuppet »

umvi wrote: post #59
johndevor wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has probably more to do with the Morman church in Utah than the GOP.

(FYI it's Mormon*, named after the Book of Mormon) However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians". I know "Mormon" is a long-standing nickname and most people don't intend to use the term derogatorily, but calling Latter-day Saints "Mormons" is like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds…

> However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians".

I have a hard time referring to them as Christians when they think that the non-Latter-Day Christians are someone that needs converted. They sure send a lot of missionaries to go after (other) Christians. They sure seem to teach that you have to be part of their church. In short, they sure seem to act like they regard other Christians as "other".

So, no, I have a hard time calling them "Christians".

(And if you're going to say that they self-identify as Christians, well, Jesus said something about "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord'...")

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

#133

Post by vinger »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #96
ceejayoz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> French parliament C'mon.

So when debating the merits of government policy, we can’t talk about Utah and France in the same conversation? I understand that this would make it harder to fit into local tribalist conflicts.

Both are church driven societies

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

#134

Post by dragonwriter »

umvi wrote: post #59
johndevor wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has probably more to do with the Morman church in Utah than the GOP.

(FYI it's Mormon*, named after the Book of Mormon) However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians". I know "Mormon" is a long-standing nickname and most people don't intend to use the term derogatorily, but calling Latter-day Saints "Mormons" is like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds…

> However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians".

The first for members is problematic (especially in speech, where there is no equivalent to capitalization to distinguish the proper nouns from a combination of common words; and plenty of people discussing “Latter-Day Saints” would very much not want to endorse the idea that the people referenced are “latter day saints”.

The latter of those is even more problematic for somewhat similar reasons, since there are lots of other people who identify as and are commonly known as Christians, so it's not particularly good to distinguish Latter-Day Saints. Especially given that the boundary large groups of Christians who disagree on, well, nearly everything else draw around the boundary of “Christian” excluded Latter-Day Saints.

> Calling Latter-day Saints "Mormons" is like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds" or "Qurans" or nicknaming Islam "the Mohammed Church" or "the Quran Church".

Or, to use a less hypothetical example, it's like calling Muslims and Islam “Mohammedans” and “Mohammedanism”, respectively.

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

#135

Post by AnimalMuppet »

giantg2 wrote: post #61
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).

Not necessarily taking one side ot the other, but they also have very restrictive fireworks laws. Also, I don't know about Montgomery Co, but PG Co (and others) has liquor beer etc in all sorts of small shops.

> Not necessarily taking one side ot the other, but they also have very restrictive fireworks laws.

Utah is a really dry state. Fireworks have a bad tendency to start fires out here, fires that can get rather large. It's not that they're spoilsports (with respect to fireworks), it's that they have experienced some significant downsides.

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

#136

Post by dragonwriter »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #132
umvi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(FYI it's Mormon*, named after the Book of Mormon) However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians". I know "Mormon" is a long-standing nickname and most people don't intend to use the term derogatorily, but calling Latter-day Saints "Mormons" is like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds…

> However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians". I have a hard time referring to them as Christians when they think that the non-Latter-Day Christians are someone that needs converted. They sure send a lot of missionaries to go after (other) Christians. They sure seem to teach…

> I have a hard time referring to them as Christians when they think that the non-Latter-Day Christians are someone that needs converted.

Most Christian groups think that “Christians” outside of their group need to be converted. There are theological reasons why large groups of Christians exclude LDS, SDA, JW, and certain other groups that self-identify as “Christian” from the scope of that term (while still including very large sets of ‘Christians’ with whom they otherwise disagree), but “they think other ‘Christians’ need to be converted” isn’t one of them, and there would be no Christians at all if that standard was applied consistently.)

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

#137

Post by umvi »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #132
umvi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(FYI it's Mormon*, named after the Book of Mormon) However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians". I know "Mormon" is a long-standing nickname and most people don't intend to use the term derogatorily, but calling Latter-day Saints "Mormons" is like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds…

> However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians". I have a hard time referring to them as Christians when they think that the non-Latter-Day Christians are someone that needs converted. They sure send a lot of missionaries to go after (other) Christians. They sure seem to teach…

> I have a hard time referring to them as Christians when they think that the non-Latter-Day Christians are someone that needs converted.

Yet I'm assuming you have no problem calling both Sunni and Shiite Muslims "Muslims" even though they each think the other is wrong and that the other needs converting to their way of thinking? Disputes about which church/sect is the one true church authorized by God are going to happen in every major religion. I think the term "Christian" though is generic - if you believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, you are a Christian.

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

#138

Post by throwaway803453 »

MBlume wrote: post #62
throwaway803453 wrote: post #47

When I think of my 5 year old nephew and all the threats our world faces, it all seems small compared to the threat he poses to himself. And of those threats smartphone porn-addiction seems the worst. It's like giving every child a pot vape pen or alcohol flask and then wishing them "good luck". Seriously how do parents manage this and is there any young reader that cares to comment on how it affected them? If my hig…

> When I think of my 5 year old nephew and all the threats our world faces, it all seems small compared to the threat he poses to himself. Really? When I think of my 4 year old daughter I'm a lot more worried she'll get hit by a car crossing the street.

Statistically a child is more likely to suffer eventual chronic illness such as diabetes due to their own bad diet choices than a permanent injury from crossing the street. A person is more likely to kill themselves than die from a traffic accident. So yes, really.

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

#139

Post by bitdizzy »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #124
bitdizzy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

I think it’s consistent to believe that free expression allows for deplatforming, and then to have a belief about when deplatforming is necessary. I don’t think it’s consistent to think that deplatforming is wrong, but only when the type of deplatforming that was most recently brought to your attention is a kind you don’t like. I think “free expression” in this context is more like a tool for argumentation than a rea…

Do you think the distinction between government interdiction and private is immaterial? I think I regard the distinction between business and government a lot less than most but still understand that there are significant differences between the two and some people think those differences are extremely important.

But what is meant by tribalism?

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

#140

Post by dragonwriter »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #80
umvi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(FYI it's Mormon*, named after the Book of Mormon) However, (also FYI), adherents prefer if you refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and members of said church "Latter-day Saints" or simply "Christians". I know "Mormon" is a long-standing nickname and most people don't intend to use the term derogatorily, but calling Latter-day Saints "Mormons" is like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds…

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.

> 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.

“Muslim” and “Islam” weren't imported from Arabic into general use in English (or most other Western European languages) until after “Mohammedan(ism)” or similar constructions had been around for a long time.

> Mormon is an effective short form of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"

It's a short alternative, but it's not really a short form as it does not derive at all from the long form. (LDS is more of a short form.)

Post reply on HN