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

151–160 of 186 posts

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

#151

Post by edbob »

umvi wrote: post #121
octopoc wrote: post #106

> “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 e…

> But when a right enables suffering and wrongdoing on a large scale, it's time to rethink that right Counter argument - alcohol? Right to buy and drink booze enables suffering and wrongdoing on a large scale, but banning it was a disaster. Maybe something like regulating marketing would be more effective, but an outright ban would not work. At any rate, I don't deny porn can be addictive and have negative effects fo…

> If you want to block pornography in your household, setup a pi hole and grab a blocklist from GitHub that has the top million porn domains.

In my case, this would have done very little. A child gets exposed to pornography at friends' houses and at school. Once you're hooked, filters are pretty easy to work around.

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

#152

Post by lotsofpulp »

umvi wrote: post #127
ceejayoz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Latter-day Saint" is not that much of a mouthful. Neither is "Church of Jesus Christ", both of which are acceptable. No worse than "I know I was called Fred in the past, but please call me Fredericka from now on"

I see where you're coming from, but for the purposes of language, I'm not aware of Mormon being a slur, and it's probably the most widely known term used to describe people in the LDS church. It's been only a few years since the church themselves called themselves Mormons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Mormon

A person changing their name and a tribe changing their name is not exactly comparable, but I can see there is some gray area. I guess if people in LDS really made a big deal out of it, I'd change the way I referred to them.

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

#153

Post by crazypython »

You know what, I like this, as long as the filter can be fully disabled, legally. Not sure why "always on" tracking is needed, it can be local-first. A dynamic, content-based (filter video tags, image tags, not by DNS) porn or suggestive content filter would be handy.

People are saying you could just turn it off. I don't see that as the point. I would keep it on, because I want less porn. The same reason I want the government to nudge me to use a seatbelt, because as an irrational human, I can be too short-sighted to look over my long-term interests. The same applies to porn: Porn can harm me in the long-term by rewiring my brain in a bad way, but gives me short-term ecstasy.

It's a preactivated, effective filter for erotic content. It helps people who want to avoid porn avoid it.

I see it not as "government restricts porn" but "government nudges people to avoid porn, provides switch to turn off."

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

#154

Post by lotsofpulp »

giantg2 wrote: post #102
lotsofpulp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't have anything to do with which topics one holds dear. Small governments would not tell you you can't smoke weed, or buy alcohol at certain places or certain times of day, or cities can't create their own municipal fiber ISPs, or gay people can't get married, or women can't get abortions, or put under god in the national anthem and currency

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

#155

Post by echelon »

crazypython wrote: post #153

You know what, I like this, as long as the filter can be fully disabled, legally . Not sure why "always on" tracking is needed, it can be local-first. A dynamic, content-based (filter video tags, image tags, not by DNS) porn or suggestive content filter would be handy. People are saying you could just turn it off. I don't see that as the point. I would keep it on, because I want less porn. The same reason I want the…

You're making a value judgment.

The reason this is dangerous is because the next step after blocking by default is asking why people want an exception. Before you know it, we're living in 1984 and we have no freedoms at all.

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

#156

Post by samatman »

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #91
dessant wrote: post #6

I'd rather have a preactivated and effective US news filter on my phone.

r/animetitties on Reddit is pretty good for news with the US filtered out. Yes the name seems weird - it’s not a joke.

alright, so I took you at your word here.

I dunno what I expected: but what I got was a face full of anime titties.

which I'm not even opposed to in principle but: c'mon man.

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

#157

Post by lotsofpulp »

jorblumesea wrote: post #69
lotsofpulp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everyone wants whatever type of government to push the issues they care about. Dems want small government when it comes to marijuana legalization, but also the Federal government should set education curriculum across the entire country or enforce country wide mask mandates. GOP wants states to be able to ban abortions and teach creationism, but chafes at the idea that states could legalize marijuana unilaterally. It…

What does this have to do with Dems? They don't go around advertising themselves as "small government", so they're irrelevant to the discussion.

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

#158

Post by krapp »

samatman wrote: post #156
tokamak-teapot wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

r/animetitties on Reddit is pretty good for news with the US filtered out. Yes the name seems weird - it’s not a joke.

alright, so I took you at your word here. I dunno what I expected: but what I got was a face full of anime titties. which I'm not even opposed to in principle but: c'mon man.

try it with an underscore (anime_titties)

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

#159

Post by cletus »

edbob wrote: post #145
cletus wrote: post #3

I’ll take pointless virtue signaling to moral voters for $100, Alex.

It's neither pointless nor virtue signaling. I'm not Mormon, but it's commonly understood that Utah is an LDS state and follows LDS beliefs.

If only there was a reason state governments couldn’t legislate religious doctrine...

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

#160

Post by falcolas »

octopoc wrote: post #106

> “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 e…

> I'm sure many of us can confirm exposure at such a young age.

Sure. It was a playboy, though. The internet has made it easier, but that shit was trafficked through schools long before the internet was anywhere close to being widely available. Bills and efforts like this will do nothing to change that.

It’s, dare I say, human nature to be curious about the forbidden.

Post reply on HN