Live data from Hacker News

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

Post reply on HN

Print view View original

171–180 of 186 posts

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

#171

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:11 AM UTC

edbob wrote: post #142

dragonwriter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 includin…

I think I know why you're saying that, but at least in Texas most people who identify as Christian aren't really aware of the differences between groups. If one believes that Jesus is God, it doesn't matter if they even go to church at all, or if they go to evangelical or Catholic services. It's all considered Christian, and social circles often include people from vastly different denominations.

[deleted]

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

#172

Post by pseudalopex » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:12 AM UTC

edbob wrote: post #167

pseudalopex wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Christian groups don't focus on converting other Christian groups. That doesn't mean they don't know the difference between Catholic and Protestant.

Sure, but they are mostly seen as superficial differences that people don't much care about in practice. One might not want to go to Mass because they prefer the style of a modern evangelical service, but they couldn't care less if you go to Mass and have no interest in converting you to their style. As an example, Catholics who move to a new area might start attending a Methodist church because of the similarities i…

Let's just say we know different Christians.

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

#173

Post by tonymet » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

I'm not for censorship, but we do need privately run, aggressive porn controls. It's an addictive substance. And like drugs, the supply side is even more insidious.

The tech industry should work harder to provide market-driven porn controls so gov't doesn't have to heavy-hand censorship.

Social media are the largest distributors of porn and offer free marketing to porn sites (e.g. freebies for onlyfans). Open the "explore / trending" page and in 2 clicks you will be on a porn site – massive free porn traffic (worth billions).

Considering only the demand side is selfish and short-sighted. There's way more harm on the supply side, even among what we like to sugar coat as "voluntary" creators.

How should we feel about a world where porn is the best opportunity for 18-25 y/o women? Every time you check out porn , you are enabling that world.

https://nofap.com/

Block porn from your home network with pihole https://pi-hole.net/

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

#174

Post by Isinlor » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

IMO the exact opposite is needed i.e. normalization of sexuality.

Parents should not be afraid to talk to their children about sex and how sex relates to pornography.

The best safeguard against dangers is education of children. And this is only possible in a culture where adults are not afraid to mention the word "sex".

Children can and sooner or later will have to be their own filters of the world.

Otherwise you are creating a bubble that will pop at some point and your kid will be without tools to handle it, and without someone to ask for advice.

A kid or a teenager will know that sex is a taboo that you do not mention with adults.

The same applies to alcohol, cigarettes, eating habits, body image etc. It needs to be talked about.

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

#175

Post by gremlinsinc » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

wegs wrote: post #105

lotsofpulp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I live in Cedar City. Down here everybody hates Mitt. Few for the right reasons (like his 47% comments about the middle class/low class), most because this is Trump country and he's not one of "them".

Church has been out of session a long time so a lot of the Mormons (I'm exmo btw) I guess flocked to QAnon as a replacement for religion during the pandemic?

Somebody's grandpa was checking me out at the register at a small grocer and said "did you see it" all excitedly about the Trump parades going around town. Not like I could miss them circling the entire city for two weeks straight - that being just the first day of it.

There's some romney conservatives I'm sure in Utah, but there's so many Trump ones now too that I don't even think Mitt will win the primary in 2026.

If he really was bi-partisan though why not support ending the filibuster? I mean if he wants to deal with democrats and be a cross-the-aisle kind of politician he kind of needs to offer an olive leaf. Him and Murkowski could do a lot together as conservatives with a new plan to keep the party conservative but still reach across for some social progress.

Like the stimulus plan and ending the filibuster would give him big rapport with a lot of senate democrats who'd be more willing to co-sponsor bills with him. That's how we could fix Washington, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

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

#176

Post by gkfasdfasdf » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #72

gkfasdfasdf wrote: post #23

I understand the HN crowd may take issue with this, but the ease at which a child can stumble onto pornography or adult content is really scary. Even with google safe search, etc enabled. Growing up watching television in the US, you couldn't see topless women on public broadcast TV, let alone hardcore pornography.

Parents have lots of tools to prevent children from accessing harmful content. Government-mandated filters are the worst way to tackle this problem. It gives parents a false sense of security, and everyone will focus on bypassing it. So all the parents think their kids are "protected" when they aren't, since every kid has a friend who can show them how to bypass it. And then it kills the industry because everyone is…

The problem is there are no good tools to filter internet content. They are a) imperfect and b) filter out lots of perfectly good content or breaking parts of the web. Using twitter with the Google safe search dns for example is a pain, certain image hosting domains are blocked all together.

It seems there is really no strong disincentive for sites to censor themselves or be amenable to censoring.

Surprisingly though, reddit seems to actually be leading the way with stricter nsfw tagging and requiring login to enable. Maybe a trend others will follow.

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

#177

Post by mandragon » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

wait_a_minute wrote: post #169

mandragon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this affect other states? Isn't this legislation specific to Utah?

We already know what the real goal is. It's theocracy. While I fundamentally believe all religions are true, I don't want to live under any theocracy at all.

Not seeing such a slippery slope. And again, isn't this specific to Utah only? May I ask if you live in Utah?

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

#178

Post by gremlinsinc » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

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…

Actually it's not. I used to be Mormon. (At least it didn't use to be for a long time).

President Monson even ran an ad campaign called "I'm a Mormon".

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/-i-m-a-morm...

Of course his successor is trying to erase all of that by banning even using LDS ... now you must say they're a "Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"

There was a time when we simply preferred to be LDS, then we started embracing Mormon cause that's what people called us anyways so might as well go with it if it allowed opportunities to proselyte/teach the gospel etc...

I left the church in 2017 though after reading https://cesletter.com it woke me up to just how much of a cult the church is, and how white-washed their history is...

I was taught by my Bishop an ex member of the seventy that Joseph Translated the bible by using an ancient Urim and Thumim device in a breastplate with seer stones.

Church now admits nope: He used a stone he found digging a well, dropped it in a hat and put his head over the hat.

There's also too many similarities with The book of Mormon and other similar books of that time like "The Late War".

A good comparison can be found here: http://wordtree.org/thelatewar/

Anyhow, I think the new "rules" about ditching LDS, Latter-day Saints, and Mormon nomenclature at every chance came out iirc around 2017-18 it was after I had my membership removed... My wife's still a member but she's a lot less believing especially after how the church didn't really come out very strong in favor of protecting people from the pandemic and re-opened a lot of wards.

The prophet was a cardiologist he could've done more to persuade the members to wear masks but did not.

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

#179

Post by gremlinsinc » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #152

umvi wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Exmormon here, and op is full of it. We used to call ourselves mormon for a long time, and many of my friends still active were like whatever I'll disregard that "commandment" to not use Mormon as a term... I mean there's still a pro-mormon subreddit called mormon, and until 2016 the church had mormon.org with multiple people sharing their testimonies using the phrase "I'm a mormon".

This is just a corporatocracy trying to "rebrand" under new management. Nothing more.

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

#180

Post by lallysingh » Sat, Mar 06, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #112

lallysingh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which government and which people? The link's about French laws. The parent article is a state in the USA. Different beliefs in many areas.

Ok, if a law that passed in France isn’t relevant, let’s look at proposals from politicians in the US: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/3/20965459/t... I enjoy splitting hairs too, but I feel that the distinction between government and platform authority, and Europe and US law, would be used by either side of the porn-deplatforming-supporter and hate-speech-deplatforming-supporter dichotomy when conven…

That link is more relevant. I don't mean to split hairs. Different nations (cultures? belief systems?) will feel differently about them and make different decisions. I don't think that a discussion that doesn't separate them out will end up anywhere productive.

Post reply on HN