Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

mastodon.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 300 posts

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#261

Post by elestor »

scotty79 wrote: post #206
elestor wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it makes a lot of sense. It likely encourages pedophilia, meaning people that consume such things will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay. It's similar to the way that regular porn affects the brain. I understand where you're coming from, though and I get your point, but I feel if someone consumes a lot of media of a certain type, they begin to 'embody' that media. Just don't goon.

> It likely encourages pedophilia Throught the same mechanism that violent games encourage violence, I presume? Porn became abundant over last two decades and somehow people are having less sex than ever. There are many clues that those kinds of things work in the completely opposite way than you imagine. I hate that it exists. I hate that there are people who are seeking this. But I also hate when people state confi…

I know what you mean, but do you not agree that if someone is, let's say, on the point of becoming a pedophile, discovers such media, it will become more and more of what they think about, and what one thinks about determines their actions.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#262

Post by elestor »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #217
elestor wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it makes a lot of sense. It likely encourages pedophilia, meaning people that consume such things will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay. It's similar to the way that regular porn affects the brain. I understand where you're coming from, though and I get your point, but I feel if someone consumes a lot of media of a certain type, they begin to 'embody' that media. Just don't goon.

> It likely encourages pedophilia It's like saying that pictures of gay people encourages homosexuality

Of course pictures of gay people doesn't encourage being gay, but being gay is fine. Being a pedophile is not fine. If there is even a small chance that something will cause someone to be a pedophile, it's best to minimize it. We aren't talking about pictures of pedophiles, we are talking about what is, in essence, child pornography. Maybe 'encourages pedophilia' is not a thorough enough way to phrase it, but a 'dormant' pedophile is much more likely to become an 'active' one if they are consuming excessive amounts of media related to their interests.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#263

Post by dragonwriter »

elestor wrote: post #261
scotty79 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It likely encourages pedophilia Throught the same mechanism that violent games encourage violence, I presume? Porn became abundant over last two decades and somehow people are having less sex than ever. There are many clues that those kinds of things work in the completely opposite way than you imagine. I hate that it exists. I hate that there are people who are seeking this. But I also hate when people state confi…

I know what you mean, but do you not agree that if someone is, let's say, on the point of becoming a pedophile, discovers such media, it will become more and more of what they think about, and what one thinks about determines their actions.

I don’t think there is any evidence that there is a state meaningfully denoted by “on the point of becoming a pedophile” which can be tipped by exposure to media in that way, no.

To be fair, understanding of the etiology of pedophilia is not super strong, but what there is doesn't, AFAIK, seem to support the kind of naive media-driven modelling that people like to apply to all kinds of behavior (Satanic Panic approach to D&D, Columbine and violent video games, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.)

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#264

Post by Jigsy »

elestor wrote: post #262
TiredOfLife wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It likely encourages pedophilia It's like saying that pictures of gay people encourages homosexuality

Of course pictures of gay people doesn't encourage being gay, but being gay is fine. Being a pedophile is not fine. If there is even a small chance that something will cause someone to be a pedophile, it's best to minimize it. We aren't talking about pictures of pedophiles, we are talking about what is, in essence, child pornography. Maybe 'encourages pedophilia' is not a thorough enough way to phrase it, but a 'dorm…

> Being a pedophile is not fine.

You're not equating pedophilia with child abuse, are you? Because having an attraction to children (pedophilia) isn't in itself a crime.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#265

Post by Jigsy »

elestor wrote: post #260
ranyume wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay I wonder who gets to decide what's okay.

Basic morality and human rights

How is it moral to claim "Murdering people (in fiction) is fine," then?

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#266

Post by cosmic_cheese »

brabel wrote: post #208
pfortuny wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem lies on the wide margin of interpretation those laws give the police. 50kph is a number. "Sexualized drawings of children" is certainly open to discussion.

I remember the scandal when an American Apparel ad depicted a young woman in a thong. People were outraged because she looked minor. In fact, she was 21 years old. I wonder if people think she shouldn’t get any jobs modeling lingerie just because she appears to be underage. To be clear, the ad had nothing to suggest underage girls, just a girl in a thong which I hope everyone agrees does not have any connection to be…

The "height of consent" is a topic that's been circulating among petite women online lately. A lot of people (mostly in western countries) seem to be of the mind that if women don't exceed a certain stature and level of buxomness, they're not an adult (or at least, shouldn't be treated as one), which is directly at odds with the hundreds of millions of women who live out their entire lives never making it past 5'4"/1.63m and/or never developing a shapely figure.

In these online discussions, the affected women express frustration with constant infantilization, being treated as adolescents even well into their 40s, ranging from suspicious glares when in public with their partners to being told that they should never marry because by doing so they'd being enabling deleterious tendencies, which is pretty screwed up.

On the flip side, girls who develop unusually early have historically been treated as if they were adults, which is also extremely screwed up and has resulted in a lot of trauma that routinely gets swept under the rug.

The west has some really weird ideas and hangups that they need to work through. How about treating people their actual age instead of using their physical appearance as a proxy?

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#267

Post by Sharlin »

blain wrote: post #177
LtWorf wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're usually liberals, so right wing but they don't specifically hate homosexuals.

> They're usually liberals The irony. Aside from that I also thought EU is more left than right wing right now. Nothing what they try to push this term of office seems right wing to me.

The EU is definitely more right than left after the last election. The Commission in particular, though it seems they're always more right-wing than the Parliament. As we speak they're watering down all sorts of regulations beneficial to the common citizen but inconvenient to the corporations, and the "moderate" right is now openly threatening to ally, or downright allying, with the far right in various right-wing matters in order to get them passed.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#268

Post by Dylan16807 »

LtWorf wrote: post #186
Dylan16807 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a couple unreasonable restrictions like that in some places. It's not what caused the vast majority of complaints.

Yes yes everyone except you is stupid.

You're making some big jumps in guessing my thoughts and those jumps are wrong.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#269

Post by TehCorwiz »

There’s a common theme in the US to declare the existence of gay and trans people to be child abuse. Yes, existence. Like, telling a child gay people exist if they ask.

But the whole “think of the children” schlock has always been a power grab. Otherwise we’d start by eliminating child poverty which is a huge factor in the level of actual abuse they receive.

Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt

#270

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #242
FpUser wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"It can in certain circumstances encourage..." Anything can be bad in "certain circumstances". They should go get busy with some real crime.

> Anything can be bad in "certain circumstances" Can it? In the same way? It feels like your argument comes down to handwaving. Circumstantial law is hardly a novel thing.

> Can it? In the same way? It feels like your argument comes down to handwaving. Circumstantial law is hardly a novel thing.

I think that was their point: your argument seems handwavey, because anything can be bad "in certain circumstances".

Hold the door for someone? Seems nice. But you could be insulting them by doing so. Or letting a virus in by having the door open too long. Or wasting energy and contributing to climate change by letting the conditioned air out. Indeed, under certain circumstances, it's bad.

Post reply on HN