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

Fight Chat Control

fightchatcontrol.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#391

Post by IshKebab »

ost-ing wrote: post #390
IshKebab wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. That's not common knowledge or true. Most of the population watches porn. Where's the harm? > pornography is not representative of real relationships No shit. Next you'll be te…

Love it when you make a statement that porn isnt harmful without referencing any studies, and then demand studies for people to prove it is harmful. You are the one who made the original claim that its not harmful, the burden of proof is on you.

Err yeah because everything is harmful by default...

Re: Fight Chat Control

#392

Post by H8crilA »

the_gipsy wrote: post #319
zdragnar wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That larger point deserves its own thread. My newest pet peeve is someone jumping into the middle of a conversation with the equivalent of "I don't care about what you're talking about. What I want to talk about is more important". Oh look, now you've got me doing it to you. Drat.

Welcome to Internet Comments.

The larger point is that being within a community is quite important, whether you realize it or not.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#393

Post by Habgdnv »

IshKebab wrote: post #320
steve_taylor wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally support age verification for porn. However, age verification for almost anything else, e.g. Reddit, is a terrible idea.

Yeah I think you have it backwards. I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn, but social networks regularly fuck teenagers up. I definitely would prefer my children to watch porn than get bullied - or worse - on social media. There's also the fact that I vaguely trust Facebook or Reddit to do a credit card-based age check or whatever. No way I'm giving any of my details to porn sites. Stupid d…

I keep seeing people mentioning credit cards as a mean to verify one's age. My daughter is 11, but she have her own card with her own name since at least one year.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#394

Post by graemep »

alerighi wrote: post #313
ngruhn wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk age restricting Instagram, TikTok etc. might be good for teenagers mental health.

If the parents want they can restrict their usage. I prefer to monitor and teach my children how to use technology properly, and that also includes of course sex education because it's not by banning porn sites till they are 18+ that you solve the issue to me, but by educating. Unfortunately we have among sex and other things still the mentality of 1900, except that today most 18 year old already lost their virginity…

> Unfortunately we have among sex and other things still the mentality of 1900, except that today most 18 year old already lost their virginity, and he can't watch porn?

I think there are good arguments for claiming porn is more harmful than actual sex at that age, or at least some types or porn.

I agree that if the aim of the legislation was really to stop kids watching porn it would be better served by making it mandatory for ISPs to provide filtered connections for households with minors and filtered SIM cards for minors.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#395

Post by amelius »

rkomorn wrote: post #178
ryankrage77 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maximum of one year or more If the max is one year, it can't be more?

It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year". At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

How would you have read it if it said "with a maximum of one year"?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#396

Post by wizzwizz4 »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #383
IshKebab wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pretty common knowledge that pornography is not representative of real relationships, and because it's not actually emotionally satisfying, it takes regular consumers down a rabbit hole of increasingly extreme, vile and obscure content. That's not common knowledge or true. Most of the population watches porn. Where's the harm? > pornography is not representative of real relationships No shit. Next you'll be te…

"In talking to the subjects, researchers discovered that high exposure to pornography videos apparently resulted in lower responsivity and an increased need for more extreme, specialized or “k+++y” material to become aroused."[1] This effect can be clearly seen in that pornography websites promote this extreme, vile and obscure content, such as incest, exhibitionism, and even depictions of non-consensual interaction…

I'm not sure why legislators aren't trying to address [2], which is the real problem as far as I can tell.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#397

Post by raverbashing »

lucideer wrote: post #219
throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

While this is a specifically awful article, for obvious reasons, I find the idea of encoding specifics on carceral terms into any EU-level directive a bizarre overstep.

Yes it is and it would be very weird (to say the least) to have a criminal provision in such proposal

Re: Fight Chat Control

#398

Post by bigfudge »

H8crilA wrote: post #232
rkomorn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year". At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

This is correct. But the larger point is that even 1 minute of jail time for such "crimes" is unacceptable.

You might not like this law (and I'm agnostic on it) but I think the principle that individuals should be held accountable when laws are broken is important. Otherwise we just have token fines and corporate non-compliance because the risks don't outweigh the potential financial benefits.

I think people at Experian should have gone to jail, for example, for their incompetence and negligence in regards data breaches.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#399

Post by raverbashing »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #62
realusername wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France is just very regressive when it comes to the internet, any laws which can make the situation worse is usually voted by all parties (see neighbouring rights or any anti-piracy laws), I don't think there's any real reasoning.

The country is predominantly Catholic. So both prudish views on sexual content, but also wanting to pretend sexual abuse by priests in their religion, and their religion protecting those priests, isn't the problem - nope, it's the interwebs creating child abusers. That is coupled with racist fear of terrorist attacks being committed by the African and middle eastern immigrant populations. Sure are a lot of white elep…

I don't think even Chatgpt or Grok could get it this wrong

Re: Fight Chat Control

#400

Post by torginus »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #126

Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups. The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating po…

EU is like:

We will protect your sensitive personal documents so that only trusted government institutions and ones held to the highest standards of privacy (such as banks) may have access to it. This is to prevent abuse and identity theft.

Also please upload them to BigBootyXXX.com if you want to have a wank

Post reply on HN