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

411–420 of 528 posts

Re: Fight Chat Control

#411

Post by lan321 »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #347
IshKebab wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn That's disingenuous and false. 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. Take a guess what that does to a developing teenager, essentially being educated…

That's a weird spin on it. Young people are curious. They watch weird porn out of curiosity, the same way they watch gore. Hiding it isn't going to do them any favours. They'll get it from sketchier places instead. I know the generation before mine often went to trashy hookers way underage, with group collected money, to lose their V card, for example.

Where I'm from, it's a pretty common saying that sex is for prestige and a wank is for joy. Of course, a relationship doesn't primarily consist of your stepsister getting stuck in the dryer, running a 10-man train on your loved one, or whatever else. Even kids aren't that stupid.

It can lead to issues with your thing not being attracted to people you don't find attractive, since you're not desperate, but the opposite is, in my opinion, worse. Many good men and women have fallen for dogshit relationships with mediocre sex out of fear of no sex(ual outlet).

Re: Fight Chat Control

#412

Post by immibis »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #347
IshKebab wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn That's disingenuous and false. 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. Take a guess what that does to a developing teenager, essentially being educated…

As the other user said, plenty of people stated that porn is harmful but none have actually been able to back up their claims.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#413

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

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.

> you make a statement that porn isnt harmful

They did not state that porn is not harmful.

> I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn

Why should they need to reference a study to show the veracity of that statement?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#414

Post by immibis »

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.

Their side isn't the one trying to ban things. If you want to ban something you have to prove it's harmful. If you don't want to ban something you just have to call out that the other side has to prove it's harmful before they can ban it. It's like how you don't have to prove your innocence against a criminal conviction, merely provoke reasonable doubt (in theory).

Re: Fight Chat Control

#415

Post by circlefavshape »

Svip wrote: post #357
NoboruWataya wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The positive intentional act, I guess, is disseminating the material. Proving intent and various ancillary concepts like knowledge, etc, are the bread and butter of prosecutors, so I don't think the act would be as difficult to enforce as you suggest. Sure, there might be corner cases where you can say "oops I forgot to password protect that Dropbox link" but certainly porn websites that don't do age verification wil…

Which leads to my next questions: What is pornography material? Do drawings qualify? What about text? What about softcore pornography? What about a non-profit outfit? What is the amount of pornography material I need to have for it to be considered disseminating? Someone uploads a few suggestive fan art drawings to my niche bulletin board and now I am liable for a year in jail?

A judge will decide the above. That's how the law works

Re: Fight Chat Control

#416

Post by circlefavshape »

lan321 wrote: post #411
uyzstvqs wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think anyone has demonstrated any actual harms from porn That's disingenuous and false. 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. Take a guess what that does to a developing teenager, essentially being educated…

That's a weird spin on it. Young people are curious. They watch weird porn out of curiosity, the same way they watch gore. Hiding it isn't going to do them any favours. They'll get it from sketchier places instead. I know the generation before mine often went to trashy hookers way underage, with group collected money, to lose their V card, for example. Where I'm from, it's a pretty common saying that sex is for prest…

> where I'm from, it's a pretty common saying that sex is for prestige and a wank is for joy.

!!!

Where are you from?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#417

Post by miroljub »

As much as we are fighting Chat Control, we also need a plan B. What do we do if EU regime really enact it? Which messengers could we use then? What were the practical alternatives?

Self hosted, decentralized, encrypted, standard based, ... , the only thing that comes to mind is something like delta.chat for texts, which builds upon a standard mail protocol.

Can we do something better than that?

Re: Fight Chat Control

#418

Post by mvieira38 »

josh2600 wrote: post #184

This is actually one of the major fights of our generation. If signal/whatsapp/e2ee are desecrated, only criminals will have encryption for a short period of time until we all come to our senses and realize that some semblance of personal privacy is a human right. IMHO, we should fight for the maximum amount of privacy possible within the context of a civil society. In every generation there is a battle, sometimes qu…

> "whatsapp"

Please don't include it in this conversation. That app is spyware and collects enough metadata on you for actual conversations not to matter, proven by them being bold enough to introduce personalized advertising inside the "e2ee" app

Re: Fight Chat Control

#419

Post by miroljub »

Disposal8433 wrote: post #9

I'm French and every idiot supports it, even the so-called left. There is nothing I can do except donate money every month to GrapheneOS ( https://grapheneos.org/donate ). Democracy is dead for me.

These so called left are as left as original national socialists. They share pretty much same views of state, security, country, media, ... they just want total control.

And that applies to all parties that call themselves left, regardless of a country.

Re: Fight Chat Control

#420

Post by miroljub »

msgodel wrote: post #386
josh2600 wrote: post #184

This is actually one of the major fights of our generation. If signal/whatsapp/e2ee are desecrated, only criminals will have encryption for a short period of time until we all come to our senses and realize that some semblance of personal privacy is a human right. IMHO, we should fight for the maximum amount of privacy possible within the context of a civil society. In every generation there is a battle, sometimes qu…

It sounds to me like the Europeans need to have an actual fight (that is with bullets and artillery) with this weird EU pseudo government thing. It sounds like a loss for them to me.

Many Europeans just wait for the Russia to come and save us from the totalitarian regimes once again.
Post reply on HN