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

71–80 of 186 posts

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

#71

Post by Mertax »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #35
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.

Yes, sure, I understand the concern of having children be protected from things they aren't ready for... ...but is the government mandating this the best way to go about it? Is this implementation even sound?

What's the alternative? There seem to be obvious negative externalities which the promulgating industries seem disincentivized to address...seems to be a legitimate basis for government intervention.

*Not necessarily agreeing with the proposed solution here of a mandated approach. Just saying that this may be a situation where government intervention is necessary even if it's just to sponsor public education of options that parents have to protect children.

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

#72

Post by mywittyname »

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 forced to use the government-monopoly program, so there's no incentive to innovate.

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

#73

Post by maxerickson »

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…

Latter-day though.

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

#74

Post by ReactiveJelly »

junipertea wrote: post #63
throwaway803453 wrote: post #47

When I think of my 5 year old nephew and all the threats our world faces, it all seems small compared to the threat he poses to himself. And of those threats smartphone porn-addiction seems the worst. It's like giving every child a pot vape pen or alcohol flask and then wishing them "good luck". Seriously how do parents manage this and is there any young reader that cares to comment on how it affected them? If my hig…

Most of us millennials grew up around near unlimited amount of free online pornography and we turned out pretty functional. It might help a lot to have functioning sex education from parents instead of pretending it does not exist.

And if the parents fail that (as they do), functioning sex education from schools and non-profits is a decent fallback.

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

#75

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

ceejayoz wrote: post #39
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #34

Let’s compare these sets of people: 1. who reacts most strongly to this story about deplatforming porn 2. who reacts most strongly to stories about deplatforming hate speech and incitement And try to figure out if the two groups have different principles about free expression, or perhaps the principles are irrelevant and only function as justifications when convenient for some kind of tribalism.

Government deplatforming and private industry deplatforming are vastly different things, especially at a Constitutional level.

Sure, but there have been proposed laws requiring deplatforming of hate speech, and some have even passed: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/tech/french-hate-speech-socia...

Many keyboards have been worn out debating about the difference between the first amendment and free speech, but can we isolate to one case or the other here and set that issue aside in one thread?

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

#76

Post by lallysingh »

Buttons840 wrote: post #12
anm89 wrote: post #2

Does Utah actually have that much market power? Could manufacturers just stop selling to Utah?

Says five other states must adopt similar laws before it would actually become enforceable law. Still one fantasizes about manufactures simply deciding to not sell cell phones to the entire state.

That's an implicit poison pill. Is any other state doing this? Is there a list of states they hope will join?

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

#77

Post by mzkply »

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.

Growing up in Europe and Quebec, there was (is) softcore on public broadcast TV.

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

#78

Post by Buttons840 »

imwillofficial wrote: post #41
Buttons840 wrote: post #31

> “Because (children) are not developmentally ready to handle [porn], it leads to the problems of depression, anxiety and all the problems that go with that including and up to its most extreme form, suicide ideation and attempts,” Gibson said. Is this true? I have a young child and have a hard time imagining she would view porn as anything other than strange or bad being done by other people. I don't think she would…

This has been shown by quite a few studies. I’ll try to see if I can find some for you.

I grew up Mormon and know that consensual sex between mature adults is often considered to be second only to murder in its "sinfulness". I expect this teaching mixed with accidental porn encounters doesn't help.

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

#80

Post by lotsofpulp »

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…

I don't agree that it's like nicknaming Muslims "Mohammeds" or "Qurans". There already exists a short word to refer to Muslims, which is Muslims.

Mormon is an effective short form of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", which is a mouthful. And sometimes, you might want to refer to a specific type of Christian, such as Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, or in this case, Mormons.

Post reply on HN