7 ms·

This is a barrier put in place so that children are less likely to casually access these sites while they're browsing around. As an adult, no-one is forcing yo

• const_cast 1y ago
  Right, so you're admitting what we already know to be true: it's censorship. Now, I can get behind some censorship if it's for very good reasons. As soon as it's for moralistic reasons, you've lost me. This is a morality law. Morality laws are bad, period. We need real, concrete reasons for blocking content and enforcing censorship - not morality. Why not? Because morals change from person to person and throughout history. What an evangelical thinks is moral is different from what I think is moral. If the internet existed during times of slavery, would they have censored websites addressing freedom because it is "immoral"? In my mind, yes. That's a problem with the entire thought process. So, we should throw the thought process out. I don't know what the future holds in 10 years, 20 years, 30. I don't want to be bound to laws that rely solely on morality. That's just asking for trouble. I mean, even just the word "pornography" is a moral footgun. Who defines that? Because a large portion of the US believes anything containing homosexuals is automatically pornographic, regardless of the material.
  • aaaja 1y ago
    Proving one's age is required for many other activities that are considered unsuitable for children, such as purchasing alcohol and drugs, and watching age-restricted films in the cinema. Of course this means that any adult, when challenged, who refuses to show ID as proof of age, will be denied service. But again that refusal is their choice. They voluntarily refrained from complying with the access requirements. How is this substantially different to an adult refusing to show ID to access an age-restricted website?
    • const_cast 1y ago
      The internet is already blocked by age. In order to order internet service, you must be an adult, and you must prove it by showing papers, such as residence and pay stubs. Once the service or good is sold, all bets are off. The clerk at the corner store might ask for your ID to buy alcohol, yes. But they do not follow you home to ensure you don't give wine to your kid. And, if they did, would you be comfortable with that? I think no. Why not? Privacy. I don't want a random clerk watching me every time I decide to drink or smoke. It's a violation of my privacy. So, privacy - there's your answer, that's the difference.
      • aaaja 1y ago
        The internet is not blocked by age. Any child with a laptop or phone, or any other device that can connect to a wifi hotspot, can access it. Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched? Age-restricted websites are no different. You can comply with the access requirement, or refrain from using the service. It's your freedom of choice. No-one is forcing you to watch 18-rated films at the cinema, or purchase alcohol or drugs, or view pornographic material online. If you don't like the requirement to prove your age by presenting some form of ID, then all you need to do is voluntarily refrain from these and any other age-restricted activities.
        • bmandale 1y ago
          Public wifi near universally implements porn blocks in the first place. I can't imagine there would be much chagrin about promoting that into a law. > Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched? I can't imagine that there aren't many people who refrain from watching all sorts of content in public out of privacy concerns. >If you don't like the requirement to prove your age by presenting some form of ID, then all you need to do is voluntarily refrain from these and any other age-restricted activities. I certainly don't, and I would definitely oppose this being made into law.
        • TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
• sigwinch 1y ago
  You should read the article.