8 ms·

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some grou

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
The hilarious part is this only regulates American speakers. If you want to sell Americans porn and ignore the age gate, publish from abroad.
- kevingadd 1y ago
  How will you sell them porn when VISA and Mastercard ban you?
  - galangalalgol 1y ago
    Sepa, pix, ideal, swish? Bitcoin? A debit card from a bank on the us west coast that has state laws forbidding them to comply with laws like Texas'? If your hosting, banking, and residence are in CA, OR, or WA, and there was no discernable intent to target residents of the other state, it seems pretty unlikely anything could happen to you. Just don't take any plane that might get emergency diverted to some other state.
- trehalose 1y ago
  It's only hilarious until they criminalize even looking at such content.
windowshopping 1y ago
Anti-fallacitical?
cmilton 1y ago
While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.
- afavour 1y ago
  The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.
    - kennywinker 1y ago
      Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available? The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will
      - bobalob 1y ago
        [flagged]
        wredcoll 1y ago
        > Many later detransition [Citation needed]
        Diti 1y ago
        A simple web search could have given you the citation. “The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972–2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets” (DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.016). The word “many” is misleading – it’s less than 1 %. It’s not nothing, but it’s low.
delusional 1y ago
This is a slippery slope towards democracy I tell you! Before you know it they'll be asking for representation. Seriously, isn't this sort of par for the course? We've always regulated what minors can access on the internet. Facebook didnt even formally allow children on their site (I don't know if that's still the case). I think it's a much larger issue that we haven't been enforcing those rules, since we apparently think they are a good idea.
pfdietz 1y ago
For example, banning sites that criticize the religion of the mother.
Spivak 1y ago
The slope isn't slippery, it's paved with a Starbucks on the way. This process is outlined in detail in Project 2025 to get around 1A being used as a defense because the aim is to define anything as lgbt related as pornography. The current administration has collected nearly all the pieces of Exodia to be able to legally criminalize homosexuality and transgenderism without ever writing a law that says those exact words and have it be held up as constitutional. I'd say it was clever if it wasn't awful.
- happycube 1y ago
  Yup... this was the plan, they published the plan, certain candidates denied it, and enough of the nation fell for/into it. We'll be about a quarter of the way to the Chinese Internet by 2029.
aaplok 1y ago
> some group of middle age mothers With all due respect this comes across as mysoginic and ageist. It is also quite unnecessary to your point. Especially because middle aged women aren't the most powerful lobby in the US by any stretch.
- ironmagma 1y ago
  That seems more like your interpretation of it; it’s merely an objective descriptor of the identity group in the same way that “straight white males” is.
  - aaplok 1y ago
    I did not mean that the words "middle age mothers" are mysoginic or ageist in themselves. I was referring to the singling out of this particular identity group within the context of OP's message. I should have quoted a longer part of that message for better clarity. I incorrectly assumed that my full comment was enough to contextualise what I meant.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  Moms for Liberty makes this their identity
mystraline 1y ago
[flagged]
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  [flagged]
Aeolun 1y ago
Only for sites hosted in the US. They’ll still be able to access Russian content on the matter of course. The land of the free web.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  roskomnadzor
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

The hilarious part is this only regulates American speakers. If you want to sell Americans porn and ignore the age gate, publish from abroad.

kevingadd 1y ago
How will you sell them porn when VISA and Mastercard ban you?
- galangalalgol 1y ago
  Sepa, pix, ideal, swish? Bitcoin? A debit card from a bank on the us west coast that has state laws forbidding them to comply with laws like Texas'? If your hosting, banking, and residence are in CA, OR, or WA, and there was no discernable intent to target residents of the other state, it seems pretty unlikely anything could happen to you. Just don't take any plane that might get emergency diverted to some other state.
trehalose 1y ago
It's only hilarious until they criminalize even looking at such content.

windowshopping 1y ago

Anti-fallacitical?

cmilton 1y ago

While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.

afavour 1y ago
The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available? The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will
    - bobalob 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - wredcoll 1y ago
        > Many later detransition [Citation needed]
        Diti 1y ago
        A simple web search could have given you the citation. “The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972–2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets” (DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.016). The word “many” is misleading – it’s less than 1 %. It’s not nothing, but it’s low.

delusional 1y ago

This is a slippery slope towards democracy I tell you! Before you know it they'll be asking for representation. Seriously, isn't this sort of par for the course? We've always regulated what minors can access on the internet. Facebook didnt even formally allow children on their site (I don't know if that's still the case). I think it's a much larger issue that we haven't been enforcing those rules, since we apparently think they are a good idea.

pfdietz 1y ago

For example, banning sites that criticize the religion of the mother.

Spivak 1y ago

The slope isn't slippery, it's paved with a Starbucks on the way. This process is outlined in detail in Project 2025 to get around 1A being used as a defense because the aim is to define anything as lgbt related as pornography. The current administration has collected nearly all the pieces of Exodia to be able to legally criminalize homosexuality and transgenderism without ever writing a law that says those exact words and have it be held up as constitutional. I'd say it was clever if it wasn't awful.

happycube 1y ago
Yup... this was the plan, they published the plan, certain candidates denied it, and enough of the nation fell for/into it. We'll be about a quarter of the way to the Chinese Internet by 2029.

aaplok 1y ago

> some group of middle age mothers With all due respect this comes across as mysoginic and ageist. It is also quite unnecessary to your point. Especially because middle aged women aren't the most powerful lobby in the US by any stretch.

ironmagma 1y ago
That seems more like your interpretation of it; it’s merely an objective descriptor of the identity group in the same way that “straight white males” is.
- aaplok 1y ago
  I did not mean that the words "middle age mothers" are mysoginic or ageist in themselves. I was referring to the singling out of this particular identity group within the context of OP's message. I should have quoted a longer part of that message for better clarity. I incorrectly assumed that my full comment was enough to contextualise what I meant.
heavyset_go 1y ago
Moms for Liberty makes this their identity

mystraline 1y ago

[flagged]

dragonwriter 1y ago
[flagged]

Aeolun 1y ago

Only for sites hosted in the US. They’ll still be able to access Russian content on the matter of course. The land of the free web.

throwaway48476 1y ago
roskomnadzor

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]