Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday February 16 2023, @07:03PM   Printer-friendly

Opponents say laws preventing underage porn access are vague, pose privacy risks:

After decades of America fretting over minors potentially being overexposed to pornography online, several states are suddenly moving fast in 2023 to attempt to keep kids off porn sites by passing laws requiring age verification.

Last month, Louisiana became the first state to require an ID from residents to access pornography online. Since then, seven states have rushed to follow in Louisiana's footsteps. According to a tracker from Free Speech Coalition, Florida, Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia introduced similar laws, and laws in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Virginia are seemingly closest to passing. If passed, some of these laws could be enforced promptly, while some bills in states like Florida and Mississippi specify that they wouldn't take effect until July.

But not every state agrees that rushing to require age verification is the best solution. Today, a South Dakota committee voted to defer voting on its age verification bill until the last day of the legislative session. The bill's sponsor, Republican Jessica Castleberry, seemingly failed to persuade the committee of the urgency of passing the law, saying at the hearing that "this is not your daddy's Playboy. Extreme, degrading, and violent pornography is only one click away from our children." She told Ars that the bill was not passed because some state lawmakers were too "easily swayed by powerful lobbyists."

"It's a travesty that unfettered access to pornography by minors online will continue in South Dakota because of lobbyists protecting the interests of their clients, versus legislators who should be protecting our children," Castleberry told Ars. "The time to pass this bill was in the mid-1990s."

Lobbyists opposing the bill at the hearing represented telecommunications and newspaper associations. Although the South Dakota bill, like the Louisiana law, exempted news organizations, one lobbyist, Justin Smith, an attorney for the South Dakota Newspaper Association, argued that the law was too vague in how it defined harmful content and how it defined which commercial entities could be subjected to liabilities.

"We just have to be careful before we put things like this into law with all of these open-ended questions that put our South Dakota businesses at risk," Smith said at the hearing. "We would ask you to defeat the bill in its current form."

These laws work by requiring age verification of all users, imposing damages on commercial entities found to be neglecting required age verification and distributing content to minors online that has been deemed to be inappropriate. The laws target online destinations where more than a third of the content is considered harmful to minors. Opponents in South Dakota anticipated that states that pass these laws, as Louisiana has, will struggle to "regulate the entire Internet." In Arkansas, violating content includes "actual, simulated, or animated displays" of body parts like nipples or genitals, touching or fondling of such body parts, as well as sexual acts like "intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions," or other sex acts deemed to have no "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to minors."

When Louisiana's law took effect last month, Ars verified how major porn sites like Pornhub quickly complied. It seems likely that if new laws are passed in additional states, popular sites will be prepared to implement additional controls to block regional access to minors.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 16 2023, @07:12PM (8 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Thursday February 16 2023, @07:12PM (#1292046) Homepage Journal

    And I'm looking at you, parents.

    Be a parent and monitor your kids' 'net usage.

    Don't push your responsibilities off on the state government!

    What I find most amusing about the whole thing is that those who run the states looking at/passing such legislation are the first ones to proclaim that they're for "getting the government off your back!"

    Hypocrisy writ large. And more's the pity.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:10PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:10PM (#1292052) Journal

      Preventing businesses from dumping carcinogens into the local rive: NANNY STATE!

      A government mandated version of software that's literally called Net Nanny: FREEDOM!

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday February 17 2023, @04:47AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @04:47AM (#1292120) Journal

        Preventing businesses from dumping carcinogens into the local rive: NANNY STATE!

        As long as we make sure everyone is above 18 years of age when they're dumping carcinogens into the local river, then we're good.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by crafoo on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:23PM

      by crafoo (6639) on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:23PM (#1292062)

      Don't push your responsibilities off on the state government!

      and here I am like a sucker paying federal taxes so single mothers can raise criminals and rapists

      hmmmm there must be another way. It wasn't always like this.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 17 2023, @03:44AM (3 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 17 2023, @03:44AM (#1292115)

      Also, bear in mind that there's little actual evidence that kids are harmed in any way by seeing pr0n, and even less evidence that they're harmed by seeing nudity. The alleged innocence of kids usually lives in the minds of their parents more than anywhere else.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @06:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @06:22AM (#1292129)

        I see much more murder, mayhem, and just pure wanton destructiveness, often done by respectable ( looking ) people on the public news.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday February 17 2023, @04:09PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @04:09PM (#1292180) Journal

        Also bare in mind whether pr0n is more harmful to kids than having their schools turned into shooting galleries. Watching their friends die. A kid saying I wiped my dead friend's blood on me and pretended to be dead. (Uvalde)

        We must protect the kids from pr0n!

        Again I must say it is interesting how other countries don't seem to have a big problem with school shootings, or mass shootings in general? If only we could figure out why that is?

        Think of the children!

        Computers could be mandated to have credit card reader devices as standard equipment. I used an older computer and tried putting my credit card into the floppy drive slot, but it would not accept it for payment.

        --
        If we tell conservatives that the climate is transitioning, they will work to stop it.
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 18 2023, @10:57PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Saturday February 18 2023, @10:57PM (#1292464) Homepage Journal

        Also, bear in mind that there's little actual evidence that kids are harmed in any way by seeing pr0n, and even less evidence that they're harmed by seeing nudity. The alleged innocence of kids usually lives in the minds of their parents more than anywhere else.

        Sorry for the late response. You won't get any argument about that from me.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by helel on Friday February 17 2023, @02:55PM

      by helel (2949) on Friday February 17 2023, @02:55PM (#1292169)

      For the fascist hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. Their ability to force you to submit to their lies is a sign of their power. It's the same way with their entire platform, from declaring that we must balance the budget while they create trillions in deficit to declaring that democrats are the "real racists" while they ban books about the holocaust and teaching that slavery was a thing that happened.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @07:44PM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @07:44PM (#1292050)

    Instead of "Seven States Push to Require ID for Watching Porn Online", the title should read "Seven States to see an uptick in VPN usage".

    I thought those seven states were ruled by the "get tha gubment off mah lawn, I do what I want and fuck everything else" party...? The american taliban strikes again!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:15PM (16 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:15PM (#1292053) Journal

      Unwilling to get a vaccine because of imaginary government tracking chips but willing to register all their internet traffic with that same government in order to watch porn. God Bless America!!

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by XivLacuna on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:44PM (12 children)

        by XivLacuna (6346) on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:44PM (#1292054)

        Unwilling to get a vaccine because it skipped safety testing, was rushed by Orange Man Bad, and pretty much impossible to ever work because of how Corona viruses frequently mutate. 5G tracking chip rumors is just hogwash spread by Branch Covidians to belittle the heretics who don't revere Saint Fauci.

        Freedom of speech on the internet was destroyed by the deplatforming of Andrew Anglin's Daily Stormer over making jokes about Heather Heyer's death at Charlottesville. The Daily Stormer is still on the internet but has greatly lost reach through the deplatforming efforts. If freedom of speech on the internet no longer exists, we can force local ISPs and even domain registrars to either block the DNS or revoke the domain of porn sites that do not comply with this regulation.

        They won't be able to get rid of pornography but they will be able to practically force it on to TOR where people will struggle to download their porn JPEGs. The reach of porn will be greatly diminished.

        All of these porn sites already have analytics and know who you are, what your preferences are, and are willing to sell it to anyone willing to pay.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:18PM (8 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:18PM (#1292061) Homepage Journal

          The Daily Stormer is still on the internet but has greatly lost reach through the deplatforming efforts.

          We're all (including the scumbags you mention) entitled to free speech. And since those particular pieces of shit are still around, their free speech rights are not being infringed.

          But we're (all of us, not just Nazis) not entitled to an audience. Or a metaphorical megaphone.

          Nor are businesses required to do business with you unless you're a protected class. AFAIK, being a Nazi hatemonger isn't a protected class.

          Forcing people and (non-government) organizations to host/enable speech with which they disagree/and or don't wish to host, is an infringement of their free speech and free association rights.

          relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:55PM (7 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:55PM (#1292070) Journal

            The problem with your analysis? Today, the proverbial "town square" is the internet. You're failing to understand that Big Tech has become the gate keeper into the town square.

            Back in the old day, no one could keep you out of the town square, or prevent you stepping up on your soap box to preach 'The One True Way', or whatever the hell.

            You're right, that you were never entitled to an audience. You could stand on your soapbox all day long, and if your message sucked, no one cared, or they outright disliked you, they could go to the other end of the town square. No one is entitled to an audience, that much is true. But that is up to the audience to decide.

            The gatekeepers should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town. Fuck all gatekeepers.

            --
            We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
            • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:31PM (6 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:31PM (#1292076) Journal

              The gatekeepers should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town. Fuck all gatekeepers.

              So you'll be voting against the Republicans that installed this ID-verifying internet gatekeeper in the next election?

              • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:47PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:47PM (#1292079)

                Not to mention the gatekeepers who are telling libraries what books they can and can't carry and telling teachers what parts of history they are and aren't allowed to talk about.

                • (Score: 3, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 17 2023, @03:13AM (1 child)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @03:13AM (#1292107) Journal

                  Not to mention the gatekeepers who are telling libraries what books they can and can't carry

                  Especially school libraries which allow access to elementary school children.

                  telling teachers what parts of history they are and aren't allowed to talk about.

                  Teachers work for the parents, after all. School districts pay teachers to teach. I would say the employers have the right to decide what the teachers will be teaching. And, of course, it would help if everyone were teaching verifiable facts in history, as opposed to - uhhh - what's it called? "Lived experience"? As if some asshole living today actually experienced the silly shit he says happened 300 years ago.

                  But, maybe you're right. Feelziez before factz, right?

                  --
                  We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
                  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @12:58PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @12:58PM (#1292156)

                    Especially school libraries which allow access to elementary school children.

                    Yes. Indeed. When I grew up I was actually allowed to read Hop on Pop or Charlotte's Web, but I suppose our parents grew up in times where fascists were viewed as enemies of the American way of life and not librarians. Or maybe they didn't think we were all a bunch of pussies who would be scarred by Where the Wild Things Are. Or maybe it's not any of that and it's just that kids (or at least white kids) in the South aren't as tough as kids elsewhere and need special attention?

                    But, maybe you're right. Feelziez before factz, right?

                    No, if that were true, they'd actually be allowed to talk about black people and slavery without making the snowflake MAGAs feel bad and call their special "my feelings have been hurt" [npr.org] governor hotlines. These bills [abc7news.com] are literally to keeps white kids from "feeling discomfort." It is amazing. A big red hat these days seems to be a great ad for "only tell me what I want to hear because I am a huge snowflake." It is rather sickening that these people who proudly wrap themselves in a flag and show off their "patriotism" are literally shitting on the fundamental values and ideals of America because they might get their feelings hurt. I think they are the ones who are in desperate need to learn American history before shitting any further on the foundation of this country.

                    I would say the employers have the right to decide what the teachers will be teaching.

                    You going to go all the way to the end of that "think of the children" limb and have it cover colleges too [rollingstone.com]? Talk about "thought police" and "cancel culture."

                    But this is all water under the bridge. There are much more important things to address. I heard there might be a transgender kid somewhere, so we better mobilize a whole legislative body and put the weight of the government upon that one person [fox13now.com]. Nothing says freedom from oppression like that.

              • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 17 2023, @03:14AM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @03:14AM (#1292108) Journal

                Which of those republicans that you refer to are going to be on my ballot?

                --
                We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
                • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 17 2023, @04:09PM (1 child)

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday February 17 2023, @04:09PM (#1292181) Journal

                  Unfortunately, there's a pretty good change Desantis (who signed FL's law) will be on ALL our ballots soon!

                  • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 17 2023, @08:37PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @08:37PM (#1292268) Journal

                    Welllll, now, you know what? If DeSantis is on the ballot, I'll probably vote for him. I won't vote for Trump, but I'll vote DeSantis. If Trump runs again, I'll definitely vote 3rd party, just like the last two times he ran.

                    Ok, yes, I understand. If I vote for DeSantis, I'll effectively be voting for something I don't like. But, I'm not a single issue voter. I weigh the good and the bad. DeSantis bad points don't come near equal to any Democrat's bad points. Show me a "Defund the police" candidate, and I'll vote for almost ANYONE else.

                    --
                    We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:34PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:34PM (#1292064)

          Freedom of speech on the internet was destroyed by the deplatforming of Andrew Anglin's Daily Stormer over making jokes about Heather Heyer's death at Charlottesville.

          Stormfront pissed off its privately-owned provider and its services were terminated as a result. They could have terminated their relationship with for any reason, including nose-picking, because businesses have the freedom to choose their customers. No matter how you wordsmith it, it is NOT freedom of speech being infringed. You reaaaaaaaaaaally need to understand the nuance here otherwise you'll find yourself begging for big-government regulation to force companies to do business with toxic customers.

          All of these porn sites already have analytics and know who you are, what your preferences are, and are willing to sell it to anyone willing to pay.

          Assuming those sites have to check the validity of the license the government will have their constituents' fetishes transmitted to the mothership, too. Oh and some of the content being consumed is illegal. ;)


          I know there'll be a temptation to argue with what I'm talking about, but my main point here is if you really feel freedom of speech is missing from the internet then you should work towards finding a solution to specifically that and not mis-representing unrelated stuff as a freedom-of-speech issue. Here, I'll propose a solution: How about the government creates their own social media platform? Yes, I already hear the groaning... BUT: a. No advertisers. b. It actually WOULD fall under 1A should they moderate inappropriately. c. I say this theoretically, but under those circumstances other providers needed to carry the site wouldn't be under the same pressure to drop their services than they would with a private site. I do not consider this a perfect solution so I really don't want to debate about it, I just wanted to get a PRODUCTIVE conversation about solving this problem started.

          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday February 17 2023, @04:50AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @04:50AM (#1292121) Journal

          Unwilling to get a vaccine because it skipped safety testing

          How many millions of dead people and shitty economy is "safety testing" worth again?

          I think what's silly about the argument is that these vaccines were safety tested. The FDA just has a onerous process that's totally inappropriate for anything more complicated than saline water, much less an ongoing emergency.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday February 18 2023, @09:57PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday February 18 2023, @09:57PM (#1292456) Homepage Journal

          Odd, I seem to have caught a whiff of Eau de Bot de Russi.

          Look here, dumbass, you don't have the right to force a PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENT hosting provider to give you a platform for your garbage. Guess what? It ain't "'murica" keeping your hateful garbage off the internet. My three sites are hosted in Canada. Guess what? They don't want your hateful evil, either, and neither does anybody else in the whole damned world.

          So take your Satan worship elsewhere. Nobody likes you. Go away.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:53PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:53PM (#1292056)

        >imaginary government tracking chips

        I knew a guy from Vietnam (North, I believe), his dad was a scientist - persecuted by the government - which is why they emigrated to the U.S. when he was young, but not so young that he hadn't received mandatory injections from the government - this back in the early 1970s - and he believed that his government, then, implanted mind control chips into the children of his country, including himself.

        The first time he said that, I thought: surely, he's pulling my leg. But it persisted, and never seemed like a joke for the whole year I knew him. I asked our coworkers who had known him 5 and 10 years, they all said: "you know, I wish he was pulling our leg with that but it really seems like he believes it, and uses it as an excuse for some of his more irrational moments." Mind you, these irrational moments were a matter of degrees, with minor ones coming up at least a couple of times an hour, but for a really big one all you had to do was disagree with any of his basically baseless postulate statements along the lines of: "Thou shalt never change a single character in the core routine source code, not even to address obvious errors."

        The thing about imaginary government chips being injected, they can be even more powerful than actual vaccines in terms of how they affect real behavior in the population and individuals.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday February 18 2023, @10:05PM (1 child)

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday February 18 2023, @10:05PM (#1292458) Homepage Journal

          That's a form of schizophrenia, and there may be effective treatments. The guy should seek help.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 18 2023, @10:58PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 18 2023, @10:58PM (#1292466)

            I believe it had been suggested, I was mostly concerned about getting some distance.

            Years earlier I had a job applicant who included their personal website on their resume, so I took a look and there right up front was "Click here to read about my MkUltra experience." So I did. Long story short: he believes he was personally targeted by the program several years earlier and is still suffering from actions of the program personally targeting him at the time of his application (2007). His personal accounts were largely consistent with descriptions of the MkUltra program you can find on Wikipedia and many other places, not copied, they were episodes in his own life. Oh, and MkUltra is reputed to induct new targets from friends and coworkers of existing targets.

            Option A: the applicant is nuttier than a fruitcake, and we don't want him working for us.

            Option B: he's not paranoid, they really are out to get him, and as his coworkers they might come for us next, in which case we really don't want him working for us.

            I don't see any scenario where such nearly direct disclosure of his MkUltra experience would be beneficial in his chances of employment, and we were looking for logical thinkers, programmers, so no, no interview for him. Maybe if we were looking for creative writers I might have offered to meet him, clandestinely.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday February 16 2023, @07:51PM (17 children)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Thursday February 16 2023, @07:51PM (#1292051)

    Just saying, I miss the old Usenet newsgroups. These days everything has to be totally locked down and everyone spoon fed content from your favorite advertiser.

    I hate this planet.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by pTamok on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:49PM (13 children)

      by pTamok (3042) on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:49PM (#1292055)

      ‹deadpan›Well Elon is doing his best to give you the option of moving to another planet.‹/deadpan›

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:59PM (12 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:59PM (#1292058)

        I suggest a brief review of the exploits of Pirate Gregor McGregor, a Scottish soldier, adventurer, and confidence trickster who attempted from 1821 to 1837 to draw British and French investors and settlers to "Poyais", a fictional Central American territory that he claimed to rule as "Cazique".

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 17 2023, @04:53AM (8 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @04:53AM (#1292123) Journal
          Sounds like the Pirate had quite the rocketry program! At least with Musk, he has flown vehicles and we know those destinations exist.
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 17 2023, @12:28PM (7 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 17 2023, @12:28PM (#1292152)

            The pirate had trans Atlantic ship passage, more accessible to investors than any Mars rocket.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 17 2023, @06:34PM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @06:34PM (#1292227) Journal
              Investors wouldn't be using that trans-Atlantic ship passage either.
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 17 2023, @06:39PM (5 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 17 2023, @06:39PM (#1292229)

                Exactly my point.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 17 2023, @06:47PM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @06:47PM (#1292234) Journal
                  And exactly my point. Sounds like we'll need to use reason at some point. Hope you're ready!
                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 17 2023, @07:44PM (3 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 17 2023, @07:44PM (#1292255)

                    Just because I'm bored:

                    I was responding the the deadpan comment: Musk is tryin' to get you a place on Mars.

                    MacGregor was tryin' just as realistically to get those investors a place in Central America. In the 1830s, it was more feasible to carve out a new colony in Central America for Europeans than it is to carve out any kind of permanent human habitat on Mars today. The ships are more capable, the terrain is less hostile, even the legal battles are easier more affordable and realistically feasible.

                    Some investors in the 1830s actually could have traveled to the supposed site of the colony.

                    Mars? Remains to be seen whether anybody with enough money to go today will still be alive when it's possible for them to take the trip.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 18 2023, @02:12PM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 18 2023, @02:12PM (#1292369) Journal

                      I was responding the the deadpan comment: Musk is tryin' to get you a place on Mars.

                      MacGregor was tryin' just as realistically to get those investors a place in Central America. In the 1830s, it was more feasible to carve out a new colony in Central America for Europeans than it is to carve out any kind of permanent human habitat on Mars today. The ships are more capable, the terrain is less hostile, even the legal battles are easier more affordable and realistically feasible.

                      I disagree, of course. MacGregor's thing was wholly fraudulent. Meanwhile SpaceX has knocked out the biggest economic obstacle between Earth and Mars - greatly dropping the price of putting things in orbit. If the Superheavy can come close to SpaceX's claimed costs, then that in turn will drop the price even more (possibly to the level where I thought a space elevator would operate at).

                      Second, where has Musk attempted to con us out of money for a Martian colony? That talk might have boosted excitement for SpaceX, but nobody has been asked, much less paid for this stuff.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 18 2023, @03:29PM (1 child)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 18 2023, @03:29PM (#1292379)

                        >MacGregor's thing was wholly fraudulent.

                        That is certainly how history painted it, decades after the fact.

                        How will Musk's Mars plans look in 2050?

                        >greatly dropping the price of putting things in orbit.

                        Call me when that is a sustained operation, instead of a prototype ship and "claims." Again, in 1820 MacGregors plans were at least as feasible as Musk's Mars is in 2022.

                        >where has Musk attempted to con us out of money for a Martian colony?

                        Again, it's early days. MacGregor was a charismatic businessman in his day, otherwise he wouldn't have risen to the level that he did. Check the SpaceX books in 2030 and see how many of your tax dollars have subsidized his dreamscape, directly, through tax breaks, sweetheart deals on "NASA surplus capacity" and "development incentives" for various SpaceX endeavors.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Saturday February 18 2023, @06:38PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 18 2023, @06:38PM (#1292409) Journal

                          >where has Musk attempted to con us out of money for a Martian colony?

                          Again, it's early days.

                          In other words, you're precriming. "Early days" means Musk hasn't so attempted. The rest of your post is an utter waste of time as a result.

                          That is certainly how history painted it, decades after the fact.

                          And sounds like the painting is wholly correct, right?

        • (Score: 1) by anubi on Friday February 17 2023, @06:35AM (2 children)

          by anubi (2828) on Friday February 17 2023, @06:35AM (#1292132) Journal

          Thanks for that.

          It sent me off on some rather unusual insights on human folly and gullibility.

          --
          "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 17 2023, @12:30PM (1 child)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 17 2023, @12:30PM (#1292153)

            I really like the bit where he conquered a massive fort with a dozen or so men by spreading rumors at a nearby pub that he had an army of thousands...

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday February 18 2023, @06:33AM

              by anubi (2828) on Saturday February 18 2023, @06:33AM (#1292336) Journal

              Yeh...seems our almost universal predisposition of compassion and trust, which serves us very well in most human interactions, also renders us quite gullible to those who don't have ethical or morals to get in the way.

              --
              "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by owl on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:15PM (2 children)

      by owl (15206) on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:15PM (#1292086)

      I miss the old Usenet newsgroups.

      Usenet still exists, and the newsgroups are still there.

      The problem is getting enough people to exit their walled gardens of facebook/tiktok/etc. and return to Usenet.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @02:01AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @02:01AM (#1292102)

        > The problem is getting enough people ...

        It's been awhile since I looked and, at that time, the problem was massive spam in the USENET newsgroups that I used to enjoy so much. Any idea if that has been tamed or if the spammers gave up? Maybe I'll look again, to see for myself.

        rec.bicycles.tech was one favorite, right up until the time that Google took over the newsgroups (when was that??)

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday February 17 2023, @04:21AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Friday February 17 2023, @04:21AM (#1292118) Homepage

          I dunno, but last time I looked in on my old newsgroups, an argument was still going that was at least 15 years old, and had pretty much run out all normal traffic.

          And who can forget "The Longest Thread in the World" ...

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:56PM (2 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday February 16 2023, @08:56PM (#1292057)

    > body parts like nipples or genitals, touching or fondling of such body parts ... flagellation, excretory functions," or other sex acts

    So, now we know what our lawmakers have been spending their time watching.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by JustNiz on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:49PM (1 child)

      by JustNiz (1573) on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:49PM (#1292066)

      > body parts like nipples or genitals,

      So in other words, perfectly natural biology?
      This seems to be just another example of the ignorant and incredibly damaging prudishness in the US that apparently has its roots in the radical puritanical beliefs of the first pilgrims, and for some bizarre reason is still allowed to decide policy today.

      The very provably direct consequence of denying/artificially suppressing healthy natural imagery and natural desires is that whole generations of people grow up with significant mental issues around sex etc. This directly leads to unnatural outlets such as rape and sexual abuse of children. Proof? just look at what happens in the catholic priesthood, or the muslim countries that cover women from head to foot.

      Note that in Europe, it wasn't Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, but the massive over-reaction to it (*gasp* momentarily glimpsing a nipple) that made the USA a laughing stock. In the EU, topless women on beaches draw zero attention, let alone cause crime to happen as (most notably all the religious) "leaders" would have you believe.

      • (Score: 4, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:55PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:55PM (#1292071)

        >whole generations of people grow up with significant mental issues around sex etc.

        Yup, and they're in our state Legislatures now.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Opportunist on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:16PM (1 child)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:16PM (#1292060)

    This law has been sponsored by NordVPN.

    • (Score: 2) by rigrig on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:15PM

      by rigrig (5129) <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:15PM (#1292087) Homepage

      and MindGeek.
      (Not all their competition is able to comply, and suddenly they are required by law to track visitors linked to drivers licenses.)

      --
      No one remembers the singer.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MIRV888 on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:30PM (5 children)

    by MIRV888 (11376) on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:30PM (#1292063)

    1st of all the legislators are wasting their limited time on this bs instead of addressing the huge number of real world issues at hand.
    2nd they are out of touch with reality if they think legislation will somehow prevent teens from accessing porn on the web.
    3rd most state legislators have their seats for life. Incumbents are rarely defeated in rural districts unless they kill someone.
    So here we are.
    I'm investing in NordVPN today.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:50PM (#1292068)

      Let me guess... CA, WA, NY, MA, DC, IL?

      So all we need now is a definitive definition of pornography.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:50PM (3 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:50PM (#1292080)

      > the legislators are wasting their limited time on this bs

      Have you ever actually tried to talk with a State legislator? I'm sure it varies from location to location, but the ones who have represented me when I could have used some help from them were such high quality individuals as: Real Estate agents, otherwise unemployable military veterans, business developers (who need to bend the laws to make their businesses profitable), and generally people with just enough money to have enough time on their hands to run a campaign, and just barely enough personal charm to gather more votes than their opponents. Intelligence, Integrity, Idealism? Strictly optional, and usually missing on all three counts.

      At the national level, where the constituencies run around 800,000 people or more, those tend to be slightly more competent seeming at least in a casual conversation. The staties like are passing this bill? Your average next door neighbors are probably quantifiably "better people" than them on just about any scale you care to measure.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:32PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:32PM (#1292089)

        At the national level, where the constituencies run around 800,000 people or more, those tend to be slightly more competent seeming at least in a casual conversation.

        Hi. I'm George Santos and I'd like tell you about the opportunity of a lifetime [newsweek.com]!

        By the way, do you like to play volleyball?

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 17 2023, @12:04AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 17 2023, @12:04AM (#1292094)

          I never thought they weren't scumbags, after all they are career politicians. But... At that level at least they are somewhat competent scumbags.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday February 17 2023, @05:10AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @05:10AM (#1292125) Journal

        Have you ever actually tried to talk with a State legislator? I'm sure it varies from location to location, but the ones who have represented me when I could have used some help from them were such high quality individuals as: Real Estate agents, otherwise unemployable military veterans, business developers (who need to bend the laws to make their businesses profitable), and generally people with just enough money to have enough time on their hands to run a campaign, and just barely enough personal charm to gather more votes than their opponents. Intelligence, Integrity, Idealism? Strictly optional, and usually missing on all three counts.

        To be fair, you live in Florida.

  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:52PM (12 children)

    by Mykl (1112) on Thursday February 16 2023, @09:52PM (#1292069)

    First off the bat, I get where the legislators are coming from. I don't think that anyone here actually believes that minors should be able to access the sort of smut material you can easily find online today. As TFS says "This is not your daddy's Playboy". The problem is in coming up with a solution that doesn't create massive collateral damage.

    Back in the old days (pre-Internet), anonymous access to porn was pretty easy and anonymous provided you were over 18. Go to a brick-and-mortar store (newsagent, service station, specialty store) and buy over the counter with cash. ID may have been required at the point of purchase, but was never recorded.

    These days adults have a legitimate concern about the collection of their data and tracking of activities, seedy or not. And age verification, once disconnected from physical location, is only as strong as the weakest link across the world. As has been stated, there's little point in banning stuff in one state if a VPN can just get you access in another state (or country). And under-18s have access to VPNs just as much as adults. Further, we all know that the puritanism of certain political parties in the US will doubtless lead to persecution of individuals further down the track simply for their viewing preferences.

    IMHO, there's really no workable solution to the problem, other than providing families with the tools to monitor/restrict the use of devices by their kids. The rest is up to them. Will this miss a heap of kids? Of course it will.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:18PM (8 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:18PM (#1292073) Journal

      Yeah, but - parenting.

      How many people actually monitor their kid's use of the internet? One in one thousand? One in ten thousand? I've just introduced some children to the internet. Their Android notebook is locked down tight. Each and every time they wish to visit a site, a parent in the group must authorize that site. A parent must authorize any app before it is installed. The children are going to see NOTHING that Mother, Father, Grandmother, or Grandfather doesn't authorize.

      Parenting. Think of it. Because few parents are willing to actually parent, this issue has come up. "How do we keep the children from seeing porn?" Just lock the kids down until they are at least 15 years old. Past about 15, forget locking the kids down, it ain't gonna work. Until then, practice parenting.

      --
      We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:02PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:02PM (#1292084)

        I didn't teach my (now 19 year old) son about incognito mode, he figured that one out all on his own when he was about 12. When he was about 11 I casually observed him browsing pictures and videos of girls who looked like his kindergarten crush, all grown up and naked. I explained to him how much trouble that videos like that can cause, how upset his mother would be if she saw him watching them, how inappropriate it is to do that in front of other people any time anywhere, etc. First time his mother "caught" him closing an incognito mode window was last week after she walked in his bedroom without knocking, she can only guess what might have been on the screen.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by MIRV888 on Friday February 17 2023, @01:43AM

        by MIRV888 (11376) on Friday February 17 2023, @01:43AM (#1292099)

        I could have side stepped my parents restrictions on all things technology by the time I was 11. If a kid decides they want some porn, there are many ways beyond a locked down tablet to get it. You're kidding yourself if you think kids can't access the web somewhere else.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday February 17 2023, @07:48AM (5 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @07:48AM (#1292135) Journal

        Each and every time they wish to visit a site, a parent in the group must authorize that site.

        I suspect that you are doing this for all of the right reasons. But I would rather teach my child responsibility for his/her actions.

        Imagine a child doing his homework or looking for information on something that interests them, perhaps a hobby or a toy. He (or she) wants to use Google to research something. Are all the results banned? Does he need to have an adult approve each and every link individually? Say he finds a link about the Civil War, which also mentions slavery. Perhaps the adult denies that slavery every existed or was somehow deserved because her Representative has expressed that view so many times, or the adult attends a 'white' Christian church. All that happens is that the child is spoon-fed a particular set of 'truths'. The child is being indoctrinated and nobody seems to realise it. The child also learns that there will always be a higher authority from whom he must seek permission for his thoughts.

        We let children know about murders, shootings and rapes - they are in every newspaper and on every TV channel. Are children to be forbidden from ever having access to those sources too? I know of the dangers that porn presents to young and impressionable people. But your child should also be brought up to recognise that you think that pornography is wrong and that it is something that he/she should not be looking at (at least until they are old enough to make their own judgements). Blocking EVERY site is simply teaching them that they hold no responsibility for what they view on their tablet, nor must they have their own original thoughts. Somebody else has always got to approve it and it is their problem.

        Just like demanding IDs to look at porn. Somebody else wants to control what you and your children do. After all, you are also banned until you 'prove' who you are, and that must be stored somewhere unless you have to show an ID for EVERY url that you look at. Do you really think that such control is acceptable? If you accept it for porn how long will it be until the same States demand it for other 'thought crimes' too?

        Parenting isn't easy, and almost impossible to get right all the time, but technical solutions to the problems that a child faces and the decisions they must make while growing up are not the answer. Proper parenting is - even if you sometimes get it wrong.

        --
        I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
        • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 17 2023, @09:58AM (4 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @09:58AM (#1292143) Journal

          Does he need to have an adult approve each and every link individually?

          Each and every site has to be approved. Once on the site, the child can navigate the site.

          All that happens is that the child is spoon-fed a particular set of 'truths'.

          We're talking about small children here, not young teens. Yes, they are spoon-fed pablum. At some point, the reins will be loosened, but that is a ways down the road. We won't have six year old children discussing the finer points of the kama sutra.

          they are in every newspaper and on every TV channel.

          Newspapers are history, and we don't have television. The children's entertainment is all filtered through parents and grandparents at any rate.

          Just like demanding IDs to look at porn.

          You know - that's pretty accurate. The difference, of course, is that we are parents and grandparents. And, the assholes at the state capitol may be parents and grandparents - but they aren't my parents or grandparents. When our small people reach about age 13 or 14, I'll be happy to teach them to circumvent all the security bullshit on my network. That will be soon after I teach them to install alternate OSs on their machines, teach them about advertising, and how to avoid it, etc etc. The younger children will remain locked down. IMO, that's kind of the way parenting is supposed to work. Mom and Dad set the rules, slowly loosening those rules as the children grow up.

          --
          We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday February 17 2023, @01:28PM (3 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @01:28PM (#1292157) Journal

            I suppose that it depends on your definition of small children. When children are old enough to go to school without an adult accompanying them then they are old enough to have their own device, be that a tablet, cell phone or whatever, but not before.

            --
            I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
            • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 17 2023, @08:45PM (2 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @08:45PM (#1292269) Journal

              So, first grade students should be entitled to a cell phone? Interesting. But preschool, kindergarden, day care, etc gets no phone. Of maybe I'm relying on my own decades old experience too much. At age 5, I started first grade - no preschool, head start, or any of that other stuff. I walked 1/2 mile to the bus stop, by myself. No adult supervision until I got on the bus. If a child today was accepted into 1st grade with no other previous schooling, would you say he should have a phone? I know, that's probably irrelevant.

              I think that I'm unwilling to allow a child to use the internet unsupervised, until he has entered puberty. That kinda depends on the child - any semi-observant parent knows which of his children is less trustworthy. One child, I might buy, or allow to buy a cell phone at 12 or 13, another I might not permit him to have a phone until 14 or 15. Around the time they start dating, it's time to give them their own choice.

              --
              We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday February 18 2023, @07:41AM (1 child)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 18 2023, @07:41AM (#1292342) Journal

                I did not go away from the house unsupervised until I was 8 or 9 years old. I could play with other children but we weren't allowed to go more than, say, a mile from the front door. I could visit a river, woods, and fields all within that distance quite easily. And this was around the same time and place as the Moors Murderers [wikipedia.org] and their like were around.

                I didn't need a cell phone. But if you are talking about a cell phone and not a tablet (my tablet does not have a 'phone connection although it can connect to wifi) then your site blocking is of limited value. How will you stop incoming phone calls, which might contain images or even short clips sent by other people, your child's friends perhaps? If you think that they will not be able to see pornography then you are in for a shock. Won't your child still be able to communicate with strangers? If they have been raised properly they will know about responsibility for their actions and hopefully begin to make intelligent decisions for themselves rather than have to seek your permission before they can answer the phone.

                We all parent differently - you can choose to do it however you wish.

                I have to agree with others in this discussion. From here in Europe we find it bizarre that you can accept "shooter drills' being necessary for kindergarten children, yet they mustn't see the natural body parts of another person regardless of what activity that person is engaged. I wonder which has killed the most children in the USA so far this year. Oh, that is a difficult one to answer.......

                --
                I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
                • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2023, @02:23PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 18 2023, @02:23PM (#1292372) Journal

                  I have to agree with others in this discussion. From here in Europe we find it bizarre that you can accept "shooter drills' being necessary for kindergarten children, yet they mustn't see the natural body parts of another person regardless of what activity that person is engaged. I wonder which has killed the most children in the USA so far this year. Oh, that is a difficult one to answer.......

                  I can agree with that. We do have too much censorship, and the censorship is way off target.

                  Back to devices though. No, I'm not going to encourage any pre-pubescent child to have a cell phone. Something like True Caller will help to filter out trash, but it isn't really suitable for children. https://www.truecaller.com/download [truecaller.com]

                  A locked down tablet is sufficient for pre-pubescents, and when they reach an age when a phone is considered necessary, then we'll look at possible solutions. I think most telco family plans offer filtering, we'll have to look at that.

                  But, the fact is, you can't really keep a child locked down forever. Hopefully, by the time the kid is ready for a phone, you've instilled some values in the child, and they will accept your limits. If not - well - life happens.

                  --
                  We've finally beat Medicare! - Houseplant in Chief
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:59PM (2 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday February 16 2023, @10:59PM (#1292083)

      >anonymous access to porn was pretty easy and anonymous provided you were over 18

      You are talking about the "official rules" where you could walk into a convenience store and buy the material yourself with your own money.

      I'm not aware of a single student in my high school (in the 1980s) who was unable to get a look inside of Penthouse magazine by the age of 12, pretty much as often as they cared to outside of brick throwing range from their mothers.

      The same applies today: if you're going to give your 4 year old a smart phone, you're going to need to do some education and steering regarding the content they browse online. In my experience, anything that is "banned" is generally the most sought after, and found, content that children will consume. Far better to sit down with them in a non-confrontational exchange, calmly explain what's going on with what they're looking at, why they shouldn't do that around other people (because of how upset the other people would get, and why), suggest replacement content which they might be more interested in anyway, etc. As soon as you turn purple, freak out, scream NO!, etc. that's just going to get them coming back for more.

      Or, you can threaten your children with beatings, etc. if you EVER catch them doing anything like that ever again, and produce another generation like what we've got in the state legislatures today.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday February 17 2023, @02:50AM (1 child)

        by Mykl (1112) on Friday February 17 2023, @02:50AM (#1292105)

        I'm not aware of a single student in my high school (in the 1980s) who was unable to get a look inside of Penthouse magazine by the age of 12, pretty much as often as they cared to outside of brick throwing range from their mothers

        Agreed - I include myself in that category too.

        The difference is that the material in Playboy / Penthouse was quite different to what's on offer today. I don't care if my kids see pictures of naked women. If all we were talking about were online versions of what most kids saw in the 80's then I wouldn't bother doing anything at all. What kids can access today online though (same as everyone else) is significantly more impactful, and not healthy for minds that don't yet properly understand real human sexual relationships.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 17 2023, @12:25PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 17 2023, @12:25PM (#1292151)

          >The difference is that the material in Playboy / Penthouse was quite different to what's on offer today. I don't care if my kids see pictures of naked women.

          See, now, your mother did care because Penthouse depicted "raunchy, disrespectful, harmful" images of things she was never exposed to as "normal" or entertainment.

          Long before we regulate porn, I think we need to come to terms with why it is acceptable mainstream entertainment to show people being kidnapped, imprisoned, bound, drugged, blown up, beaten, shot, slashed, stabbed, tortured and otherwise engaged in brutal violence with or usually without visible consequences, etc. I am fairly certain all of the above has been shown on prime time broadcast television, certainly cable, and "PG-13" cinema.

          Answer, clearly and logically, why that is acceptable and people engaged in consensual acts of non injurious pleasure is unacceptable for viewing? I know some porn goes beyond that, but you do remember Daniel Craig as James Bond getting his testicles bashed to a bloody pulp and asking for more?

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:10PM (#1292085)

    Is it really just morality police, or are old school magazines, bookstores, and theaters throwing in? If you have to fork over your ID online, you might as well just schlep down to the local news stand and buy something with cash. Yeah, there might be cameras; but make 'em work for it to embarrass you. At least force them to run facial ID and be a little uncertain. Your hat brim might block just... enough.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:39PM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:39PM (#1292090)

    Porn industry lobbyist: "Now, senator, we do currently log IP addresses and everything else we can think of regarding our users habits, and from that we can get a pretty good idea of who is watching what. And it would be a real shame if your own ID happened to be linked to incestuous shemale scat scenes, especially in light of your public image as a conservative Christian family man. Now, I know it's probably your teenage kids or hackers stealing your driver's license, but is that what the press will think?"

    Oh, and for whatever it's worth, the most spank-happy and kinky part of the US is the Bible Belt. I guess the killjoys have to personally review all the smut that's getting put out every day. Go figure.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday February 17 2023, @04:15PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @04:15PM (#1292182) Journal

      This is their necessary responsibility to know what they are protecting their kids from.

      --
      If we tell conservatives that the climate is transitioning, they will work to stop it.
  • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:56PM (2 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday February 16 2023, @11:56PM (#1292092) Journal

    Keep children off the net

    we don't let them drive, or drink alcohol, or vote (or, in some parts of the world, own guns)

    why let them into what is, in reality, the wild west?

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 17 2023, @12:12AM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday February 17 2023, @12:12AM (#1292095)

      I don't know... If you live in the red light district of Amsterdam, do you forbid your children from walking the street (walking the street alone hell yes) or do you take the time to introduce them to your neighbors as fellow human beings and help your children understand why the world is how it is, and how they might best navigate it themselves when you aren't around?

      Newsflash: as these legislators are starting to realize 20 years after the fact, we all have easy access to the red light district, and more, in the palms of our hands, everywhere we go, all hours of the day and night, basically anywhere on the planet, and off, with a data connection.

      Denial is a better name for a river than a parenting philosophy.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @06:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2023, @06:21AM (#1292128)

      Actually I'm fine with such legislation. Might get more kids to learn some skills.

      p.s. the "Are you under 18" stuff did stop the most innocent ones - kids who are too innocent/stupid to lie about their age to watch porn, probably shouldn't be watching porn - they might actually believe it's real and they should attempt sex with their stepsister while she's doing laundry or something.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Gaaark on Friday February 17 2023, @03:28AM

    by Gaaark (41) on Friday February 17 2023, @03:28AM (#1292111) Journal

    Children might watch porn on Dad's computer: crack down!

    Children might grab Dad's gun and shoot themselves or a friend or a teacher or....: GET OFF MUH LAWN! I GOTS MUH RIGHTS!

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 17 2023, @04:58PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 17 2023, @04:58PM (#1292193) Journal

    Hey, it's just pr0n. Get hold of yourself. No need to get so excited.

    --
    If we tell conservatives that the climate is transitioning, they will work to stop it.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by epitaxial on Saturday February 18 2023, @04:19AM

    by epitaxial (3165) on Saturday February 18 2023, @04:19AM (#1292326)

    The same crowd who fly "don't tread on me" flags.

(1)