You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

Strangle , (edited )

Okay, but can we all agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography?

You guys are really downvoting this? Man you guys fucking suck. What’s wrong with you people?

Redhotkurt ,
@Redhotkurt@kbin.social avatar

Nobody's disagreeing about that.

Strangle ,

Good

End0fLine OP ,
@End0fLine@startrek.website avatar

I’m not sure why you felt the need to say this. Have you met many people that are OK with kids watching porn?

Strangle ,

It Lemmy, it’s a bunch of underaged communists here and weird creepy tech bros.

The two comments made here were very unclear about what made them happy about this. I’m just making sure you guys celebrating this aren’t a bunch of fucking weirdos.

So we agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography?

Good.

Now what do we do about it?

SCB ,

Per the judgment, parental monitoring software is both superior in efficacy, per the state’s own findings, and sufficient under the intent of the law to prevent minors from accessing pornography, while not inviting first amendment challenges

In other words, as the state likes to claim about schools, parents are the ones responsible for preventing access to content the parents fund questionable.

My full explainer of the judgment is above if you’d like to read it.

Strangle ,

I’m not confused about the judgment

Redhotkurt ,
@Redhotkurt@kbin.social avatar

You right wingers should rename yourselves the "What about" party

Strangle ,

You left wingers should rename yourselves the ‘groomer’ party

Redhotkurt ,
@Redhotkurt@kbin.social avatar

You just proved my point, you're constantly changing the subject. Well, good luck with that, boomer.

Strangle ,

Sorry, didn’t you change the subject when you said that? I said almost word for word what you already said lmao

Are you okay, man? I was following YOUR lead

UnhingedFridge ,
@UnhingedFridge@lemmy.world avatar

I think the issue here is that people don’t want to share private data such as their fucking driver’s license with a tech company that can be hacked, rather than whatever the fuck you’re pulling out your ass, but you’re too fucking retarded to understand nuance outside of it mentioning “porn,” “access,” and “children.”

It’s a big “what about” - where you rolled back around to missing the entire fucking point while also confirming that you’re a right-wing dipshit.

They pointed out that your entire argument is in bad faith, and you confirmed that your entire argument is in bad faith - just to dumb it down further since you clearly fucking need it.

Strangle ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Boddhisatva ,

    How about the common sense thing? It's the parents' job to monitor their kid's internet activities. If you give your kid unfettered access to the internet on their phone of computer than you should be held liable for the results. If your kid lets their friends access porn on those insecure devices that too is your fault. If their school fails to lock down their network to block inappropriate material then that school should be held liable.

    The current Texas law puts every adult user's privacy at risk rather than holding the parents responsible for their own failures. In addition, it's written so broadly that it would quickly be used against any site the Texas Republicans choose to target in their culture wars such as sex-ed and LGBTQ+ education sites.

    Strangle ,

    I think you guys are misunderstanding my stance on this. I don’t like this solution either.

    But I do want to make sure people are celebrating this for a reason that makes sense, and not because they don’t care if kids have access to pornography.

    Because I do not believe that anyone is able to monitor someone else’s internet access exclusively at all times. Kids go to friends houses, or get friends devices all the time.

    Pornography is accessible in places that are not exclusively pornhub.

    You would have to block lemmy from your router if you had kids, for example.

    Not many parents are even tech savvy enough to know that’s possible, or even what lemmy is.

    This is not the right solution, but neither is slapping a label of 18+ on content.

    It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a lot of people commenting on this are just absolutely fine with children being exposed to inappropriate sexual materials online. Because lemmy’s user base skews hard to the left

    SCB ,

    Define “kids”

    Define “pornography”

    I’m not being pedantic - this is one of the reasons the law was struck down.

    Strangle ,

    Oh boy……

    SCB ,

    From my post explaining the judgment in non-legalese above

    4: “sweep” of law (that is, who it is designed to protect) is unclear due to widely varying harm between different levels of minors. For instance, sites that offer Sex Ed to older teens would also be impacted

    Strangle ,

    I’m just trying to make sure you guys agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography.

    Some fucking retard is asking me to define ‘kids’ and ‘pornography’

    Everyone immediately downvoting my comment of ‘you guys don’t think kids should be exposed to pornography, right?’

    I think this is an important distinction. We need to start there and then we can move forward and find ways to protect them from it.

    But it makes sense to make sure we are starting from the same place.

    The dude asking about what kids and pornography means is probably a fucking creep

    SCB ,

    That “fucking retard” is also me, and as I added to the comment, that specific difference is part of the judgment.

    People are downvoting you for the same reason they disapprove of the law - your comment seems disingenuous.

    Ways to protect children already exist, and are more effective, as the judgment also found.

    Strangle ,

    I just really hate this place and the people who post here

    SCB ,

    This is a solvable problem. You can just not log in.

    Not sure why you hate people for explaining a judgment to you that you clearly did not read.

    Strangle ,

    I’ve been thinking about it pretty hard over the past couple days.

    There is nothing for me here, why would I bother keeping this app on my phone?

    I hate lemmy users because of how stupid they are and how far left they lie thinking is. ‘Explaining’ a judgment to me doesn’t answer the question of “but we still don’t want kids exposed to porn, right guys?”

    And the reactions I’ve gotten even asking that question really makes me read between the lines on this. Your answer of ‘well define kids and porno’ really really make me read between the lines.

    Should be a pretty easy thing for everyone here to agree on, but it’s been a visceral reaction to dodge the question and downvote the idea, even.

    That tells me all I really need to know.

    SCB , (edited )

    I find it odd that you suggest that I am somehow stupid, and you smart, when I was able to read and parse the ruling and you were not.

    I also explained to you why that question you asked seems disingenuous, including referencing the judgment.

    This law was not about preventing children from seeing pornography. It was about effectively banning pornography on the state. Same reason voter ID isn’t about limiting voter fraud, but about putting hurdles in the way of people who would otherwise vote against the party that supports voter ID.

    Only one of us is being stupid here, and it isn’t the person that is here explaining the judgment.

    Strangle ,

    I wasn’t talking about the ruling. I was talking about how people in here feel about kids accessing pornography

    My question was for a purpose, but it wasn’t disingenuous. I seriously am concerned that lemmy users might not think there’s anything wrong with kids seeing pornography.

    I don’t think that this law should go into effect, but that’s also not what I asked. I asked nothing about the law or the ruling, because I already agree that this isn’t the solution.

    What I was worried about was that we might not be aligned as to why it wasn’t the solution. Or that there was even an issue at all to solve.

    And like I said, the visceral negative reaction I’ve received even asking that question really tells me all I need to know.

    Now voter ID just makes sense. When I walk up to a voting booth I say “my name is Strangle” and they cross me off the list and hand me a pencil. I could go the next town over and say “my name is SCB, give me a pencil”

    That’s obviously fraud and it’s against the law, but if you were a corrupt politician, you could - let’s say - get a bunch of deceased people on the voter registration list, and then send some cronies to those booths claiming to be those people and manufacture votes that way.

    Voter ID would go a long way to limit that kind of exploitation of the system.

    Of course, this only makes sense if you actually want a legit election. If all you care about is going further and further left every election and going right at any point is a step in the wrong direction, you won’t understand that.

    There are people who literally think anything, hook or crook, is worth it to stop a Republican from office.

    That’s scary, cause people who think that think breaking the law or whatever (censoring news stories during an election and banning newspapers from Twitter) is justified because ‘democracy is at risk if we don’t elect a democrst’

    SCB , (edited )

    The problem you describe for Voter ID does not exist. I mean that literally - people who attempt that already get caught. Voter ID laws do demonstrably create a hurdle for certain people who should be eligible to vote to actually do so - they do this by design, because the State could absolutely just mail voter ID cards for free to every registered voter, or allow some 2FA method of voting remotely (as with mail-in ballots) which from context I am already fairly certain you do not support.

    Similarly, your take on porn is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Parental controls are more than capable. I didn’t use them with my teen because I didn’t feel the need to. She has a very healthy understanding of and sense of responsibility toward sex. We are extremely open about sex in my house. I do not, and don’t think any parent would, support strangers coming into my home to dictate what is a healthy sexual attitude for my child.

    I am not a leftist, and currently have several leftists yelling at me for correcting their poor assumptions and understanding of how the world works. Not sure why you keep bringing up leftists.

    propaganja ,

    I’m not sure you’re really trying to understand the problem here. Why do you think people don’t want to answer the question?

    It’s a simple question with an obvious answer. The real question is, why would you ask that? You’re not just looking for a, “Yes.” The obvious suspicion is that it’s a leading question, and you’ll use it to try and coerce a subsequent point. It doesn’t matter if you’re genuinely not trying to do that. It’s upon you to recognize how your own question may be perceived.

    The reason the guy replied, “define kids, etc” was because he was already anticipating that this isn’t the real answer you’re looking for. I can say with considerable confidence that the vast majority of people here will understand this.

    I agree that kids should not be exposed to porn.

    mrnotoriousman ,

    I'm sure you'll fit right in on truth social

    Redhotkurt ,
    @Redhotkurt@kbin.social avatar

    Some fucking retard

    Really, bruh?

    Strangle ,

    Really

    CaptainAlcohol ,

    I don’t see anyone saying that. They’ve been explaining why this law wouldn’t pass and why it wouldn’t be effective. You can do better…

    From the article:

    “The statute is not narrowly tailored and chills the speech of Plaintiffs and adults who wish to access sexual materials,” Ezra said in the decision. “[T]he law is not narrowly tailored because it substantially regulates protected speech, is severely underinclusive, and uses overly restrictive enforcement methods.”

    The judge concluded, “The Court agrees that the state has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online. But that goal, however crucial, does not negate this Court’s burden to ensure that the laws passed in its pursuit comport with established First Amendment doctrine. There are viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means.”

    Strangle ,

    So kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography, right?

    CaptainAlcohol ,

    Absolutely. But the law needs to be applied correctly, and this one particllular law couldn’t be applied based on certain observations reported here in the comment section too. Preexisting tools are •parental control •sites blocked by the isp •age verification tools that don’t impact on user privacy, such as using a credit card associated to an account More importantly, if we are to force age verifications, we should access a method with clear and well designated steps, not just a vague idea, as well as defining what is adult content. This is substantially the argument here: freedom of expression, data privacy.

    Strangle ,

    As long as we agree on that

    Hyperreality , (edited )

    “When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”

    Ezekiel 23:18-21

    “So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.”

    Genesis 19:35

    Prostitution, horse sized dicks, breast fondling, incest and rape.

    Should Americans under the age of 18 be banned from reading the bible because it is arguably pornographic?

    Or is it important that we define what constitutes pornography and what constitutes a child, so that banning the bible isn't possible?

    And don't think this is me simply being funny. The bible has been been banned in some schools and for some ages, thanks to these kinds of overly broad and poorly written laws.

    Strangle ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Zetta ,

    Generally speaking that should be the goal, but I started watching porn when I was pretty young and would do so again if I had to start my life over. It’s up to parents to stop that kind of behavior, not the government.

    Generally I think there should be zero regulation on age verification for things like porn and other “adult” content.

    It’s the parents job to police their kids, not the state. Any government regulations regarding age verification would likely infringe on our rights.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •