• Eggyhead@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    A side thought: what would the world look like if you needed to be 18+ to make a social media account?

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Define social media and then imagine a constant argument of semantics where online communities get destroyed and created based on law suites.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I assume practically the same in terms of child safety. Teens will find a way around or a more underground alternative to hang out with each other online.

      To your question: More headaches and invasion of privacy for everyone due to enforcement. How do you enforce it other than state issued ID? It would also exclude a lot of people who either don’t have that ID or don’t have access to it. Then there’s the whole question if whether you want the government to know what media you’re interacting with. For legal reasons the social media company would need to keep evidence on file of your identification, if not report it. Keeping is regardless of whether it’s part of that law, CYA and all.

  • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Could” is the important word here. In other contries, we long have laws making age verification mandatory. It’s just that it’s a popup asking “Are you over 18?” And you can click whatever you want. Also the companies are in different jurisdictions, don’t comply with local law while the internet spans the globe. I don’t see any substantial difference here.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The difference is, I think, just how much of the content or there is hosted in America. If they succeed in forcing local companies to follow some new draconian measure, it’ll likely have a disproportionately high effect on non-US traffic.

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sure. I think people from the US can see what our privacy regulations did to the internet. For example with the cookie consent banners. And disclosing somewhere what personal info gets shared with whom. Up until now the USA hasn’t really made an effort to regulate the tech giants. Maybe that’s going to change with certain topics like porn. It’s definitely going to have an impact on the world. I mean lots of tech companies are located in the US. Pornhub though is from Canada as far as I know. And the second biggest porn site XVideos is based in the Czech Republic. So I’m curious how US law is supposed to be enforced here.

        • forrgott@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Huh, didn’t realize that. I understand a lot of the physical servers for those kinda companies are in the upper Midwest, but I never thought about where thire HQ is at; you make some excellent points.

          There is definitely a fight brewing over who has final say in regards to what happens on the Internet. Gonna be interesting seeing how this plays out.

          • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            For sure. That’s going to be interesting. I mean at first the internet was for academics, students and smart people. Then it was the wild west. Now it’s long become integral part of society and everybody is on the internet. I think as of now it’s mainly big companies who “own” the place. My issue with that is mainly that they do with our personal info as they please. And their business tactics. Like Spotify ripping off artists, YouTube not really caring about the creators and their well-being. Everything is about ads and commercialized to the extreme. And the internet wasn’t always like this. But all of that is a slightly different story.

            In the end, we have to apply our laws also to the online world. We can’t have that be a separate space. But laws are for single countries and have borders. The internet doesn’t. I sometimes see people wanting to introduce borders into the internet and make it more national. I think that’d break everything. The internet is supposed to connect us. And our world is globalized.

            But we’re also not making an effort in the first place. Gambling, porn and all that unwelcome stuff is just hosted abroad. Doesn’t matter if 100% of the customers are somewhere, the company is just allowed to be ran from some small island and then it’s fine. We could just ban that in my opinion. I’m not a big fan of DNS blocking or messing with internet traffic, so we’d have to come up with a good technical solution. And I think the USA, the EU and Canada would be able to agree on some consensus regarding the protection of minors and that’d spread and affect most of the world.

            Or we just go for their money. You can’t circumvent and run one of the largest online platforms without money. If all American and European comanies wouldn’t be allowed to advertise there, that’d solve the issue pretty quick. And we already had that. I think Visa or some other payment provider said they’d have to cease service if they continue not doing anything against revenge porn and exploitation and copyright infringement. That lead to all major porn platforms making account verification for the actresses mandatory and removing lots of amateur stuff and pirated videos. So that definitely works.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    How the American war on porn could change the way you use the internet

    looks slightly annoyed

    I’m not particularly enthusiastic about such state laws, but the UK spent the last several years having committed to mandate age verification itself prior to eventually abandoning it, and I didn’t see Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about British law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_UK_Internet_age_verification_system

    With the passing of the Digital Economy Act 2017, the United Kingdom became the first country to pass a law containing a legal mandate on the provision of an Internet age verification system.

    And if I recall, they had some follow-up effort, which I assume is what is briefly referenced in the article.

    looks

    Yeah.

    https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/guidance-service-providers-pornographic-content/

    Implementing the Online Safety Act: Protecting children from online pornography

    This is the second of four major consultations that Ofcom, as the appointed online safety regulator, will publish as part of our work to establish the new regulations under the Online Safety Act (2023).

    Currently, services publishing pornographic content online do not have sufficient measures in place to prevent children from accessing this content. Many grant children access to pornographic content without age checks, or by relying on checks that only require the user to confirm that they are over the age of 18.

    The Online Safety Act is clear that service providers publishing pornographic content online must implement age assurance which is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a user is a child to prevent children from normally encountering their online pornographic content.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I didn’t see Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about British law.

      Good. They’re not supposed to.

      The purpose of the VoA is to broadcast American news and perspectives to the rest of the world. Their programming is not intended for Americans and for most of its history the VoA was prohibited by law from intentionally broadcasting directly to American citizens. A lot of Americans aren’t even aware the VoA exists because of this. This prohibition was eased somewhat in 2013 to make putting VoA content online easier and to allow Americans access to VoA content if we want it. ie I as an American citizen am allowed to hear what the VoA says but they’re still not supposed to talk to me on purpose.

      If you do hear the Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about anything, be sure to let us know so that we can make the responsible individuals be in trouble.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    a survey of 1,000 young people concluded that pornography can normalise sexual violence and harmful attitudes among children.

    That’s irrelevant. This argument assumes that age verification laws will reduce children’s consumption of porn. The war on drugs has shown us that prohibition of this kind of stuff doesn’t reduce anything and only ever males it woese. All that will happen is children (and adults) will now go to worse/less moderated websites which will on average have more CSAM and other real sexual abuse.

    • skaffi@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you were a teenager, back when online porn were all pay sites, and so you were using Kazaa/Limewire instead, then you know.

    • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      True. But the people advocating for these laws don’t want to deal with nuance and compromise on what it would take to have a society where you educate people on sex in a healthy and positive way. These prohibitionists see the world as either bad or good - nothing in between. Good (how ever they decide to define it) must win no compromises, and the weapon that they use is unfounded fear of the bad and it works.

      And the reason fear works is because it is easy and visceral and reality’s complexity doesn’t work for media’s need for sound bites.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think the part about IDs is what’s important. They are not against porn, it’s just a good excuse to account for another part of your activities. Which may be used to classify you or even blackmail you, but I think knowing your preferences is enough. It may allow secret services to predict whom you may like or may not.

        Naturally it will allow to track you.

        There are many factors affecting energy spent on doing something.

        I personally think that this timeline is fucking bullshit and we got there by always choosing the lesser evil, so libertarian (you may make it left-libertarian, I genuinely don’t care about left-right division because it’s mostly traditional and imaginary) revolutions in all the civilized countries are long overdue.

        Not even libertarian, maybe the Empire at War: Forces of Corruption game was onto something. Maybe the left-right and libertarian-statist distinctions are obsolete for our time just like Roman optimates-populares distinction. Maybe we need some new line, formalist-naturalist (as in formal law versus natural law) or something. Where the former part would be existing political mechanisms and the latter part would be saying “no” to fools, thieves and bandits.

    • sentientity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Pretty sure the normalization of sexual violence and harmful attitudes came from the adults in my life. If parents and teachers adequately teach kids to identify those things and know that they are unequivocally wrong, then teens who see unhealthy stuff in porn will notice and be critical of it. Probably indignant, too, since no one is more justice focused than a teen who has just learned something about the world.

      The issue is backward ideas about relationships being reinforced by adults, either through active misogyny or just never talking about it. This argument boils my blood because the porn itself is not the problem. Awful attitudes about relationships and women start very early and they often come directly from parents themselves.

        • sentientity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I honestly think it’s about degrading the right to free expression. But yes also probably. The people who cast women and kids as pawns in need of protection are usually not super respectful to the real women/kids in their lives.

  • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Papers please: for millions of Americans, accessing online pornography now requires a government ID

    And I imagine everyone wants a picture of your ID. Which is horrible on so many levels…

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not Americans in the sense I see it. Flag pissing regressives is what they are. A minority that gerrymanders their way into power and pushes their childish backward thinking on the real Americans. May the rot in their closets from which they only emerge every four years to crash grinder.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not childish. This is just the appearance because people are not afraid of “stupid” politicians as much as they should be.

      In fact all these changes are consistent and all in one direction.

      Information is power, and all these actions create a system where you can’t avoid being identified and visible in everything you do. Then the people in power, if you somehow threaten that power, may assure that you won’t anymore without any open repression, without jailing you or murdering you or even censoring you. You just won’t get anywhere near visibility or power to affect the world, and it will all seem pretty natural and chaotic, so you won’t even see your path being corrected so that you wouldn’t affect politics.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    We had these kinds of debates when I myself was a minor (in the late 2000s). I would have thought it would be over by now and people would have realized that allowing teenagers to watch porn isn’t actually very harmful to them at all. Seems not, humanity doesn’t get smarter over time.

    • Dempf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It was already settled long ago by the Supreme Court, but evangelicals are trying to use private action as a way around it, and I bet they’re hoping that one of several current lawsuits makes its way up to our new and corrupt court.

    • dmalteseknight@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The porn landscape has changed quite a bit since the 2000s:

      • Accessibility: In those days people had the “family computer” which limited the time you could access to porn and had to be extra careful as to not get caught. Nowadays you can see porn on a plethora of devices and can basically see porn 24/7.
      • Variety: Nowadays you can find porn for anything and it can get pretty dark. Porn addicts get bored of regular porn and go down a dark rabbit hole. Back in the day you had to make due with what you get or go through a lot of effort to find something you like more.

      Mind you I am not saying that porn should be outright banned but there should be barriers in place. Example porn can only use the domain “xxx” so parents can add the filter to the parenting controls of whatever devices. Sure there are ways to circumvent that but it at least takes more effort.

      • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Porn addicts get bored of regular porn and go down a dark rabbit hole.

        This has been disproven over and over. The only people who go to the “darker stuff” are people who are already inclined. They just work themselves up to it by going through the regular stuff.

        It’s the same thing with serial killers, they warm up to it with animals. Which is why someone killing animals is a massive warning sign.

        No, I’m not comparing serial killers to porn addicts. I’m comparing the process of warming up to the extreme stuff by first doing the less extreme stuff.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Humanity is smart, those making such laws 1) want the information collected by identifying people, not to forbid porn, 2) just hate autistic people. Because non-autistic teenagers will find something. But then, TBH, autistic ones too.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Biggest problem is that generic production stuff too often models bad sex, a cartoon version of sex that’s not healthy or pleasurable for anyone, let alone unsafe.

  • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So USA slowly becoming China now? What’s next VPN users will face jail time?

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fuck that. My VPN keeps my information safe. It’s a basic goddamn right. There ain’t no way they are taking it without me knowing about it and saying it’s ok. It may not be the best way, but it’s an easy effective way to stop most people trying to scam information.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can’t hide forever and eventually you’ll be cornered and will have to fight back. It’s always better to have the initiative in choosing the field of battle. If you hide until you are cornered, it’s your enemy who has that initiative.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Too many American corporations rely on VPNs for that to happen. The last thing politicians want is to piss off their corporate masters.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe our republicans will develop a strange love for China like they already have with Russia.