this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
130 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

58123 readers
4355 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Conservative government would require ID to watch porn: Poilievre::OTTAWA — A future Conservative government would change the law to require that porn websites verify the age of users to prevent minors from accessing the content, Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre signalled on Wednesday.  When asked whether his government would require porn websites to verify the age of users, Poilievre gave a one-word answer: “Yes.”  […]

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 43 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I have a few honest questions for anyone who supports this kind of legislation.

First, what problem specifically is this trying to address? Have teen pregnancies gone up since the advent of kids being able to access porn on the internet? Kids with STDs? Sexual assaults on children? What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now? Is there a model that shows a correlation between the behaviors this legislation intends to address and the social ills you believe are associated with it?

Second is the related question of what metrics you think will improve with the introduction of this legislation? How long do you think it will take for that change to come about? If it does not, would you support removing this legislation?

Third, if a social ill were to be associated as per the above with online content, would you support similar legislation to regulate access (eg, if hate speech or LGBT-phobia posted online were to show a positive correlation with intolerance or violence), would you require online services to monitor access to sites hosting that kind of content, such as requiring a government issued ID to be kept on record and associated with specific user accounts?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now?

I wondered the same thing and I eventually figured it out. Here are 5 metrics that have gone up: LGBTQ.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

Can republicans use this to control women or minorities?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used to hurt people?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used to increase unprotected sex?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used to have sex with minors?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used… you see.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

First, what problem specifically is this trying to address? Have teen pregnancies gone up since the advent of kids being able to access porn on the internet? Kids with STDs? Sexual assaults on children? What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now? Is there a model that shows a correlation between the behaviors this legislation intends to address and the social ills you believe are associated with it?

The culture war has demanded that porn to be the issue. By porn, I mean: sex education, LGBT+ people, and drag queens.

Second is the related question of what metrics you think will improve with the introduction of this legislation? How long do you think it will take for that change to come about? If it does not, would you support removing this legislation?

None however once everyone is use to banning porn, the Government can now ban other "undesirables" like LGBT people, sex education, and anything else related to sexuality. The Liberals won't ban this however a Conservative government, will be very tempted in pushing their agenda.

Third, if a social ill were to be associated as per the above with online content, would you support similar legislation to regulate access (eg, if hate speech or LGBT-phobia posted online were to show a positive correlation with intolerance or violence), would you require online services to monitor access to sites hosting that kind of content, such as requiring a government issued ID to be kept on record and associated with specific user accounts?

No. Government bans aren't effective. Education, exposure to new ideas and peoples, and empathy are going to be far better tools to combat hate in the long term.

In short term, use freedom of speech to mock the shit of these people or other creative uses of freedom speech.

There's Wunsiedel, Germany who used a Nazi protest to raise money for Exit Deutschland, courtesy of Nazis.

The Jewish Bar Association did a fundraiser called “Adopt a Nazi” and raised $134,000 for Southern Poverty Law Center.

Kal Penn started a fundraiser in a name of racist for Syrian refugees.

Or the numerous times Redditors took over racist sub-reddits, such r/punchablefaces, r/WhitePolitics, r/Whites, r/StormFront, r/trannys, r/Faggots, and more.

Or the hero who took a Conferdate pride Facebook group and turned it into a “Celebrating queer support for Michelle Obama, Judaism, and mixed-race marriages.”

The Man who mocked Nazis with tuba playing.

Or when Swedish anti-fascists pranked Nazis in 1940s, by creating 3,000 fradulent tickets for a Nazi show. A small riot broke out.

My favorite, when Exit Deutschland used a racist rock show to spread the message about how getting out a hate group. Exit Deutschland pulled it off by handing out free t-shirts that when washed showed how to contact Exit Deutschland. Nazis were clearly outraged and went onto the internet and spread Exit Deutschland’s message, for free.

As Robert Evan’s said in his book “The War on Everyone” when discussing about Richard what’s his face, getting milkshaked. “Blood is cool. Milkshakes aren’t.”

Edit: Links

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

In return, I will require porn to let authorities watch my ID, so take that Conservatives.

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

Fuck you Bitcoin Millhouse and fuck your 'Conservatives'.

[–] Apollonius_Cone@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Since they will trace ID through porn consumption will this then be tied to what types of porn that are watched through that ID to "weed" out LGBT?

Slippery slope PP.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 7 months ago

Slippery slope PP.

That's the point. Far easier to restrict rights when a previous government has done it.

[–] Codilingus@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago

Lmao, do they not know that online porn companies just region block any government dumb enough to pass these laws? A few months ago I read about PornHub and others region blocking a US state (IIRC), because they did the exact same thing.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Pierre will lose seats. Not a good idea.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

"Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake"

[–] LotzaSpaghetti@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

One would hope but watch how this is suddenly a good idea bc skippy suggested it.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

In our political climate, it won’t have much effect. People hate Trudeau so much that it’s common to see “Fuck Trudeau” stickers on a few cars when going out for groceries. Some people even deck out their houses with big black flags with the slogan.

The Conservative Party would win a landslide majority if an election was to be held today.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Ave you got your porn watchin loicence guv? Can't watch it without it yunno.