Everytime i see a bill that includes "child safety" in the title, i know it's just going to be another attempt at turning the internet into a garden walled, big corpo controlled shithole, with the glowies being able to read any and all messages, and encryption being illegal.
An internet devoid of unacceptable "deviations" from gender and sexuality too. Given the effort to erase trans and gay people from public spaces, this seems like a parallel effort to destroy their digital ones too.
Eh, I think you're missing their point. This is one of those "Why do you get to claim you're special, but nobody is telling me I'M special?" kind of comments. They're saying they just want people to suck as much as anyone else and it all be equal. It's a stupid argument, but definitely different than your interpretation and response.
Not really harmless tho, i've seen countless places turn into a trans circlejerk.
As for the "caring" part, i don't care whatever you are, just don't mention it. I don't need to hear "im trans" every second, or it being mentioned in every message, or your name, your blog etc etc
Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as "ironic".
Like someone complains "I'm tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care", and someone replies "Im' tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care".
I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment's logic to itself.
It was probably unproductive of me to try to talk about it further with them, and I really wanted to sign off with "btw I'm nonbinary" on every reply I made
Not really harmless tho, iāve seen countless places turn into a trans circlejerk.
What exactly would that even be? "hnghh, we respect other people's choices and individuality, hngggh" How awful. All we want is to have the same respect and autonomy granted to straight and/or cis people to be granted to us.
As for the ācaringā part, I donāt care whatever you are, just donāt mention it.
And that's harmful because unless you truly are consistent and also don't want men to mention their girlfriends or wives and for women to never mention their boyfriends or husbands around you, you're treating people differently based on their gender or sexuality, allowing someone to talk about their home life, what they may have done over the weekend with their partner, but only if it ain't gay or trans.
Literally the entire point of pronouns is defeated if people don't know what pronouns a person uses (and this applies to more than just trans people too), so there is some use for people that put them in their name.
Beyond that though, even if there's no need to say or publicly display something, that doesn't mean one shouldn't say it, and it definitely doesn't mean one should be forbidden from saying it. There's no need for people to tell me about their hobbies, or wear t-shirts or put up bumper stickers with messages on them, or put up religious symbols everywhere. Perhaps I'm tired of seeing messaging for political candidates I don't like, and wish they'd keep their preferences to themselves, or perhaps I don't care if people are married, they could just keep it between themselves rather than wear some rings to tell the world about it. But you know what? If I were to support making it illegal to say and show and wear an express such things, especially on the internet where the stakes are even lower, I'd be closer to the leader of something like the Taliban or North Korea, than to a good citizen of a democracy.
Even if you think saying/displaying/supporting something is "attention seeking", well, people have a right to do that. To try to restrict that would be to restrict the right to free speech itself, because you cannot communicate with someone without first getting their attention.
I really don't think you are, because most people don't realize how broad things will get. While right now, the targets are trans and gay people, people who write and pass these sorts of laws don't want to stop there. When I said "deviations", I wasn't just speaking about 'us queers', but also about men with long hair, women with flat chests, literally anyone who doesn't mould themselves into the right wing's view of "Man" and "Woman". I don't think you want the colour of your shirts policed, or for cops to come in and throw a woman out of the restroom because she wasn't "feminine" enough to someone.
I really donāt give 2 shits if youāre trans or gay or whatever. Just keep it in front of you. No need to put your pronouns in your name, or put a trans flag everywhere.
If you don't care, then why does it bother you so much to see them merely existing in public or online?
I'd like to suggest that you ignore pronouns or pride flags since they clearly don't appeal to you, but like many things in life, what doesn't matter to you might matter to one of the other 7 billion or so human beings on the planet with you, and putting the pronouns in the bio or displaying a pride flag actively communicates safety and creates a welcoming atmosphere, while also helping us find like-minded people and make friendships.
You seem like a pretty solid poster except for this one pretty bad take. Donāt let dramatic internet discourse and a few attention grabbing media personalities or allies shape your viewpoint for an entire group.
I know you probably already know this but I donāt want good posters leaving Lemmy because of silly disagreements or pet peeves. There are annoying people pushing toxic discourse on any issue. Generally people will live and let live if you donāt personally attack them. Someone specifying their pronouns isnāt attention seeking behavior (usually) itās just a courtesy. Your comment is just begging for the kind of responses that will require you to give people the kind of attention you claim to hate giving them.
I agree, but I don't think that's this person. I also poked around their post and comments and I didn't get the feeling they were some rabid Proud Boy or whatever, and I would rather try to engage with people like Hurglet before the actual right-wing does.
I agree to some extent and think that defederation of instances that promote harmful viewpoints such as explodingheads and their users. For others Iād rather promote good behavior rather than engaging with them with a hostile attitude and let attitudes change organically. OP doesnāt exactly fit the bill of a proud boy but has one bad take. If someone wants to block him I understand but Iād rather change his mind
Hopefully nothing stopping you, and it can avoid some awkward situations. My company forbids us from including them in our email signature block, and there's been some confusion due to people assuming I'm a woman and using she/her pronouns to refer to me. Even as a cis white guy, I wish my company let us add preferred pronouns to avoid dumb little situations like that.
I'm sorry to put you on a spotlight, but your situation is precisely what I was thinking about when I made my comment. Not queer or some woke SJW warrior. You're just a person trying to live his life, and I have to imagine that a State Law banning you from putting them in anything official or public would be similarly frustrating.
But the thing is, you're just collateral damage at best to the GOP, and speaking from experience, at worst the target of ire simply for creating such confusion in other people for merely having an ambiguous name, I assume.
Sounds like you need to find a new employer. That is a toxic and discriminatory policy that exists exclusively for one reason: because the executives are raging bigots.
I get downvoted a lot too. But after reading this, I think the downvote buttons might actually mean youāre right, because there are a lot of retards on lemmy who drool their way through life and have no idea what theyāre talking about.
Because youāre right. I can tell by the downvotes. The more you get, the fighter you are
Wtf is this argument ?
Are you at the same time validating "Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them" and "Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us" ?
I know i already replied to your other comments, but it's funny it's the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing
Strange, itās displaying as if I replied to a different comment than I intended to.
But really, Iām just mocking people who downvote others because they donāt agree with their comment. I think itās really lame.
Iād like a place to talk to people, about contentious issues. I personally never use the downvote button and only occasionally even use the upvote button.
When I see a perfectly reasonable comment with -50 downvotes within minutes of posting ā¦ it makes me laugh at everyone who just canāt hit that downvote button fast enough.
When I see a perfectly reasonable comment with -50 downvotes within minutes of posting ā¦ it makes me laugh at everyone who just canāt hit that downvote button fast enough.
I think it's safe to assume that those 50 people who downvoted that comment thought it actually wasn't perfectly reasonable
I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like "making a show of being hated -> attention seeker". But ok, let's forget about that.
You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that's the reason for your downvotes.
And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It's very simple really. Either you don't get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me.
If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?
I donāt subscribe to the idea that tweets or message boards or ideas or āsilenceā is violence.
The upvote system was invented to put relevant discussion to the top, and hide irrelevant discussion. What people have done with it is use it as a like/dislike button.
If thatās what it was, thatās what it would be called. Like Facebook, which has an actual ālikeā button
But I do think people who even interact with the system are losers. Thatās my personal, anecdotal, opinion of them
These laws aren't about children, that's just a talking point to sell laws that tame the potential anonymity of the internet for private profit.
If American society gave the slightest shit at all about our children, we wouldn't have literally starved our K-12 system into utter ruin for over half a century to cut the taxes of the corporations and already rich assholes killing the planet and those children's future on it for private profit. We wouldn't then say selling public education to for profit industry in the form of charter schools is a solution.
The United States doesn't give a shit about its children. Not one tiny bit. Now our beloved economy? We'd throw all our (non-wealthy) kids into a fucking volcano if Wall Street told us it would protect that.
Not to mention, do people really believe that people shouldn't be allowed to see sexual content until they're 18? I started looking up titties when I was eleven, and as I understood it, the generation before mine either inherited or stole porn mags and tapes from older brothers/dads or got somebody to buy some for them. Given how useless sex ed was on the actual sex aspect of things, how are teenagers supposed to figure out anything besides anatomical structures?
The fundamental premise just seems weird to me, why are we trying to hide away pornography like it's this shameful corruptive thing? I maybe knew a handful of weird kids that listened to the 18 year old restriction (all on extremely religious grounds), so the idea of actually trying to enforce it seems kinda crazy. I don't know, it just reeks of the idea that masturbation is a sin, but everyone's so uncomfortable with the notion of teenagers + anything sexual that nobody wants to touch it.
I just feel like the next couple generations are gonna be weird with the tug of war between book bannings, LGBTQ+ bannings, religion in schools/out of them, and all the other proxy wars being fought using schools as the battle ground. Not to mention all the shootings.
These laws are dangerous, kids are going to sneak a peek at adult things and when they do going to pornhub is far safer than having to avoid strong filters by joining a private discord group full of creepy old guys.
Honestly these laws are a groomers dream, keeping kids naive and then funnelling them in to poorly moderated or purposely immoral porn sharing communities creates actual dangers which aren't present when a teenager sees some videos from the front page of pornhub.
What we actually need to do it have real conversations about things
For that to happen people would have to agree with the basic fact that "teenagers wanting to watch porn is normal", which generally doesn't go well. But ultimately it's such a touchy topic that the people honestly wishing to protect their children cannot even do it effectively. Some don't know how to handle it, many just ignore the matter altogether.
Then we end up with these moral panic-driven measures that at best help no one, or, more cynically, enable the erosion of people's rights and unjustified persecution.
I love how this "sticking it to big tech" is also funded by big tech. The general goal of someone like Facebook with this legislation is pass a bunch of rules that only large companies like them can comply with, and watch mastodon instances and other attempts to detrown them end in FBI raids and more regulations.
Not to mention none of this will actually protect children. When I was 14 I told an adult online about my life and they helped me make it through some rougher periods until I got to 18. I know the internet is highly imperfect but I think gate keeping kids out of it will just lead to more underground abuse and abuse that they don't find was abuse until they are adults.
There is no Porn Big Tech big enough to be able to afford this legislation. From the article:
As recently as May, only a quarter of people trying to access Fordās site even clicked the link to verify their age and only 9 percent of those users completed the process. Ford said it costs his company around $1.50 per person to verify their age, and thereās no promise that those who follow through will buy anything. Pornhubās response has been far more aggressive, blocking all traffic from some of these restrictive states rather than paying the extra cost.
Remember it is part of the GOP's published plan for 2024 and beyond to ban pornography.
These laws are made by bad parents or those that want to control someone else's children. It's so easy to just talk to your kids about the dangers of the internet and to put on parental controls on all devices.
Honestly, I don't think that's the case. I think it's more by people who want to virtue signal. They get to talk about how they're "protecting the children" and their opponents (if they dare to oppose it) "don't want to protect the children." I don't believe many of them are doing it out of an actual desire to protect children, even a misguided one.
Oh that's definitely part of it. I also think this is an attempt to scrub the internet of any mention of women freedoms, contraception, abortion, LGBTQ+, etc.
Also, it's never ACTUALLY about parental rights and protecting children. Plenty of parents want their kids to grow up believing that there is nothing inherently sexual about a naked body, or about women, but their perspective and rights never seem to be considered.
Think about how the reactionaries in control of many US states banned Drag Queen story hours and the like from libraries and schools, saying that it should be up to parents if they want their kids to go to them, only to then classify all drag shows as obscene and restricted to 18+.
This starts with some ambiguous "protecting the children" from porn argument to eventually requiring everyone to be "verified" with a digital ID before they can set foot on a highly controlled internet (or worse). We're already seeing increasing glimpses of this and it's in the government's and big tech's interest.
I'm so tired of the constant barrage of shit from all directions. This isn't the beautiful future of humanity I imagined as a kid. No one will look out for us except for us, the actual people that these out of touch rich and powerful high society clowns try to control and keep occupied with stupid culture wars amongst each other, or placate with bread and circus. Enough already ffs.
Humanity never changes. Teenage me found the entire idea that I might need "protection from harmful content on the Internet" ridiculous. Now I have been an adult for more than ten years, I still find it ridiculous that people younger than me might need that.
I just think that people should be given access to comprehensive sex ed early enough in life that it's before they end up viewing something like pornography through their own actions.
It will be interesting to see the politicians responses when their porn accounts are hacked and they all have to explain why their ID is associated with profiles that frequent tranny incest porn
āIt does seem like a very clear backlash to not just tech, but to any sort of movement towards allowing young people to make their own decisions based on the information that they can access,ā Jason Kelley, activism director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said in an interview earlier this month.
France has proposed similar age verification restrictions on porn in the past, leading its data protection agency, CNIL, to investigate the security of current services on the market, determining that many were āintrusiveā and for new, safer models to be developed.
Over the last few years, more than a dozen states, including many that have implemented age verification bills, have passed resolutions identifying porn as a āpublic health crisis,ā arguing that it encourages violence despite little research backing these claims.
āI think progressives had the idea that they wanted to regulate Big Tech without fully appreciating the degree to which they were playing with fire,ā Evan Greer, Fight for the Future director, said in an interview with The Verge earlier this month.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued to unravel the language related to pornography and ultimately won in 1997 after the Supreme Court decided that banning the material would infringe on the First Amendment rights of adults.
Without more pushback, age verification bills, just like the ongoing book bans taking place in schools, will continue to fuel the rightās censorship fire all at the expense of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The original article contains 1,875 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
There should be something to this. A lot of parents keep their children off of the internet, but having young children accessing āmostā of the internet is a bad fucking idea
Parents, monitor and limit your kids online. I know itās hard as fuck, I know other kids will think itās weird that your kid doesnāt know the new tiktok thing. Do it anyway
I genuinely think that children's ease of access to pornographic content is a serious and unprecedented threat to their well-being. This is why I think it was a mistake to normalise kids having unlimited access to internet-enabled mobile devices, and why I think having the family computer in a public-ish place is smart. It doesn't even necessarily have to result in your kid being socially impacted, if you just limit their time on it but still allow them some autonomy. I had friends growing up where their router shut down automatically overnight so they couldn't use their phones when they should be sleeping, but they were still just as hip and cool as anyone else.
And I think you have a misunderstanding of how isolated teenagers were from sexual content before the internet, magazines weren't exactly hard to get. Even before then, we've literally been making porn in every form of media since we were painting on cave walls.
The ease of access of it now, and the extreme shock value of a lot of what even shows up on homepages of major porn sites is unique compared to the pre-internet days.
weāve literally been making porn in every form of media since we were painting on cave walls.
Porn ā erotic art or even sexually explicit material. Children should not have their first exposure to genitalia through media made with the express purpose of sexual gratification.
Part of allowing people to develop, evolve, and mature their sexuality on their own should involve preventing formative experiences from being based on fantasy.
homepages of major porn sites is unique compared to the pre-internet days.
It's really not. You just weren't exposed to it and think it's new. The only change is the quantity, not the depravity. Marquis de Sade, the origin of the word sadist produced a significant amount of incredibly depraved erotic works back in the 1700's, and he was not unique.
To your second point, should their first exposure be to porn? Of course not, but developing, evolving and maturing is done by exploring, not by sitting in a cave and generating knowledge from scratch, even if you have an equally amateur friend. That's how people get hurt because they have no idea what they're doing. If they want to see what's out there, let them. Trying to ban everyone from sexual content until 18 is a uniquely modern take.
Not to mention, we're far too uncomfortable with the topic to have their first exposure be anything but porn, since sex ed is all drawings and awkward anatomy. And childbirth videos. Since I was a kid myself, all I've seen is moral panic that wants nothing more than to simply shut the blinds and pretend that there's nothing there.
It's been a while, but I'm confused. I never said anything like that, but that is essentially the government's point of view. Erotica requires one to be 18 to see, whether written, drawn, or photographed. Depictions of sex and nudity either ban everyone under 17 ( or 17 and under for NC-17 ratings), or expect parents to restrict those under 17 in the case of television as it can't be moderated (for now).
At any rate, I just wanted to respond and clarify despite the better part of a month passing.
86 Comments
HurgletOfficial@lemmy.basedcount.com · 117 pts · 2y
Everytime i see a bill that includes "child safety" in the title, i know it's just going to be another attempt at turning the internet into a garden walled, big corpo controlled shithole, with the glowies being able to read any and all messages, and encryption being illegal.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 57 pts · 2y
An internet devoid of unacceptable "deviations" from gender and sexuality too. Given the effort to erase trans and gay people from public spaces, this seems like a parallel effort to destroy their digital ones too.
HurgletOfficial@lemmy.basedcount.com · -68 pts · 2y
pennomi@lemmy.world · 66 pts · 2y
just_another_person@lemmy.world · -16 pts · 2y
Eh, I think you're missing their point. This is one of those "Why do you get to claim you're special, but nobody is telling me I'M special?" kind of comments. They're saying they just want people to suck as much as anyone else and it all be equal. It's a stupid argument, but definitely different than your interpretation and response.
HurgletOfficial@lemmy.basedcount.com · -27 pts · 2y
Not really harmless tho, i've seen countless places turn into a trans circlejerk.
As for the "caring" part, i don't care whatever you are, just don't mention it. I don't need to hear "im trans" every second, or it being mentioned in every message, or your name, your blog etc etc
pennomi@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 2y
micka190@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2y
Someone tugged too hard š„
reversebananimals@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 2y
Strangle@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
I want to hear it.
And itās a discussion community, thereās a topic and people respond. If you donāt like it just move on. No reason to tell anyone to shut up.
Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as "ironic". Like someone complains "I'm tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care", and someone replies "Im' tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care". I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment's logic to itself.
Stovetop@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2y
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
It was probably unproductive of me to try to talk about it further with them, and I really wanted to sign off with "btw I'm nonbinary" on every reply I made
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 5 pts · 2y
What exactly would that even be? "hnghh, we respect other people's choices and individuality, hngggh" How awful. All we want is to have the same respect and autonomy granted to straight and/or cis people to be granted to us.
And that's harmful because unless you truly are consistent and also don't want men to mention their girlfriends or wives and for women to never mention their boyfriends or husbands around you, you're treating people differently based on their gender or sexuality, allowing someone to talk about their home life, what they may have done over the weekend with their partner, but only if it ain't gay or trans.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social · 3 pts · 2y
Literally the entire point of pronouns is defeated if people don't know what pronouns a person uses (and this applies to more than just trans people too), so there is some use for people that put them in their name.
Beyond that though, even if there's no need to say or publicly display something, that doesn't mean one shouldn't say it, and it definitely doesn't mean one should be forbidden from saying it. There's no need for people to tell me about their hobbies, or wear t-shirts or put up bumper stickers with messages on them, or put up religious symbols everywhere. Perhaps I'm tired of seeing messaging for political candidates I don't like, and wish they'd keep their preferences to themselves, or perhaps I don't care if people are married, they could just keep it between themselves rather than wear some rings to tell the world about it. But you know what? If I were to support making it illegal to say and show and wear an express such things, especially on the internet where the stakes are even lower, I'd be closer to the leader of something like the Taliban or North Korea, than to a good citizen of a democracy.
Even if you think saying/displaying/supporting something is "attention seeking", well, people have a right to do that. To try to restrict that would be to restrict the right to free speech itself, because you cannot communicate with someone without first getting their attention.
HurgletOfficial@lemmy.basedcount.com · -7 pts · 2y
True that, but i never said it should be forbidden, i just said i'd prefer if it would be
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
I really don't think you are, because most people don't realize how broad things will get. While right now, the targets are trans and gay people, people who write and pass these sorts of laws don't want to stop there. When I said "deviations", I wasn't just speaking about 'us queers', but also about men with long hair, women with flat chests, literally anyone who doesn't mould themselves into the right wing's view of "Man" and "Woman". I don't think you want the colour of your shirts policed, or for cops to come in and throw a woman out of the restroom because she wasn't "feminine" enough to someone.
If you don't care, then why does it bother you so much to see them merely existing in public or online?
I'd like to suggest that you ignore pronouns or pride flags since they clearly don't appeal to you, but like many things in life, what doesn't matter to you might matter to one of the other 7 billion or so human beings on the planet with you, and putting the pronouns in the bio or displaying a pride flag actively communicates safety and creates a welcoming atmosphere, while also helping us find like-minded people and make friendships.
TORFdot0@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
You seem like a pretty solid poster except for this one pretty bad take. Donāt let dramatic internet discourse and a few attention grabbing media personalities or allies shape your viewpoint for an entire group.
I know you probably already know this but I donāt want good posters leaving Lemmy because of silly disagreements or pet peeves. There are annoying people pushing toxic discourse on any issue. Generally people will live and let live if you donāt personally attack them. Someone specifying their pronouns isnāt attention seeking behavior (usually) itās just a courtesy. Your comment is just begging for the kind of responses that will require you to give people the kind of attention you claim to hate giving them.
Stovetop@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2y
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
I agree, but I don't think that's this person. I also poked around their post and comments and I didn't get the feeling they were some rabid Proud Boy or whatever, and I would rather try to engage with people like Hurglet before the actual right-wing does.
TORFdot0@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
I agree to some extent and think that defederation of instances that promote harmful viewpoints such as explodingheads and their users. For others Iād rather promote good behavior rather than engaging with them with a hostile attitude and let attitudes change organically. OP doesnāt exactly fit the bill of a proud boy but has one bad take. If someone wants to block him I understand but Iād rather change his mind
sour@kbin.social · 2 pts · 2y
can cis people put pronouns in their name
djsoren19@yiffit.net · 4 pts · 2y
Hopefully nothing stopping you, and it can avoid some awkward situations. My company forbids us from including them in our email signature block, and there's been some confusion due to people assuming I'm a woman and using she/her pronouns to refer to me. Even as a cis white guy, I wish my company let us add preferred pronouns to avoid dumb little situations like that.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
I'm sorry to put you on a spotlight, but your situation is precisely what I was thinking about when I made my comment. Not queer or some woke SJW warrior. You're just a person trying to live his life, and I have to imagine that a State Law banning you from putting them in anything official or public would be similarly frustrating.
But the thing is, you're just collateral damage at best to the GOP, and speaking from experience, at worst the target of ire simply for creating such confusion in other people for merely having an ambiguous name, I assume.
hedgehog@ttrpg.network · 1 pts · 2y
Obviously just adding pronouns would be better, but can you add āMr.ā at the beginning of your name in your signature?
Veraxus@kbin.social · 0 pts · 2y
Sounds like you need to find a new employer. That is a toxic and discriminatory policy that exists exclusively for one reason: because the executives are raging bigots.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
IDK, if she lives in one of these authoritarian right wing regimes in the US, the company might not have a choice.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 0 pts · 2y
Yes, and it's actually appreciated by many trans and nonbinary people, because it normalises the concept.
VitoScaletta@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 2y
Strangle@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2y
I get downvoted a lot too. But after reading this, I think the downvote buttons might actually mean youāre right, because there are a lot of retards on lemmy who drool their way through life and have no idea what theyāre talking about.
Because youāre right. I can tell by the downvotes. The more you get, the fighter you are
Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating "Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them" and "Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us" ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it's funny it's the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing
Strangle@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2y
Strange, itās displaying as if I replied to a different comment than I intended to.
But really, Iām just mocking people who downvote others because they donāt agree with their comment. I think itās really lame.
Iād like a place to talk to people, about contentious issues. I personally never use the downvote button and only occasionally even use the upvote button.
When I see a perfectly reasonable comment with -50 downvotes within minutes of posting ā¦ it makes me laugh at everyone who just canāt hit that downvote button fast enough.
So Iām really just mocking those people
VitoScaletta@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 2y
Just because your opinion is different from the mainstream doesn't mean you're cool and unique, it might just mean you're a dumb cunt
Strangle@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2y
Tech bros and communist teenagers arenāt āmainstreamā.
Donāt believe everything you read on social media
Nilz@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 2y
I think it's safe to assume that those 50 people who downvoted that comment thought it actually wasn't perfectly reasonable
Strangle@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
Sure, but theyāre children
Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like "making a show of being hated -> attention seeker". But ok, let's forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that's the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It's very simple really. Either you don't get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?
Strangle@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
I donāt subscribe to the idea that tweets or message boards or ideas or āsilenceā is violence.
The upvote system was invented to put relevant discussion to the top, and hide irrelevant discussion. What people have done with it is use it as a like/dislike button.
If thatās what it was, thatās what it would be called. Like Facebook, which has an actual ālikeā button
But I do think people who even interact with the system are losers. Thatās my personal, anecdotal, opinion of them
sour@kbin.social · 1 pts · 2y
they're all in for discrimination against trans and gay people
Strangle@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
You spend too much time online.
AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world · 83 pts · 2y
These laws aren't about children, that's just a talking point to sell laws that tame the potential anonymity of the internet for private profit.
If American society gave the slightest shit at all about our children, we wouldn't have literally starved our K-12 system into utter ruin for over half a century to cut the taxes of the corporations and already rich assholes killing the planet and those children's future on it for private profit. We wouldn't then say selling public education to for profit industry in the form of charter schools is a solution.
The United States doesn't give a shit about its children. Not one tiny bit. Now our beloved economy? We'd throw all our (non-wealthy) kids into a fucking volcano if Wall Street told us it would protect that.
Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 2y
Not to mention, do people really believe that people shouldn't be allowed to see sexual content until they're 18? I started looking up titties when I was eleven, and as I understood it, the generation before mine either inherited or stole porn mags and tapes from older brothers/dads or got somebody to buy some for them. Given how useless sex ed was on the actual sex aspect of things, how are teenagers supposed to figure out anything besides anatomical structures?
The fundamental premise just seems weird to me, why are we trying to hide away pornography like it's this shameful corruptive thing? I maybe knew a handful of weird kids that listened to the 18 year old restriction (all on extremely religious grounds), so the idea of actually trying to enforce it seems kinda crazy. I don't know, it just reeks of the idea that masturbation is a sin, but everyone's so uncomfortable with the notion of teenagers + anything sexual that nobody wants to touch it.
I just feel like the next couple generations are gonna be weird with the tug of war between book bannings, LGBTQ+ bannings, religion in schools/out of them, and all the other proxy wars being fought using schools as the battle ground. Not to mention all the shootings.
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works · 52 pts · 2y
These laws are dangerous, kids are going to sneak a peek at adult things and when they do going to pornhub is far safer than having to avoid strong filters by joining a private discord group full of creepy old guys.
Honestly these laws are a groomers dream, keeping kids naive and then funnelling them in to poorly moderated or purposely immoral porn sharing communities creates actual dangers which aren't present when a teenager sees some videos from the front page of pornhub.
What we actually need to do it have real conversations about things
TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
For that to happen people would have to agree with the basic fact that "teenagers wanting to watch porn is normal", which generally doesn't go well. But ultimately it's such a touchy topic that the people honestly wishing to protect their children cannot even do it effectively. Some don't know how to handle it, many just ignore the matter altogether.
Then we end up with these moral panic-driven measures that at best help no one, or, more cynically, enable the erosion of people's rights and unjustified persecution.
Veraxus@kbin.social · 46 pts · 2y
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 21 pts · 2y
What nooo you're supposed to hate trans people enough to sacrifice personal freedoms and liberty!
skymtf@pricefield.org · 41 pts · 2y
I love how this "sticking it to big tech" is also funded by big tech. The general goal of someone like Facebook with this legislation is pass a bunch of rules that only large companies like them can comply with, and watch mastodon instances and other attempts to detrown them end in FBI raids and more regulations.
skymtf@pricefield.org · 29 pts · 2y
Not to mention none of this will actually protect children. When I was 14 I told an adult online about my life and they helped me make it through some rougher periods until I got to 18. I know the internet is highly imperfect but I think gate keeping kids out of it will just lead to more underground abuse and abuse that they don't find was abuse until they are adults.
Uranium3006@kbin.social · 12 pts · 2y
The people who wrote this bill want people like you to suffer
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 9 pts · 2y
Exactly, they don't view children as people, they view them as objects and extensions of their parents/guardians.
Uranium3006@kbin.social · 3 pts · 2y
and that's really the root of the issue, isn't it?
uis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
Yes, I remember how it went when I was a kid. Internet probably is the only reason why I'm not joining army of warmongerers or died in Ukraine.
To be fair it seems some adults need to be protected from some kids, but it is their adult problem.
Sabata11792@kbin.social · 11 pts · 2y
Think of all the extra info we can sell if we card everyone!
SCB@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
There is no Porn Big Tech big enough to be able to afford this legislation. From the article:
Remember it is part of the GOP's published plan for 2024 and beyond to ban pornography.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
Bourgeois governments gonna bourgeois
NatakuNox@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 2y
These laws are made by bad parents or those that want to control someone else's children. It's so easy to just talk to your kids about the dangers of the internet and to put on parental controls on all devices.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 20 pts · 2y
Honestly, I don't think that's the case. I think it's more by people who want to virtue signal. They get to talk about how they're "protecting the children" and their opponents (if they dare to oppose it) "don't want to protect the children." I don't believe many of them are doing it out of an actual desire to protect children, even a misguided one.
NatakuNox@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Oh that's definitely part of it. I also think this is an attempt to scrub the internet of any mention of women freedoms, contraception, abortion, LGBTQ+, etc.
rich@feddit.uk · 31 pts · 2y
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 23 pts · 2y
Also, it's never ACTUALLY about parental rights and protecting children. Plenty of parents want their kids to grow up believing that there is nothing inherently sexual about a naked body, or about women, but their perspective and rights never seem to be considered.
Think about how the reactionaries in control of many US states banned Drag Queen story hours and the like from libraries and schools, saying that it should be up to parents if they want their kids to go to them, only to then classify all drag shows as obscene and restricted to 18+.
lol3droflxp@kbin.social · 2 pts · 2y
UK āchildrenā are just future UK āpeopleā so how can they be cool?
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2y
The Scots and Welsh are included and theyre pretty cool.
SCB@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Honestly man as a dad of 3, this applies to the children too.
I love them, but they are indeed
nutsack@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 2y
sounds like some fascist culture war garbage that was never meant to protect children from anything because it doesn't
archchan@lemmy.ml · 29 pts · 2y
This starts with some ambiguous "protecting the children" from porn argument to eventually requiring everyone to be "verified" with a digital ID before they can set foot on a highly controlled internet (or worse). We're already seeing increasing glimpses of this and it's in the government's and big tech's interest.
I'm so tired of the constant barrage of shit from all directions. This isn't the beautiful future of humanity I imagined as a kid. No one will look out for us except for us, the actual people that these out of touch rich and powerful high society clowns try to control and keep occupied with stupid culture wars amongst each other, or placate with bread and circus. Enough already ffs.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 8 pts · 2y
Pretty sure that's already the case in South Korea, having to use your real identity online in certain cases. We can't let it expand worldwide.
AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 2y
China too. Everything is tied to your phone number
HawlSera@lemm.ee · 28 pts · 2y
Spoiler Alert: It's not about protecting children, it's about the GOP keeping the gays off of the internet
Rawdogg@lemm.ee · 25 pts · 2y
I haven't read the article but I assume it's an invasion af privacy under the guise of "protecting the children" as usual
SCB@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2y
It's part of the GOP trying to ban porn. They know they can't ban it due to the 1st amendment, so they're making porn unprofitable for distributors.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 2y
Google has recently started telling me that they don't know if I am >18. But I have been using Google for way more than 20 years.
So, Google is incapable of counting to 18? :-)
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
Maybe they think your parents made this account for you before you were born
atrielienz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
If they did that should still be allowed. Despite the fact that I know it's not allowed and against their TOS.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 16 pts · 2y
Humanity never changes. Teenage me found the entire idea that I might need "protection from harmful content on the Internet" ridiculous. Now I have been an adult for more than ten years, I still find it ridiculous that people younger than me might need that.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 4 pts · 2y
I just think that people should be given access to comprehensive sex ed early enough in life that it's before they end up viewing something like pornography through their own actions.
MacGuffin94@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 2y
It will be interesting to see the politicians responses when their porn accounts are hacked and they all have to explain why their ID is associated with profiles that frequent tranny incest porn
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 2y
Please don't use the t word, it's generally considered a slur.
atrielienz@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
What is the current PC word?
autotldr@lemmings.world · 10 pts · 2y
This is the best summary I could come up with:
āIt does seem like a very clear backlash to not just tech, but to any sort of movement towards allowing young people to make their own decisions based on the information that they can access,ā Jason Kelley, activism director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said in an interview earlier this month.
France has proposed similar age verification restrictions on porn in the past, leading its data protection agency, CNIL, to investigate the security of current services on the market, determining that many were āintrusiveā and for new, safer models to be developed.
Over the last few years, more than a dozen states, including many that have implemented age verification bills, have passed resolutions identifying porn as a āpublic health crisis,ā arguing that it encourages violence despite little research backing these claims.
āI think progressives had the idea that they wanted to regulate Big Tech without fully appreciating the degree to which they were playing with fire,ā Evan Greer, Fight for the Future director, said in an interview with The Verge earlier this month.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued to unravel the language related to pornography and ultimately won in 1997 after the Supreme Court decided that banning the material would infringe on the First Amendment rights of adults.
Without more pushback, age verification bills, just like the ongoing book bans taking place in schools, will continue to fuel the rightās censorship fire all at the expense of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The original article contains 1,875 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Disgusted_Tadpole@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 2y
Thatās the point, they donāt give two shits about the children.
Strangle@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 2y
There should be something to this. A lot of parents keep their children off of the internet, but having young children accessing āmostā of the internet is a bad fucking idea
Parents, monitor and limit your kids online. I know itās hard as fuck, I know other kids will think itās weird that your kid doesnāt know the new tiktok thing. Do it anyway
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
I genuinely think that children's ease of access to pornographic content is a serious and unprecedented threat to their well-being. This is why I think it was a mistake to normalise kids having unlimited access to internet-enabled mobile devices, and why I think having the family computer in a public-ish place is smart. It doesn't even necessarily have to result in your kid being socially impacted, if you just limit their time on it but still allow them some autonomy. I had friends growing up where their router shut down automatically overnight so they couldn't use their phones when they should be sleeping, but they were still just as hip and cool as anyone else.
Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
I mean, why? What is the unprecedented threat?
And I think you have a misunderstanding of how isolated teenagers were from sexual content before the internet, magazines weren't exactly hard to get. Even before then, we've literally been making porn in every form of media since we were painting on cave walls.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
The ease of access of it now, and the extreme shock value of a lot of what even shows up on homepages of major porn sites is unique compared to the pre-internet days.
Part of allowing people to develop, evolve, and mature their sexuality on their own should involve preventing formative experiences from being based on fantasy.
Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
It's really not. You just weren't exposed to it and think it's new. The only change is the quantity, not the depravity. Marquis de Sade, the origin of the word sadist produced a significant amount of incredibly depraved erotic works back in the 1700's, and he was not unique.
To your second point, should their first exposure be to porn? Of course not, but developing, evolving and maturing is done by exploring, not by sitting in a cave and generating knowledge from scratch, even if you have an equally amateur friend. That's how people get hurt because they have no idea what they're doing. If they want to see what's out there, let them. Trying to ban everyone from sexual content until 18 is a uniquely modern take.
Not to mention, we're far too uncomfortable with the topic to have their first exposure be anything but porn, since sex ed is all drawings and awkward anatomy. And childbirth videos. Since I was a kid myself, all I've seen is moral panic that wants nothing more than to simply shut the blinds and pretend that there's nothing there.
GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
You keep equating all forms of media that might depict sex, nakedness, or even erotica as porn.
Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
It's been a while, but I'm confused. I never said anything like that, but that is essentially the government's point of view. Erotica requires one to be 18 to see, whether written, drawn, or photographed. Depictions of sex and nudity either ban everyone under 17 ( or 17 and under for NC-17 ratings), or expect parents to restrict those under 17 in the case of television as it can't be moderated (for now).
At any rate, I just wanted to respond and clarify despite the better part of a month passing.
uis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
Probably because they used mobile internet. At least that what I did.
See. Seeing pornography doesn't make children uncool.
Actual threat to their well-being is content about quantuum physics and astronomy. Both topics can cause existential crisis.