Most western governments look at the ability of some of the more authoritarian places ability to just snap there fingers and make the entire internet go away with great envy.
Comment on EU age verification app to ban any Android system not licensed by Google
Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
What is it with everyone being obsessed with porn censorship suddenly? Why is this a trend?
At first I thought it’s about control and data gathering, but this seems like too much of a genuine attempt at such a system. Why is the government so obsessed with parenting and nannying the citizens?
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Fascism is making a comeback, and everyone’s dumb enough to believe it’s an America problem, instead of a global oligarchy, class war, problem.
StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 1 day ago
In addition to the other answers, I want to add that the anti-porn stuff gives them the reason they need to force you into a more monitored environment. In which, everything you do is tracked. Your instinct is right imo. They want Google monitoring your mobile device as the primary piece. It’s legislative market capture and fascism at the same time. No one company has to have all the info on you, but in forcing you to confirm yourself they make it so half a dozen and report on you if your habits trigger something. Half the technology is already in place as it’s been built under the guise of better ad targeting.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 1 day ago
- Govt. want to control access to everything
- People are not too happy about this
- Govt. say "to protect children, you have to install this app, under these conditions"
- You want to protect childrens, so you do so
- Govt. say "to protect this or that, we have to impose approved gates on many websites, based on the app you installed before"
- You want to protect this or that, so you accept it
- Govt. say "fuck you, you whatever is not in line with the fucking biggot at the helm of your country/federation/whatever, now we know what you do, we control what’s allowed, and anything to get around the blocks is illegal and will land you in jail. Fuck you again, fucker."
- You’re a happy little plant in a pot.
Basically, it’s not about porn. It’s not about protecting kids. It’s not about helping “victims of abuse”. If anything, it’s putting all these in more danger, along with everyone else.
end_stage_ligma@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
“protect children”
actively defending child rape calls vaccines poison calls prenatal care and school lunch subsidy woke spends billions bombing brown children
TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de 6 hours ago
If hypocrisy was poisonous we wouldn’t have these problems
NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The legal precedent for gaining the ability to ban content under the guise of preventing the dissemination of “obscenity” allows the future banning of “obscene” political opinions and “obscene” dissent.
Once the “obscene” political content is banned, the language will change to “offensive”.
After “offensive” content is banned, then the language will change to “inappropriate”.
After “inappropriate”, the language will change to “oppositional”.
If you believe this is a “slippery slope” fallacy, then as a counterpoint, I would refer to the actual history of the term “politically correct”:
The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.[5] Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire;[8] usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement.[12][13][14] It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.[15] The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century, with many describing it as a form of censorship.[16]
gabbath@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
You’re right but the example you gave seems to illustrate a different effect that’s almost opposite — let me explain.
The phrase “politically correct” is language which meant something very specific, that was then hijacked by the far-right into the culture war where its meaning could be hollowed out/watered down to just mean basically “polite”, then used interchangeably in a motte-and-bailey style between the two meanings whenever useful, basically a weaponized fallacy designed to scare and confuse people — and you know that’s exactly what it’s doing by because no right-winger can define what this boogeyman really means. This has been done before with things like: Critical Race Theory, DEI, cancel culture, woke, cultural Marxism, cultural bolshevism/judeo bolshevism (if you go back far enough), “Great Replacement”, “illegals”, the list goes on.
NeilBru@lemmy.world 47 minutes ago
I see your point. I should’ve limited my citation to the phrase’s authoritarian origins from the early 20th century.
To clarify, the slippery slope towards “political correctness” I am wanted to describe is a sort of corporate techno-feudalist language bereft of any real political philosophy or moral epistemology. It is the language of LinkedIn, the “angel investor class”, financiers, cavalier buzzwords, sweeping overgeneralizations, and hyperbole. Yet, fundamentally, it will aim to erase any class awareness, empiricism, or contempt for arbitrary authority. The idea is to impose an avaricious might-makes-right for whatever-we-believe-right-now way of thinking in every human being.
What I want to convey is that there is an unspoken effort by authoritarians of the so-called “left” and “right” who unapologetically yearn for the hybridization of both Huxley’s A Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 dystopian models, sometimes loudly proclaimed and other times subconsciously suggested.
These are my opinions and not meant as gospel.
iii@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Why is the government so obsessed with parenting and nannying the citizens?
I wonder if it’s because people from outside the traditional political families are getting popular votes.
It’s easier to blame “the internet”, and censor, than for a politician to look in the mirror and seek where the discontent comes from.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Been wondering myself. It’s certainly part of the general right-ward trend. Societies are becoming more illiberal. It’s not just the right that is moving to the right.
Obscenity laws have always been about enforcing the “correct” sexuality. Protecting minors meant preventing them from becoming “confused”; ie becoming LGBTQ.
You also have growing nationalism. In Europe, people are saying we should enforce “our laws” and “our values” against meddling foreigners (ie Big Tech). It often sounds a lot like the rants against the “globalists” that have been a staple among the US far right for decades. Age verification is part of that.
For example, Germany has long enforced age verification within its borders. It’s part of the whole over-regulation thing that makes competitive tech companies almost impossible in Europe. For some reason, Europeans have trouble accepting that. You can see it here on Lemmy. The solution must be to enshittify everything to level the playing field.
Bruncvik@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is just my speculation, so take it as you will. The EU has been pushing for digital ID cards for quite a while, and this is just another attempt. The last serious attempt was the Covid vaccination passport, but so many people still opted for paper certs, and the rest deleted the app when vaccination was no longer mandatory, that it failed again. So, now the authorities are becoming smart and trying to go through the vector that has a proven record of driving technological change: porn.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
FYI: Most of the world actually restricts, and some outright bans, porn.
Its only western countries that have unrestricted access to porn.
altima_neo@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Gonna guess it’s outside influence with money pushing their ideology. Just like the crap with Visa and steam, itch.io, etc.
Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 day ago
This has been discussed a while back, at least here in NL as far as I know it started because of legalising online gambling for which you need to be identified. Also, due to GDPR, businesses aren’t allowed to make copies of ID’s/passports/driving licences any more which is required for certain businesses (notaries, accountants, etc). In my office we currently use some kind of identification software, but it isn’t anonyms because well we wouldn’t be able to do our job.
Prime@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
This sounds like a misunderstanding of gdpr to me?
Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 day ago
There is a bit of a conflict between the laws requiring certain companies to identify their clients and GDPR in basis, but there is something in GDPR that allows these companies to still collect the relevant data and use it or to verify the data and not store it depending on the use case.
The whole use case thing is even the reason why companies are allowed to collect data from you. You couldn’t get anything delivered if this exception wasn’t there, because they wouldn’t be allowed to progress your address.
At least that’s what I gathered from the Dutch implementation the AVG, when I last read it a couple years ago.
Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Too many bots online :D I’d like to know if I’m talking to a real sockpuppet when I’m online :D…but just for that and only share data from my “wallet id” on a strict need to know basis.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 hours ago
It’s not about porn. It’s about tracking your every move online.