It’s not censored, it’s a warning label you can click past.
Internet porn addiction is a genuinely harmful thing.
Comment on Popular porn sites now display unproven health warnings thanks to Texas law
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
Remember when people on the Internet generally universally agreed that it was bad when the government (or anyone) regulated or censored the Internet?
I want those times back. It isn’t any better whether it is because of left wing causes like “misinformation” or “hate speech” or right wing ones like the thing this article is about or “piracy” or “terrorist propaganda”.
SulaymanF@lemmy.world 10 months ago
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time find porn addiction, or even sex addiction, in my DSM-V. Could you tell me which page(s) it’s on?
SulaymanF@lemmy.world 10 months ago
As you’re undoubtedly aware, DSM-V is a decade old and the next revision is set to include improved criteria on dependencies (including non-drug ones) and obsessive-compulsive spectrum (which this could likely fall under), as well as adding other “new” conditions like hoarding.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 10 months ago
So, not an addiction?
Most sex researchers have noted that actual compulsive sexual behaviors are very, very rare, and that what many people think of as a porn “addiction” comes more from a place of values judgement–especially religious values, whether they recognize them as such or not–rather than from the behavior being significantly outside of the norm in any way, or even damaging to the person.
Mormons–“Fight the New Drug”–have done a fantastic job of convincing people that porn and sex are terrible, and that any consumption at all is problematic.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
This is why I also mentioned “regulated”, not just “censored”.
In my teen years I was convinced that the government shouldn’t have any business telling us what to do on the Internet and thought that that is what the future would be like, that we were then living in a temporary situation where governments were still trying to do so but eventually the Internet would win.
That turned out different. I really wish I knew how to help achieve a utopia of free worldwide communication.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 10 months ago
That was before someone on Twitter’s best addition to the conversation was to call me “a caribou diaper baby” … which while a very creative insult … is pretty ridiculous conduct.
I agree the government regulating speech is a fine line. We don’t need real information being suppressed, but we also need a way (with checks and balances) to shut people that are entirely full of shit up.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
I think the concept you’re looking for is that moderation is different from censorship.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Thank you for caribou diaper baby, its getting added to the alongside baby piss goblin and wailing flesh Muppet.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
See those downvotes? Yes, that’s because those times were conditioned by the Internet being a niche thing. You can’t expect such adequacy today even here.
That aside, legally fighting “misinformation” is outright obvious censorship, not even trying to pretend to be something else.
SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I am 100% fine with censorship of known falsehoods. Let them appeal it in court. Even the tools behind 1/6, besides the biggest tool at the top, won’t even risk perjury and probably contempt, in court, with the risk of jail, unlimited fines, and permenant censorship from mass media on the line.
I would prefer the falsehood to left up, colored a deep red and shrunk down to like 8pt font with a pop up on your curser that comes up when you hover over it, stating the fact of what it is; such as ‘unproven’, ‘demostrably false’ hyperlinked to evidence, ‘conjecture’, or ‘MTG - Jewish Space Laser crazy’.
Pick up social issue, it doesn’t matter your stance on it. Chances are, there is a science behind it that clearly takes a position. Facts over feelings.
Changing your mind when given new information is a strength, not a weakness. Doubling down on error…? That’s some flat earth, you are definitely going to an old folks home now, kind of shit. That’s how it looks. Onset dementia.
I apologize to those with real onset dementia, we know you didn’t choose it, you’re still worthy of respect.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
Known to whom? You unilaterally give your side (in any argument) right to decide what’s a “known falsehood” and then to use force to censor it.
That’s literally why gun ownership is a necessity for a healthy society.
Bullshit. Nobody is obligated to prove their right to a voice.
I often write and say such, less easily comprehensible than normal, sentences in my native language, but sadly I am not proficient enough in English to understand yours. I think I get the general emotion which kinda proves that you are even openly dreaming of abusing such a system.
I think there are browser extensions for this kind of thing exactly, and with today’s widespread use of various AI’s these can be even more satisfactory to all your goals except those which should be countered with gunfire.
Usually that position would be taken with hostility by all sides relevant in the society, or distorted to fit their narrative. Facts are always stronger than feelings in the outside world, while feelings are always stronger than facts in your head (or mine).
This paragraph of yours is quite close to how onset dementia looks like IRL.
Well, then surely you are going to visit a doctor after my advice?
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
I once hoped that if the Internet were more popular, society at large would become more like the Internet.
Hahahahahaha no