If you were a teenager, back when online porn were all pay sites, and so you were using Kazaa/Limewire instead, then you know.
Comment on How the American war on porn could change the way you use the internet
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 month 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 1 month ago
collapse_already@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
That’s not Jenna. That’s a snuff film.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
That was never a thing. I grew up in the 90s and I could easily find free porn websites. My main limitation was dial-up internet, not knowing where to find it…
Zozano@lemy.lol 1 month ago
I used to leech my neighbours WiFi on my PSP and download stories on the Alt Sex Stories Text Repository because images were too slow.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Sometimes that wasn’t enough and the anticipation of not knowing whether you’ll see a nipple or an o-face on the next few lines of the image was preferable.
sentientity@lemm.ee 1 month 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.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Interesting. Maybe it’s projection about the porn THEY watch?
sentientity@lemm.ee 1 month 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.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Control addicts gotta get their fixes.
Lightor@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The word “can” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. A lot of things “can” have negative effects.
GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 month 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.