272
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
272 points (98.6% liked)
News
39207 readers
2993 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, and to be fair, it doesn’t mean that protecting children is not a side effect of restrictions.
EDIT: yall are obsessed with porn. Could the restrictions be implemented better? Sure. Is it going to stop some kids from looking at porn online? Yes. Is it going to solve the entire problem? No.
It doesn't do that. None of this does that
Do you honestly believe that imposing actual age verification checks instead of just asking how old you are won’t reduce at least some children from accessing porn? Of course some can get around it but not all kids are gonna do that.
Just a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at porn is an extremely bad metric. Just one child out if the several million or so in the U.K. would technically be a reduction. And the kids going around it is precisely why this sort of regulation doesn't work.
You have to ask what your goal is. Do you actually just want a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at pornography as if all pornography is created equal. Kids will just go to less moderated sites which will contain higher rates of child pornography, other rape depictions, etc.
These laws are generally supported by two types of people: ones who know how it will be abused to stifle free speech (see: ID required to see protestors arrested by police) and dinosaurs that think the internet works identically to the video rental store.
Edit: I think the reason your comment was downvoted was because of the first sentence. It doesn't protect children. Not even the most ideal "just gives up immediately after the popup" child.
It doesn’t matter. All I’m saying is that is some cases it is restricting kids from porn who may have accessed it otherwise. Doesn’t have to take away from your opposition to the laws. Just means that you can’t live in black and white.
They'll trade around magazines, go buy hentai from a shop that doesn't care, or one of the ones with access will print and distribute it. My area had questionable internet circa 2014 and all of what I listed we did, I was the one directing the others to the shop with hentai.
Also who gives a damned if kids have porn, if they're old enough to find it then the solution is to teach them responsibility. Better than pretending sex doesn't exist and getting a bunch of pregnant teens because they're instincts are still functional.
Who cares that kids have porn is a wild opinion
Like if they hit puberty their gonna find something, kinda irrelevant if you try to stop them since it's a losing battle. Better to teach them how to not be a complete gremlin than to waste everyone's time being an ineffective pissant. Especially when it's these "think of the children" types who frankly speaking need to rendered paraplegic with a ratchet vice, if you can't control your kids that's a you problem. General with vices it's better to teach than to control prohibition of vices doesn't work.
Also when I say kids I'm assuming they already have one foot in puberty and will find or at least something suggestive. I jacked off to WW2 pinups in a history book about bombers when I was 9 puberty hit me at 8, I know at least one of my friend jacked it to an anatomy book because boobs. Frankly speaking I see this pointless puritan crusade as little more than delusional.
Children looking at pornography is insignificant compared to my right to free speech and freedom of expression, it is the job of parents to stop their children from looking at porn, not porn companies or me, or anyone else.
What I DO honestly believe is that people who are worried about children looking at pornography are creepy mother fuckers.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It can be bad for free speech and it can be restricting some kids from accessing porn.
Absolutely, I just refuse to debate people who are using this issue to make bad faith arguments trying to restrict free speech. People worried about kids viewing pornography are creepy weirdos in more than one way.
Kinda crazy to thing to shame somebody for. It’s weird that you aren’t concerned with children watching porn, specifically in today’s world. You sound like somebody who doesn’t have children.
My kids are none of your business thanks.
Neither is any part of their sexuality, anything to do with their genitals, or any porn viewing habits they may or may not have.
Creepy.
Some people are cool with their kids watching porn and some aren’t.
And it’s not my job or the governments job to parent their children
Would it be accurate to say that you believe the government should not restrict anything from children? Alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
I honestly don't really give a shit if some kid stumbles onto porn. I'm sure that's how many of us found our awakenings early on. That sounds like an issue for their parents to work out
You are the only one talking about porn, but everyone else is obsessed? Hmmm…
Nice one. I’m talking about the context of the larger discussion and what I’ve learned are the majority sentiment on Lemmy. Don’t be silly.