What do you bet these same Rethuglicans were screeching about "free speech" when Savior Donnie got booted off Twitter for inciting an insurrection?
I bet they were going off about "Muh first amendment!" when Amazon booted their beloved Parler.
But a flash of titty and they're right back to this "But think of the children!" garbage again.
These jerks invented "cancel culture" then they whine when the left uses their own medicine against them. But as is very clear from this, they never really left it.
This makes entirely too much sense. Why didn't I think of this? Specifically target mobile devices and tablets since kids don't use laptops and desktops. I don't think they even know how to turn them on... laptops and desktops that is. Apple famously proved definitively that kids don't even know "what's a computer" so it's appropriate to exclude irrelevant devices.. So yeah, I'm all for this nifty piece of legislation. Pure genius.
This makes entirely too much sense. Why didn't I think of this? Specifically target mobile devices and tablets since kids don't use laptops and desktops. I don't think they even know how to turn them on... laptops and desktops that is. Apple famously proved definitively that kids don't even know "what's a computer" so it's appropriate to exclude irrelevant devices.. So yeah, I'm all for this nifty piece of legislation. Pure genius.
My grandson has been using laptops since at least the 4th or 5th grade and has his own MacBook.
Yes, he feels more comfortable on his iPhone and can type much faster on it. But he knows how to use a laptop better than his parents and almost as well as I do. I doubt that he is exceptional in his school (but then his school is well within the top ten in the state). And, cyberschool has pushed the use of laptops even further -- they even gave one (a 2 in 1) to each student this past fall.
Just let’s ban all smartphone devices and computers for minors. The violation (use of such a diver by a minor) should be punished by life sentence in prison of one of the parents. Repeated violation - death penalty. And the parents will start caring about their children. Bonus of this law: Revival of Nokia and Kodak!
This makes entirely too much sense. Why didn't I think of this? Specifically target mobile devices and tablets since kids don't use laptops and desktops. I don't think they even know how to turn them on... laptops and desktops that is. Apple famously proved definitively that kids don't even know "what's a computer" so it's appropriate to exclude irrelevant devices.. So yeah, I'm all for this nifty piece of legislation. Pure genius.
My grandson has been using laptops since at least the 4th or 5th grade and has his own MacBook.
Yes, he feels more comfortable on his iPhone and can type much faster on it. But he knows how to use a laptop better than his parents and almost as well as I do. I doubt that he is exceptional in his school (but then his school is well within the top ten in the state). And, cyberschool has pushed the use of laptops even further -- they even gave one (a 2 in 1) to each student this past fall.
Poe's Law strikes again. George, you've fallen victim to what I thought was obvious sarcasm that didn't require emoticons as an indicator. I was just joking. The legislation is dumb and would simply be ineffective political theater.
Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.
There is the question pertaining to the legal definition of what is "porn"
Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) comes to mind here: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [pornographic]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But, I know it when I see it"
Simply saying "I know it when I see it" is not going to cut the constitutionality mustard and will render this bill quite unenforceable.
Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.
It is not reasonable porn filters should be automatic by default. Why should they be automatic?
This is the case with most other things - TV, advertising, default search engine settings etc:
I get the argument about not having individual freedoms infringed on because of other people's kids but having safe defaults is good for everyone. If someone uses a search engine at work, they most likely don't want to have dozens of explicit images pop up on their screen. When they are at home and want to see them, they can turn the filter off.
google's explicit filter already is off by default, isn't it?
Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.
Can we have religion filters by default, too? I'm offended by most of them in one way or another.
Agreed -- arguably religion does more harm to the undeveloped brains of children who are ill equipped to deal w/ the severe lapses of logic, reason, and critical thinking that is part of the indoctrination process inflicted on them at a young age. Far more harmful than sexuality.
Utah No. 1 in online porn subscriptions, report says
Although I think this legislation is wrong headed, the narrative from the article you linked is suspect. The article is over a decade old; hardly relevant today. It wasn't even that relevant then because it 1) only references subscriptions when most porn is consumed freely - true in 2009 as well. 2) data point of one. info was based on a single subscription service when the inclusion of more data points (services) could have had a material affect on the outcome.
A quick googling of "states with highest porn usage" will include the article you linked but also much, much more up to date info.
tl;dr It ain't Utah, and probably never was. That's not to say they aren't completely full of both puritanical and political BS. They are. That article though... not the best evidence of that fact.
Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.
It is not reasonable porn filters should be automatic by default. Why should they be automatic?
This is the case with most other things - TV, advertising, default search engine settings etc:
I get the argument about not having individual freedoms infringed on because of other people's kids but having safe defaults is good for everyone. If someone uses a search engine at work, they most likely don't want to have dozens of explicit images pop up on their screen. When they are at home and want to see them, they can turn the filter off.
google's explicit filter already is off by default, isn't it?
Google's default allows explicit results and takes the route of reducing explicitness based on search terms, for example showing medical images for queries for body parts:
Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.
There is the question pertaining to the legal definition of what is "porn"
Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) comes to mind here: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [pornographic]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But, I know it when I see it"
Simply saying "I know it when I see it" is not going to cut the constitutionality mustard and will render this bill quite unenforceable.
The definition isn't nearly as vague as suggested by the phrase "I know it when I see it". That just comes into play when people contest the definitions of the words used to describe it.
Most of the companies who sell it identify it as such themselves so there's no ambiguity in those cases and those alone would filter the majority of explicit content.
The main thing that's needed for this to work is an anonymous token system that proves someone is an adult without compromising their privacy and this can work for things like Youtube too. It could be a key generator that when a login is needed, generates a token that can be pasted into a browser or just a device-level API that is asked to verify age on the device.
This can also work for online chats where a big problem is adults targeting children. If services/devices can verify adult/child communication online, they can flag it very quickly.
Good lord, talk about paranoia! Nobody is saying you can’t have your precious porn. The bill only requires a filter be available. (I don’t even see that it’s required to be on by default.) The FCC has been doing the same thing on public airwaves for decades and somehow we have all managed to live.
Talk about your nanny state, isn’t that te responsibility of parents?. Why don’t they just cancel the internet while they are at it? QOP rum amok
If you’ve ever surfed YouTube, you would know there are only about 4 degrees of separation between Barney and hard core porn. As a parent I would welcome any tools that help be be a better parent.
Good lord, talk about paranoia! Nobody is saying you can’t have your precious porn. The bill only requires a filter be available. (I don’t even see that it’s required to be on by default.) The FCC has been doing the same thing on public airwaves for decades and somehow we have all managed to live.
Talk about your nanny state, isn’t that te responsibility of parents?. Why don’t they just cancel the internet while they are at it? QOP rum amok
If you’ve ever surfed YouTube, you would know there are only about 4 degrees of separation between Barney and hard core porn. As a parent I would welcome any tools that help be be a better parent.
Maybe read the bill. The bill requires automatic enabling of the filter at device activation. Filters are already available for phones and tablets so if that's all the bill was requiring it wouldn't even be necessary. It's not necessary anyway, but that's beside the point. Trying to conflate government prohibitions on public airwaves with control of private devices doesn't make sense at all.
No one's being paranoid. They just read and understood the implications of the bill.
Good lord, talk about paranoia! Nobody is saying you can’t have your precious porn. The bill only requires a filter be available. (I don’t even see that it’s required to be on by default.) The FCC has been doing the same thing on public airwaves for decades and somehow we have all managed to live.
Talk about your nanny state, isn’t that te responsibility of parents?. Why don’t they just cancel the internet while they are at it? QOP rum amok
If you’ve ever surfed YouTube, you would know there are only about 4 degrees of separation between Barney and hard core porn. As a parent I would welcome any tools that help be be a better parent.
Maybe read the bill. The bill requires automatic enabling of the filter at device activation. Filters are already available for phones and tablets so if that's all the bill was requiring it wouldn't even be necessary. It's not necessary anyway, but that's beside the point. Trying to conflate government prohibitions on public airwaves with control of private devices doesn't make sense at all.
No one's being paranoid. They just read and understood the implications of the bill.
I read the article, not the bill - but so what? If you’re really that worried about surfing porn you have to be troubled to turn the filter off? Just what “implications” are you exactly worried about?
this is nothing but a bunch of people hollering about nothing.
Comments
LOL. No.
Usually the ones complaining the loudest about "the nanny state" are those who need one the most.
Bonus of this law: Revival of Nokia and Kodak!
Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) comes to mind here: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [pornographic]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But, I know it when I see it"
Simply saying "I know it when I see it" is not going to cut the constitutionality mustard and will render this bill quite unenforceable.
https://www.deseret.com/2009/3/3/20304992/utah-no-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says
Utah No. 1 in online porn subscriptions, report says
A quick googling of "states with highest porn usage" will include the article you linked but also much, much more up to date info.
tl;dr It ain't Utah, and probably never was. That's not to say they aren't completely full of both puritanical and political BS. They are. That article though... not the best evidence of that fact.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-com-now-censors-explicit-content-from-image-searches/
Bing and DuckDuckGo enable their explicit filters by default.
The definition isn't nearly as vague as suggested by the phrase "I know it when I see it". That just comes into play when people contest the definitions of the words used to describe it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pornography
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pornography
Most of the companies who sell it identify it as such themselves so there's no ambiguity in those cases and those alone would filter the majority of explicit content.
The main thing that's needed for this to work is an anonymous token system that proves someone is an adult without compromising their privacy and this can work for things like Youtube too. It could be a key generator that when a login is needed, generates a token that can be pasted into a browser or just a device-level API that is asked to verify age on the device.
This can also work for online chats where a big problem is adults targeting children. If services/devices can verify adult/child communication online, they can flag it very quickly.
If you’ve ever surfed YouTube, you would know there are only about 4 degrees of separation between Barney and hard core porn. As a parent I would welcome any tools that help be be a better parent.
No one's being paranoid. They just read and understood the implications of the bill.
this is nothing but a bunch of people hollering about nothing.
There have also been studies "proving" that smoking is healthy.