Sites that do not comply will be blocked.
This will ensure that children cannot access them, and allow people to control their pornography addictions.
> This will ensure that children cannot access them
A. Kids will just steal their parents credit cards or logins.
B. The responsibility for raising children is the parents and not credit card companies. Things that make people better parents will work far better, like creating economic systems that don't require two parents to work and be unavailable to their children.
> and allow people to control their pornography addictions.
A. $5 a month won't work. People continue to smoke and cigarette packs are generally more expensive than that per pack.
B. Why should those who are not addicted pay for those who are?
Kids these days have their own debit cards.
B: How do you police something which is so easy to access? We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography? Why don't we require ISPs to provide free DNS-level blocking for residential broadband and mobile phone services?
It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to. This is something that should be managed centrally by ISPs, enforced by Government regulation.
C. $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price.
D. Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
For signing up for porn sites, it's really not very much more difficult. Steal card from parent while sleeping, enter numbers in form, now you have access. It's a small hoop to jump through and lots of people do it for identity theft purposes.
> How do you police something which is so easy to access?
You really can't.
> We expect Governments and businesses to police access to drugs, why not for pornography?
Access to drugs isn't the same as telling me what to do in my own house with an Internet connection and device I'm paying for.
> It is not reasonable to expect every single parent to manually install blocking apps on all phones and devices that children have access to.
Your kid has a phone, a tablet, and a PC. 3 devices which you bought/owned, not really a lot of work. If you have the problem of your kid having too many devices, you also have the means to pay someone to do it for you.
> $5 a month is an order of magnitude more expensive than free, and forces people to confront their addiction if it has a real price.
It would have to be way higher. Honestly if I'm extremely addicted and use porn 5x a day, $5 a month is a bargain.
> Disabling access to free porn would be a boon for the Porn industry who could focus on quality content rather than spectacle and exploitation.
I don't know. Amateur content is a top category on many sites I think.
Probably the number one thing anyone concerned with exploitation could do is destigmatize and legalize sex work, and provide a decent social safety net so people are less tempted to commit desperate actions to survive.
I’d rather my kids, even at 9 and 11, stumble across pornography than grow up in a world where the government decides which sites are allowed to be in DNS.
C. No addict will be slowed by $60/yr price tag for their addiction. You’re not forcing anyone to confront their addiction in any meaningful way.
D. I’m not in favor of protectionist rackets even for businesses that I think should be allowed to operate.
It would require pretty much uprooting and destroying the internet entirely. It's too easy to share "free" porn pictures on any website. We'd have to go from a free internet where anybody can make a website to a locked down version where you apply for a permit first.
You're not going to stop teenagers getting porn, or adults for that matter (in the 80s kids were sharing dad's playboys)
This is largely what's missing from the discussion of sex work in general, a clear view of what is and what is not harmful; to whom it is harmful; and what might reasonably be done about it. The argument that sexual material was harmful per se collapsed somewhere around the Lady Chatterly trial.
I'd say the same is true of porn. Certainly some is clearly harmful, but hard lines are impossible to draw. Consentual BDSM comes to mind.
Thus this subjectivity requires personal responsibility, not authoritarian intervention/ censorship.
The social consequences are pretty obvious, satisfying fundemental bioligical needs through artifical manner degrades what those desires are meant to achieve: family formation, marriages, which it inhibits forming or ruins those that already exist.
Go spend some time on the no-fap sub-reddit to see the massive positive change that occurs when men quit consuming porn. Porn is a tool for social control, pacification and weakening culture [1], it is not empowering for either side of the equation.
If this wasn't true, it wouldn't have been used as a form of psychological warfare like it was in this situation [2].
Did they do this to "empower" their enemy?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political...
[2] https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/porn-run-on-seized-...
> NOTE FROM TED: This talk contains several assertions that are not supported by academically respected studies in medicine and psychology. While some viewers might find advice provided in this talk to be helpful, please do not look to this talk for medical advice.
Instead, how about supervise your kids when they go online?
Of course it would work (to some degree). We massively decreased the usage of cigarettes by regulation and taxing. With harsh enough fines and punishments as well as social pressure, decreasing porn usage would be easy to achieve.
>Blocking leads to a slippery slope and we may end up blocking much more than porn... , For example, one day they might decide
These types of "this" vs "that" decision-making is done all the time. We ban and punish child-porn usage.
Various forms of "hate" speech is booted off the internet and "canceled" in culture all the time is it not?
We can do it, it's just that many people here don't want to.
The bigger picture is the social/cultural conversation around porn usage. It is very accepted, promoted even, by many communities and elements within our society. If there was an honest conversation around this usage would decline. The "no fap" community is an example of this and I think they have had successes changing minds around porn usage as an unquestionable good.
This does also get into political viewpoints on public good and individual freedom, and where that line is drawn.
>not illegal only if you record yourself doing it, even child porn
Don't know what this means. Authorities cannot have knowledge of every instance of law breaking that occurs maybe?
Doesn't change its illegality or the punishment if this is discovered.
By the way, there are a couple of countries that do ban the production and distribution of porn. I would suggest taking a look at how well that works out for them.
Clear evidence implicating oneself of a crime (if it was made a crime) would seem to me to be a limiting factor in porn usage after regulation. This would stand in contrast to all the other vices that are regulated. The thing itself would implicate. This is all a question of commitment to enforcement... but it surely is possible.
>putting any sort of restrictions on this would be extremely unpopular from pretty much everyone.
No, but this might reflect the difference in circles you and I find ourselves in. Go on twitter and search for porn ban (or similar permutations) there is a huge contingent supporting this sort of change of culture. I guess I don't disagree than any sort of national referendum within, say, the US in 2020 probably would fail. It wouldn't have failed a few decades ago, I guess the rapid change is something to think about.
(this point has been made for decades yet somehow never sinks in with some groups and I don't understand why)
> I don't understand why
OK, let me try to explain. I'm not against pornography. I'm also not a prude -- if consenting adults want to have orgies, or wife swap, or insert baseball bats into body cavities, or get slapped and yelled at, go for it!
I'd bet that 90+% or more of people's first exposure to sex is online videos. While there are certainly videos that show realistic sex, the vast majority are highly unrealistic and set incredibly weird expectations about what is normal. A lot of what is shown on video is bad acting, not happiness.
To distinguish itself from from other videos, makers are always trying to find some new or more extreme boundary to push. A lot veers into extreme power dynamics -- boys learning about porn should not have the expectation that women like to be choked or spit on, or have jackhammer anal sex. Girls shouldn't have the expectation that that is what boys expect of them.
As an adult you might say, hey, a lot of those scenarios are just entertainment, eg, those step siblings are obviously in their 20s, or obviously women don't like having 100 men ejaculate on them, but to children where this is their first exposure to sex, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some.
You've outlined what can be unpleasant about porn (eg. slapping women or choking them, however consensual I won't watch that) but you seem blind to the (albeit simulated) violence, sadism and killing I alluded to in mainstream films which can be far, far worse. I personally know it isn't real but to borrow and slightly amend your own sentence...
"but to children where this is their first exposure to violence, they absolutely don't know what is normal and this imprinting causes harm for some"
You can see the bad parts in porn, but not see the worse in films that children are freely exposed to? How come?
> Children shouldn't be allowed to watch people being happy. We need them to stick with safe things like violence and murder.
As for:
> (this point has been made for decades yet somehow never sinks in with some groups and I don't understand why)
I've never heard anyone make that point about pornography, only about restrictions on nudity and/or swearing on TV/movies.
> I've never heard anyone make that point about pornography
Reallllly? Quick DDG immediately gets https://www.salon.com/2015/07/13/5_american_sex_norms_that_e...
"1. Extreme violence in the media is fine, just don’t show a nipple"
Plenty of USAians make this point but you've never heard of it? Damnit, you have school shootings but sex, oh no!
> I've never heard anyone make that point about pornography, only about restrictions on nudity and/or swearing on TV/movies.
Your DDG search provided an example of that, yet you seemed to think it proved your point about pornography.
"example of that" - EXAMPLE OF WHAT?
The issues of ultraviolence in mainstream movies is its own issue and can be discussed on its own terms. Porn has its own issues and be discussed on its own terms. Yes, both are film media, but that is about all they share in common.
It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2.
> It isn't a competition where issue #1 is more severe in some way than issue #2, therefore we can ignore issue #2.
I'm saying it's exactly that it is. Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn (I'd claim), and I'd also claim, as evidenced by the strangely skewed responses here, that some people are blind to one nonsexual violence but oddly sensitive to the other, porn.
If you think it is a competition, then OK, we simply disagree. If someone has a fundraiser for some cancer cause I may donate even though malaria kills more people every year.
"Mainstream nonsexual violence is worse than porn" is what I said. That is because 'Mainstream nonsexual violence' is bad and pornography has very little harm in it, if any, though there are areas I don't want to see (so what children may see I grant they may find disturbing in their ignorance).
Whereas both cancer and malaria are unquestionably very bad things.
But that you are willing to equate porn with cancer is to me most disturbing of all. Well, maybe you didn't mean it that way. I don't know.
Edit: let me put it a different way; there can be no upside to cancer, unlike porn.
I really dont know what the solution can be for this other than curating what types of videos they could watch. Some of the stuff is dangerous too
violencedeathmurderbloodpainhurtkillkillkill...
"Oh but wat about oral sex, it is teh dangerous!"
I love you Americans to bits but sometimes you really are just too bloody weird. I give up.
But you know that. Or, at the very least, you should.
Address the argument made, not the one you wanted them to make.
OK, here's what he said "but I find “deepthroat” as utterly disgusting".
There's no space for the fact that some women like that, or that even if they don't, adult film workers are doing a paid job. Not all oral sex involves choking or apparently being forced. But that's a blanket condemnation based on him being "disgusted" and ignoring the nonsexual violence in mainstream media.
He goes on "I really dont know what the solution can be for this other than curating what types of videos they could watch"
So back to curating sex videos but ignoring extreme graphic nonsexual violence?
Second, I dont know if you notice but people copy any type of behaviour that is seen more, the type of thing becomes normalized, and as an example was the deepthroat that women can’t possibly enjoy, but do it anyway because it somehow becomes expected of them to do so, some even start enjoying the act even though it is not pleasant, it’s a coping mechanism...
Violence on TV is obviously affecting our society for sure, and violence suffered from the same capitalistic fault to maximize profit, violence initially sold well so it produced exponentially more until the last dime could be extracted out of it.
If no financial incentive is behind any of these “memes” then maybe the better ones become normalized and the effects on society are less nocive. Speaking broadly ofc.
Yeah. Like extraordinary levels of violence on TV that the audience becomes accustomed to it and simply don't see it any more whereas porn...
> as an example was the deepthroat that women can’t possibly enjoy
Wut really? Hint: women are people and some like different things, including that, unforced. You've really never met...? This smacks of the old view that women couldn't possibly enjoy sex and it was forced upon them unwillingly by those horrid beastly men.
In you penultimate sentence you appear to be accepting media violence as a given. So fight back.
Your last sentence I cannot understand.
Women feel lesser if they do not perform certain things that are in fashion, some kind of peer pressure. Who sets that fashion? Who is sick to want a women choke and gag on a man’s penis? You enjoy vomit? I dont think it has a place in healthy sexuality.
And let me explain what I mean in the last paragraph of my previous comment: the extreme commercialization typical of capitalism is responsible for amplifying these memes, normalizing new things that are degrading for some and hence exploitative in nature. What are you fighting back about? Are you just a contrarian?
I do not wish to continue this. Congratulations on successfully weirding me out with your interpretation of oral sex.
Are they also forced to do it ?!
(or maybe they genuinely enjoy it)
But how exactly you craft the legislation to go after these specific requirements while respecting the 1A and not begetting a host of other security concerns is a genuinely interesting legal/technical challenge.
And it could be that privacy is already shot to hell and I'm just too stupid to grok that, yes.
Or perhaps somebody will create a Star Trek style economy. :-) (shame Gene Roddenberry never explained that in detail)