They've don't that for tobacco, alcohol, handguns, possibly soon to be for semi-auto rifles. Kids can stay on parents insurance longer. Driving restrictions have essentially raised the age until one can have full privileges. I'm sure there are others I'm missing too.
We might as well raise the legal age for everything to 21 at this point. Although my personal belief is that we're really just kicking the can - the kids don't learn responsibility until they have to and we're pushing that off later and later.
Kids are sure responsible when we charge them as adults, but can't be trusted with other adult decisions that aren't crimes?
There shouldn't be an age gap where you stop needing to listen to your parents and you now are an adult to find income, shelter, be on your own and be forbidden to certain vices or activities. Yet we charge minors as adults, even young ones, when they commit serious crimes. If exceptions can be made for bad actions that indicate a child had reached adult maturity at the decision of a prosecutor, then that makes any age based delimiter arbitrary and ultimately unfair.
The definitions and timelines of maturity in general are too arbitrary to apply a constant age as a fair and just measure against all of society. That's why protections against Ageism exists, and there are states where there's no distinction between young and old ageism. Cognitive ability waxes and wanes throughout life.
You give the average human too much credit and decry an effective solution in the same breath. Modern society is full of opportunists and predators, in all corners of the US and most people are ill-equipped to conceive of their tactics, much less spend time and effort to guard against them. You might want to internalize those ideas.
> Rather than delegating all of our problems to daddy Government?
Claiming it's one more step toward elevating government to the arbiter of all human problems confuses the issue. This is one problem where oversight is possible and, with the information we have, is warranted. It's not to say that the government doesn't make mistakes or won't over-regulate (eg County of Los Angeles Safer Sex In the Adult Film Industry Act) but there has been progress in providing safer working conditions.
True, but not universally effective. We can look at things like the war on drugs or even cyber bullying.
If we're actually looking at an effective law, it would be one focused on educating industry participants, not simply pushing the age higher and hoping that a couple years makes them smarter.
We don't have data. Pursuing what has been effective is not a guarantee, but it's better than an experimental approach. When you pose "educating", I fail to see how this is any different than what I have stated. Education implies a standard, which is regulation.
And yet the same stereotype is said for elderly people being susceptible to scams, etc. Jokes about limiting granny porn aside, it's still generally viewed as a preposterous thing to suggest for elderly people to limit what they can do based on age.
As you pointed out, wisdom about X/Y doesn't come with age, it comes with experience, and there's many variables to determine what you get to exposed to when and what one's needs/desires are.
Why not?
I am simply concerned that such a rule as you're proposing would have virtually no impact on improving this situation. Furthermore, it may push some young adults into an illegal world of sex work where they do not feel as though they enjoy the protections of the legal authorities if they are exploited or even trafficked. I'm not saying that you're definitely wrong, but I am just concerned that your proposal would have a very limited positive impact. These are just my thoughts which could be totally wrong.
I'm not proposing any rules.
In a given cohort, ~50% of people are female. I would guess if you surveyed young women, ~30% were in a situation that put them at risk for this type of exploitation.
I’d venture to guess in a given cohort, ~5% are gay. Even though gay teens are probably more vulnerable on average, many are effectively hidden because of stigma, subculture etc and their situations aren’t known. That’s one of the reasons the LGBT community is still fighting for awareness.
Really? you must not read or watch much news
We on "the left" are not "calling for" the banning of porn or "mandatory censorship" of it. Nor are we puritans.
In fact you can probably thank "the left" (again, eyeroll) for the liberalization of sexuality in the west. When "the right" was "in charge" it was an era of sodomy laws, anti-pornography "decency" etc. Mostly struck down by liberals.
Expecting ethical and legal behaviour around consent and people's private rights to their bodies and images of their bodies is not censorship or puritanism. It's not "left wing" either -- it's fundamental small-l liberalism.
Dear god, I'd expect libertarians of all people to be up in arms about the private property rights and violated individual liberties of people having their personal bodies and sex lives sold against their will. Somewhere Locke et al are spinning in their graves.
This is not some left-vs-right partisan issue.
In any case the Biden White House has already created a disinformation board and has coerced and pressured private social media companies to censor for them or face penalties and regulation.
Yes, it is a partisan issue, actually a bipartisan one, where you have left/right authoritarians who defend property rights or hide behind a narrow definition of free speech in the first Amendment, over fundamental human rights. Companies like Twitter are now the de facto Town square which have replaced newspaper editorials and other mediums traditionally propagated ideas to a large audience.
A private company could purchase every piece of public land, control all access points to the internet, and effectively been anyone from speaking, and you apparently would be okay with that because "it's not the government".
Then why haven't we seen many arrests/lawsuit against identified illegal uploaders?
Ok... but the lady that is central to this current story, Laila Mickelwait, who is the one pushing the "dogmatic puritanism" you are arguing against is a right wing Evangelical Christian.
https://www.dwt.com/insights/2019/10/california-deepfakes-la...
Ironically these categorical definitions which you have accepted have as much validity as a website quiz saying how much of a Hufflepuff or Gryffindor one is.
This viewpoint can be extrapolated to other issues as well. Very interesting food for thought, thanks for making it.
Most all entities hyperfocused on single issues will always rank their principles (or what they are paid to have principles for) over others.
The libertarian ideal that you have the right to publish (where “publish” is on a spectrum of selling a sex tape to sharing on social media) videos of someone’s sexual performance without their consent is kind of extreme and problematic. As is the pious religious practitioners position that this stuff should be banned (also a wide range).
The reality is that the porn business is a grey market, shady affair, and the incentive of the Pornhubs of the world is to just keep making money and ignore whatever problems get left in their wake. In doing so, they are enabling criminals to utilize their platform.
Somehow I don’t think whatever MindGeek is doing is fundamentally better than what YouTube is. They purged a bunch of video when they determined they were at risk - not the actions of an entity that gives a shit.