My stance is that the desire of the adult in this very exceptional situation to access pornography slightly more conveniently does not outweigh the benefits of doing something about children being exposed to sexual content.
It doesn't prevent access to most sites, which don't implement it, or porn on sites like twitter or google, which the law doesn't cover.
So some kids are maybe stopped (via this law) from a few sources of porn content while the vast majority are still there.
While the law is very annoying for all the adults that want to use some of the bigger porn sites.
I don’t even think I care to weigh in with my preference, other than to urge you to consider the reasons on both sides.
Potential questions you might ask are “who gets to decide what’s porn, now and in future? Do state governments have a good track record of making reasonable decisions on issues that interest a loud minority of religious people who control one party which controls the state?” And finally “Do we really bet that nobody will ever hack this DB and publish a list of people in Louisiana who look at porn?”
The constitution is constantly and dramatically overridden and overextended. Even the sense of porn being protected speech at all is one such case of its being stretched well beyond its intended limits. On the other hand, "hate speech" is exactly the kind of activity that it was intended to support. And organizations like the ACLU vehemently defend child porn, but equivocate on hate speech, an alternating undying adherence to the constitution when expedient even in the most contrived scenarios, and pretending that the constitution is passé or unclear when it comes to straightforward instances of its application. This is just political reality. So while I do have respect for the constitution as a cultural relic, I'm not overly concerned with strict constitutionality as such.
> a loud minority of religious people
If we put it to a plebiscite, the people would choose to prevent children from being exposed to porn. This isn't some fringe, Christian, right-wing perspective. It's the normal, working-class, common-sense opinion. Even among democrats, only a slim majority of 53%, consider porn to be morally acceptable for adult consumption. It's certainly a very fringe opinion that porn is good for children.
That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith.
Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification.
Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for?
> But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn?
Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman:
> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
Is that from this[1]? Because this is a meaningless question.
How many people think alcohol is bad for you? Compare this with how many people still drink alcohol anyway. And with how well prohibition worked (and alcohol objectively is bad for you).
~69% of US adult men age 30 to 49 watched porn from 2021 to 2022. Only 12% of them claimed they have never watched porn. [2]
And that's assuming some of the 12% are not lying. [3]
The answer to porn issues for minors in households is good parenting, not a clumsy state law-mandated technical solution.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph...
[2] https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/march-2022-aps...
[3] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-truth-hurts-less-pornography-...
If I don’t want my kid seeing 4K meticulously produced videos of surgically altered women getting violently choked out and treated like sex toys by random men, what is my reasonable responsibility as a parent? I have to know how to set up some sort of blocker on all devices, monitor their computer usage at all times, not get them a smartphone, not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken. What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away.
But your other numbers have no bearing on this at all. One can have vices, recognize them as such, and not want children to have those same vices. I smoke. I’d quit, but I do actually enjoy it. I try to do it away from people. I feel guilty when some kid comes up to me and asks about it. I tell them that it’s stupid and disgusting. I’m happy for measures to be taken to prevent them from taking it up. I’m fine with paying the extra taxes that are intended to discourage such an unhealthy behavior.
> not allow them to go to school with all of the other kids with smartphones, not allow them to have any friends over with smartphones, not allow them to go to friends’ houses where the same measures aren’t taken
There's some dissonance here.
When I was a kid my parents (and my friends' parents) didn't let us stay up all night watching TV. And the TV had parental controls so we couldn't watch the restricted channels.
They generally supervised our computer usage and computer time. They weren't hovering over our shoulders but they regularly checked in so we knew they were around.
It's often obvious when kids are doing something they know they shouldn't because they either get real quiet or real loud.
Parents on HN often say it's socially damaging to not let kids have smartphones because the other kids have smartphones.
If smartphones are such a big issue (and not just for porn) then why don't parents get together at a PTA meeting and agree to only get their kids dumb phones?
They'd all save money and even if it's only most of the parents that agree then the social standing argument should matter less.
> What is my reasonable responsibility as a parent who doesn’t want my kids to drink vodka? Don’t leave it around, don’t buy it for them, don’t let them go to friends houses where the parents do either of the former. There’s a chance someone could sneak it onto a school bus, but it’s not always there just a tap away.
You know pornography has existed for ages right? The pre-internet movie trope of teenagers keeping dirty magazines under their mattress is a trope for a reason.
The general problem has always existed. In my opinion it's a matter of being involved in your kid's life, making sure they know they can talk to you, and most importantly about establishing trust with your kid.
If you have good reasons your kid shouldn't look at porn, and you explain them, and they understand those reasons, and they trust you, and you trust them then I think in most cases you're probably going to be ok.
Sure, that last "and they trust you and you trust them" bit will fail sometimes. But that's why parenting is hard. And the lessons learned from breaking that trust will be important lessons on how relationships work.
I stole money from my sister a few times and my dad eventually caught me. It was a pivotal learning experience on relationships and trust for me.
As an aside, with regards to the vokda bit. Here in Louisiana there was alcohol at most parties I went to in high school. It was almost absurdly available.
Afaik it's was sometimes (usually?) even legal. Teenagers aren't allowed to purchase alcohol but possession/consumption on private property (or with legal guardian approval) can be. [1]
[1] https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/underage-drinking/state-...
> They generally supervised our computer usage and computer time. They weren't hovering over our shoulders but they regularly checked in so we knew they were around
Right, and this would have been when you had the family computer in the den or something similar, correct? Maybe in your room. Not at all times in your pocket. And you never got exposed to anything graphic that you didn’t intentionally seek out? If not, your childhood was very different from mine and those I grew up with.
> Parents on HN often say it's socially damaging to not let kids have smartphones because the other kids have smartphones.
My daughter doesn’t have a smartphone, understands why, and isn’t too bothered by it. Her friends do have them and think it’s weird that she doesn’t. She’s a good kid, but it’s still is uncomfortable to be out of the loop on things like that. Socialization is an important part of childhood.
> If smartphones are such a big issue (and not just for porn) then why don't parents get together at a PTA meeting and agree to only get their kids dumb phones?
Because other parents want their kids to have smartphones. They don’t want them to be able to do certain things on them. Just like they might want them to walk down the street but not enter a BDSM club. Technology can be a great thing, and it’s not too much to ask to have access to it for your child without opening them up to everything anyone has ever put online.
> You know pornography has existed for ages right? The pre-internet movie trope of teenagers keeping dirty magazines under their mattress is a trope for a reason.
That’s a little before my time, but from what I gather nudie mags and grainy cable channels with simulated sex weren’t quite the same as the offerings on PornHub’s homepage. Just as sneaking into a slasher film was somewhat different than industrial accident videos.
> about establishing trust
Trust is important. So are reasonable safeguards.
> As an aside, with regards to the vokda bit. Here in Louisiana there was alcohol at most parties I went to in high school. It was almost absurdly available.
Absolutely. Vodka came to mind because Taaka was the go-to when I was growing up (also in Louisiana). But everyone knew there was alcohol at high school parties, including parents. Usually parents supplied it. It was an agreed-upon, healthy outlet. Taaka wasn’t something your 8-year-old could just randomly, inadvertently consume by playing Roblox.
> Afaik it's was sometimes (usually?) even legal. Teenagers aren't allowed to purchase alcohol but possession/consumption on private property (or with legal guardian approval) can be.
Right, and the barrier to purchasing is what I’m talking about. When my daughter is at an appropriate age, I’m fine with letting her drink. I’m fine with her doing normal growing-up things. That’s not at all what this is about.
What exactly are you referencing here?