|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 17, 2024 20:24:36 GMT -5
Frank Zappa conceded that parenting was a good reason to be able to separate out certain things, but also felt that "but think of the children" was too much of an excuse for adults to censor things they just didn't like for children OR adults. Ah the days of newsgroups. Quite the education I got from those. Regarding Pornhub and the like, yes it's nice if age verification was present but that's easily fooled and, more importantly, keeping my kids off is Pornhub is my job. You can't complain about others not doing there job if I'm not doing the most important job there is. Pretty much. Can just put a line in your local hosts file or in the router config - Pornhub dot com et al go to 127.0.0.1 - it won't serve it.[/quote] On every network and/or device a child has access to? For every site? There's a lot of porn sites out there. Systems could be put in place where people opt in rather than opt out - at an ISP level perhaps. Dudes could go to their ISP page and turn it on and off as much as they want, just as freely as dudes could walk in or out of the curtained room at the video store. Preferably with 2-factor authentication or something and other details would need to be worked out, but it could be done. Where there is no will, there is no way, though. There have been investigative journalists looking at PH for a while. They target children quite knowingly. They know that they'll get life time users and people who are more interested in the most deviant stuff and thus with highest engagement if they start young. People are more likely to get into the super weird stuff and log many hours at a time if they start young... and starting young often means before puberty. If you watch nasty hardcore stuff before you have your first kiss, you're setting a lot in place for you mental and emotional development and a lifetime of sexual behavior. Outwardly they deny that this science exists (disregard anything written by a doctor named David Ley... he is frequently on the payroll of porn companies such a xhamster), but with leaked information they absolutely know this to be true internally. There also is more than enough evidence to show that they deliberately leave up videos of underage women as well as actual rape videos. You read that right... not simulated, acted out for your pleasure. Actual recorded rape. The women will try for MONTHS or YEARS to get them removed, but the reporting process is deliberately janky and understaffed so they don't have to clean house. They DO have to clean house from time to time, though. They removed hundreds of thousands of videos at some point amidst a battle where Visa and MasterCard were pulling their support on the site... and before we make a sigh of relief and feel happy that they made the effort, if they knew which ones to remove that quickly, it means they knew which ones needed to be removed to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 17, 2024 20:36:25 GMT -5
Unless it is kiddy porn, let it go.
I'm in the "it's the parents job to know what their kids are doing on the internet" camp.
This will sound cold but if the parents don't care why should I.
|
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 18, 2024 1:20:30 GMT -5
Oh, I despise the industry and don't want children anywhere near it - but I also am an advocate of 'first step at home' which is stupid easy. Hell, I don't want ADULTS anywhere near it. It should also require ROBUST verification for uploads. In a perfect world it'd be something with ROBUST verification honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 18, 2024 1:24:05 GMT -5
It is kinda crazy for them to say out loud that keeping KIDS off of PornHub will hurt business. Lots of adults look at these sites but would never do it if they had to put a CC number to verify age. I seriously doubt the people who run porn sites want kids looking at the content. The ambivalence in the industry behind closed doors is telling. I knew it well in teh early days as it kept my own lights on at my ISP (I was willing to host sites). |
|
|
|
Post by Taildragger on Mar 18, 2024 10:39:15 GMT -5
I'm in the "it's the parents job to know what their kids are doing on the internet" camp. Some parents are either too absorbed in their own drama to be bothered or too eager to be their kid's "friend" rather than the parent who enforces rules the kid doesn't like. Parenting is a full-time job, especially while the kid is passing through the age 15-17 (or maybe it's 13-18) gauntlet. I base those assertions on having helped raise two daughters who are now financially independent and involved in stable (knock on wood) relationships. All that being said, I don't envy current parents because I think many aspects of parenting have gotten even tougher than when we did it (our kids were born during the mid-1980s). The internet/social media has become much more prevalent and pernicious. Plus there's the whole COVID mess and all its fallout. |
|
|
|
Post by Auf Kiltre on Mar 18, 2024 12:14:48 GMT -5
There is no way to effectively regulate language without opening the door to usurpers of its definitions. We already have words, phrases and colloquialisms on the no fly list. When language and expression of thought is regulated it will inevitably lead to the muzzling of the masses. Once that is established we have a perpetual struggle over who is the master and who is the dog.
|
|
DrKev
Wholenote
It's just a guitar, it's not rocket science.
Posts: 418
|
Post by DrKev on Mar 18, 2024 12:38:12 GMT -5
Unless it is kiddy porn, let it go. I'm in the "it's the parents job to know what their kids are doing on the internet" camp. This will sound cold but if the parents don't care why should I. Doesn't sound cold, it sounds lazy and selfish. I'm sure you didn't intend it to come across that way, but it does. Listen, we're taking human beings, with all the good and bad that brings. Even the best parents are cannot stay as eternally vigilant as some of you think we should. Nor is it healthy to be helicopter parents and control every breath and fart our kids make. AND kids are also human and therefore eternally creative at finding ways around things, especially things they are told not to be doing, as we all remember from our own childhood, without any of the maturity to realize the dangers (maturity that many adults don't have either). Have you looked at mainstream porn lately? It's far cry from the nudie magazines and VHS we grew up with and FAR more misogynist with more rape culture and sibling porn in the last few years than ever before. It's not just a "parents problem". The consequences reach much deeper than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Mar 18, 2024 13:04:58 GMT -5
Parents have only marginal control over what their kids do.
We can deal with the world the way we wish things were, or we can deal with the reality of the world.
In the end reality does not give a damn about how we wish things were.
Just an experienced observation from this desk.
|
|
chucksmi
Wholenote
Posts: 174
Formerly Known As: Offshore Angler elsewhere
Age: I saw Jerry Live
|
Post by chucksmi on Mar 18, 2024 14:30:11 GMT -5
I've come to the conclusion that people of a certain age like to complain about "things today". If you take much of this thread, go back to 1966 and replace all internet references with "Rock and Roll music" you'd have pretty much described what my parents and their peers were saying back in the day.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 18, 2024 14:48:52 GMT -5
Doesn't sound cold, it sounds lazy and selfish No, I just believe in personal responsibility and individual freedom. Banning things just leads to black markets and other often worse un-intended consequences. Example. The war on opioids caused many deaths from heroin OD's. Dr's couldn't supply the pills and people went to the corner dealer. I don't envy current parents because I think many aspects of parenting have gotten even tougher than when we did it (our kids were born during the mid-1980s). The internet/social media has become much more prevalent and pernicious. Plus there's the whole COVID mess and all its fallout. One of my kids had her's taken away by CPS and I am now raising an 11 year old girl. It is not easy. |
|
|
|
Post by rok-a-bill-e on Mar 18, 2024 16:13:27 GMT -5
The only speech that has ever needed protection was that speech unpleasing to those with the power to silence it. You don't need a Right to agree with the party line. You very much need the Right to disagree, and to express your disagreement in speech and in print. To "hamstring the government" was the very purpose of the 1st Amendment, and it was first enumerated Right because all other Rights depend upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vibroluxer on Mar 18, 2024 17:08:14 GMT -5
I've come to the conclusion that people of a certain age like to complain about "things today". If you take much of this thread, go back to 1966 and replace all internet references with "Rock and Roll music" you'd have pretty much described what my parents and their peers were saying back in the day. Chuck They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things -- and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning -- all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything -- they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else. (Aristotle) |
|
|
|
Post by Auf Kiltre on Mar 18, 2024 17:26:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Mar 18, 2024 17:48:03 GMT -5
They [Young People] have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations Not to mention for the most part, they have nothing ... So, they have nothing to lose. I think I stole at least part of that statement from Mr. Zimmerman.  |
|
|
|
Post by Taildragger on Mar 18, 2024 18:06:00 GMT -5
One of my kids had her's taken away by CPS and I am now raising an 11 year old girl. It is not easy. You have my sympathy and heart-felt best wishes. You're a good man for taking this on. Has she already trotted out the "you're not my dad" line?
Not much to fuel you right now, but take solace in the fact that, once she gains an adult perspective down the raod, she'll appreciate what you did for her.
|
|
|
|
Post by rok-a-bill-e on Mar 18, 2024 18:08:33 GMT -5
^^They have everything, they just don't know it. I have the paid for house and comfortable retirement that supposedly they will never own but is the key to a happy life. Well, I would trade it all in a heartbeat to be a young, healthy, flat-broke millennial. And with nothing but the work ethic which they lack, I would make myself valuable enough to somebody somewhere to once again--eventually---acquire the paid for house and a comfortable retirement. "They subjugate the weak, with the rhetoric of failure" Marley saw that one clearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taildragger on Mar 18, 2024 18:10:50 GMT -5
I've come to the conclusion that people of a certain age like to complain about "things today". "People of a certain age", you say? "PEOPLE OF A CERTAIN AGE"?!!! Why, that's hate speech, raht thar, Sonny Jim! |
|
chucksmi
Wholenote
Posts: 174
Formerly Known As: Offshore Angler elsewhere
Age: I saw Jerry Live
|
Post by chucksmi on Mar 19, 2024 6:06:14 GMT -5
Yeah, people like me that flew tailwheels and round engines, lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by Leftee on Mar 19, 2024 8:17:46 GMT -5
Free speech without moral responsibility is how we get to conspiracy theories.
My work here is done.
This extra blood flow is really working out for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Auf Kiltre on Mar 19, 2024 8:45:15 GMT -5
Free speech is the only mechanism to lay out facts and fiction. If you hand over control to the "facts only" people then they decide what is fiction. You've entrusted an omnipotent power to tell you what is reality. They can shut down a Samuel Shenton or they can shut down a Woodward and Bernstein, the latter being represented by far more than legacy media these days. The price of the internet and technology. Democracy dies in darkness.
|
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 19, 2024 9:09:17 GMT -5
Free speech is the only mechanism to lay out facts and fiction. If you hand over control to the "facts only" people then they decide what is fiction. You've entrusted an omnipotent power to tell you what is reality. They can shut down a Samuel Shenton or they can shut down a Woodward and Bernstein, the latter being represented by far more than legacy media these days. The price of the internet and technology. Democracy dies in darkness. If you can't question EVERYTHING, you're operating under a New Inquisition. We're rapidly approaching new dogma that cannot be questioned from on high, enforced by actual consequence (firing/doxxing/deplatforming/criminal penalties). |
|
|
|
Post by Auf Kiltre on Mar 19, 2024 9:21:50 GMT -5
Governance over free speech is like a forged blade, it outlives its wielder and gets passed on. Are we comfortable with that notion?
I am a free speech absolutist, and I'll say no more. 😀
|
|
|
|
Post by rok-a-bill-e on Mar 19, 2024 9:42:04 GMT -5
BUT I also don't want antisemites or white supremacists or homophobes walking down my street threatening the freedoms or lives of people I love and value or even people I don't even know. I find it hard really hard to swallow that it is somehow a negative to society to prevent people spreading hatred. "Walking down the street threatening" is action, not speech. Harassment or deliberate intimidation is not a matter of speech. So a public sign saying that certain people should not be allowed to live is not protected speech. But what about flying a swastika? Is a flag in itself a form or intimidation? If so, realize that some see the American flag in the same light as the swastika or the Confederate Battle flag. Can any neighbor have your American flag removed because it threatens them? So, does one have the Right to be a Nazi? Well, YES! You do indeed have the right to think what you will and believe what you will, because the alternative to that is more horrible than anything which one might think or believe. And what about Hate itself? Can there be a "Right to Hate"? YES! Our hearts are as exempt from legislation and control as are our minds. We may think and believe what we will, we may love who or what we will, and we will also hate who and what we will, and to prohibit that is mind control. There can be no prohibited thoughts! The Law can only legitimately prohibit actions, not thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts, with the exceptions noted above regarding harassment and intimidation. The law may not prohibit one from loving who and what they love, but may well prohibit how that love may be expressed, and the same is true for hate. |
|
professor
Wholenote
"Now I want you to go in that bag and find my wallet." / KMMFA
Posts: 621
|
Post by professor on Mar 19, 2024 9:42:13 GMT -5
"Engagement" equals revenue on such platforms, but that can also mean argument and conflict. Public people and characters easily see their numbers (and revenue) increase as they dial up rhetoric and controversy. Add to that bots and professional trolls operating anonymously and the result becomes the messes that are played out across the spectrum of "social" media sites.
The wealthy individuals and corporations that own the sites play with the public the way a cat plays with a mouse. Free speech in this context is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 19, 2024 13:07:02 GMT -5
ts! The Law can only legitimately prohibit actions, not thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts, with the exceptions noted above regarding harassment and intimidation. Except intimidation is not an action. Until real harm is caused there is no cause for intervention. In a place where real free speech is allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 19, 2024 13:09:30 GMT -5
As far as harassment. Were any of the people arrested and convicted for harassing the politico's at restaurants?
|
|
|
|
Post by LTB on Mar 19, 2024 13:44:59 GMT -5
Free Speech, Ha ha ha, that went out the door a few years ago. It is now free speech if it fits the narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by rok-a-bill-e on Mar 19, 2024 15:54:27 GMT -5
Except intimidation is not an action. Until real harm is caused there is no cause for intervention. Actual threats (chanting "kill the whoevers" or even "from the river to the sea", which is an actual call for genocide) and deliberately being made afraid to go outside is very much real harm, the courts agree and so do I. It is a form of violence. That is far from the situation where someone says "your flag makes me feel threatened" or "use my ridiculous pronouns or else you are threatening me." Like all crimes, the element of Intent is required, and if someone intends to frighten with their words and use written or spoken words to accomplish just that, then their words have gone beyond speech. Same with incitement, slander, harassment, etc. The Right is to protect your expression of thought, not carte blanch to deliberately harm with words. I see a clear distinction there. |
|
|
|
Post by LTB on Mar 19, 2024 15:59:03 GMT -5
Rok, looks like you hit all the low notes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Auf Kiltre on Mar 19, 2024 16:18:56 GMT -5
|
|
