> More and more sites (especially adult ones) are now forcing users to upload IDs or selfies to continue.

> they might just get enough attention from voters to motivate a change

Unfortunately, guaranteeing anonymous internet porno is a terrible political beachhead to motivate "voters" to do anything.

▲

Spivak 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

You don't have to sell it like that. The bill that needs to be passed is default presumption that all websites on the internet not explicitly marked as such and who voluntarily accept a higher legal burden and standard of moderation may contain content not suitable for children. And that is up to parents to control their child's internet access to limit their usage to only these sites.

Because I don't actually care about pornography, if it magically disappeared I wouldn't really care, it's all the other "not suitable for kids" content I care about that will get caught up in these laws. I don't want to give gross concern troll political groups moralizing about their precious hypothetical children the legal tools to ban what they don't like.

▲

topato 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ive had massive amounts of trouble convincing people that pornography is just the tip of the iceberg. That's why it's such an effective tool for broaching massive-scale surveillance: the architects of these laws have said that they want to be able to police all content with these laws, and anyone who tries to speak out against them can be painted as a pervert who hates the safety of kids.

▲

tomrod 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not about porn. It's about setting a legal beachead to force websites to deanonymize users.

▲

pbhjpbhj 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're asking for them to set up a system that won't be effective.

>And that is up to parents to control their child's internet access to limit their usage to only these sites.

This is an entirely unreasonable expectation on parents. I control web access at home, but I can't control it at school, or at their friend's houses. Nor do I have time, nor do I have access, to exert control over all the systems they come in contact with (even without their own device).

>it's all the other "not suitable for kids" content

Like what? Explicit violence?

	▲	Spivak a day ago \| parent [-]
		Even in the age-verification world you were never safe against friends' houses; my parents bought me porn and took me to a sex shop to pick out toys when I was a teenager. I can't begin to tell you how mortifying that experience was in the moment but in hindsight my parents were just recognizing that teenagers are horny and need an outlet for that. If I were a teenager today I know for sure they would have given me their IDs. And schools have web filters right now today so you don't have to worry about your kids getting access there. > Like what? Explicit violence? I find this comment puzzling, you present yourself as someone who desires age restriction of adult content but at the same time only want it for pornography and can't even name other content unsuitable for kids? Profane language, violence, content about alcohol, content about drugs, content about smoking, blood & gore, "disturbing" content like liveleak, horror, sexually suggestive clothing like titty-streamers, sexually suggestive situations, sex education resources, proana eating disorder content, content about guns and weapons, hate speech, content about suicide and self harm, content depicting and glorifying crime. When it comes to curating a kid's online experience porn tends toward the bottom of my worry list.

▲

selcuka 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Unfortunately, guaranteeing anonymous internet porno is a terrible political beachhead to motivate "voters" to do anything.

Reworded press release: "We protect children from being forced to upload their photos (on their IDs) to adult web sites"

▲

SunlitCat 3 days ago | parent [-]

Another rewording:

"...to upload your photos (on your IDs)..." :D

	▲	topato 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Oh yeah, that IS a good point, this verification technique is even stupider than CC number validation in the late 90s! Then again, these laws aren't about censoring children's access, they're about censoring EVERYONE'S access (and it blows my mind that conservative leaders will come right out and say it, but the average layperson doesn't seem to care or comprehend what a massive slippery slope censorship is -- porn is just the start)

▲

backscratches 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because there are so many explicit Bible verses[1], require ID verification to read scripture (online at least) and get the religious on your side!

[1] For example Ezekiel 23:20

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]