Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ like_any_other 2 days ago

> Age Verification isn't about Kids or Censorship, It's about Surveillance

We know this because, instead of putting easy-to-use parental controls on new devices sold (and making it easy to install on old ones) with good defaults [1], they didn't even try that, and went directly for the most privacy-hostile solution.

[1] So lazy parents with whatever censorship the government thinks is appropriate for kids, while involved parents can alter the filtering, or remove the software entirely.

▲jacobgkau 2 days ago | parent [-]

Parental control software has existed for decades. It hasn't worked.

Over 70% of teenagers <18 today have watched porn [1]. We all know (many from experience) that kids easily get around whatever restrictions adults put on their computers. We all know the memes about "click here if you're 18" being far less effective than "click here if you're not a robot."

Yes, there were other ways of trying to solve the problem. Governments could've mandated explicit websites (which includes a lot of mainstream social media these days) include the RTA rating tag instead of it being a voluntary thing, which social media companies still would've fought; and governments could've also mandated all devices come with parental control software to actually enforce that tag, which still would've been decried as overreach and possibly would've been easily circumventable for anyone who knows what they're doing (including kids).

But at the end of the day, there was a legitimate problem, and governments are trying to solve the problem, ulterior motives aside. It's not legal for people to have sex on the street in broad daylight (and even that would arguably be healthier for society than growing up on staged porn is). This argument is much more about whether it's healthy for generations to be raised on porn than many detractors want to admit.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/raising-kind-kids/20...

▲wkat4242 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Over 70% of teenagers <18 today have watched porn [1]. We all know (many from experience) that kids easily get around whatever restrictions adults put on their computers. We all know the memes about "click here if you're 18" being far less effective than "click here if you're not a robot."

And we all turned out fine I might add. In fact there's a lot more attention to consent and respect for women than 20 years ago.

Of course not counting the toxic masculine far right but that doesn't have anything to do with porn but everything with hate.

▲jacobgkau a day ago | parent [-]

> And we all turned out fine I might add.

Absolutely not. You might personally feel like (or want to tell yourself that) porn didn't negatively affect you. I can tell you with certainty that porn negatively affected my social and sexual development. (I was literally afraid to physically open my mouth around girls when I was 10 years old because of porn.)

> Of course not counting the toxic masculine far right but that doesn't have anything to do with porn but everything with hate.

There are plenty of pipelines between porn and "toxic masculinity."

▲pksebben 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is porn the biggest problem here? What I've seen points the finger at social media as the worst offender for youth mental health.

Also, access to porn isn't new with the internet. When we cleared out my grandpa's house we had to pry open a desk that was chock full of hustlers.

▲kcplate 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> access to porn isn't new with the internet

“Ease of access” and “easy access to the most depraved shit you can think of that’s out there” is what changed. That is what is wrong and why many people feel we need to find some way to control that access.

The Internet didn’t come along until I was well into adulthood. Think about what porn access looked like in the late ‘70s and ‘80s. As a teen we were “lucky” if by some rare miracle a friend stole their dad’s Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler and stashed it in the woods (couldn’t risk your parents finding it under your mattress) for us dudes to learn the finer points of female anatomy. In a week it would be washed out from the elements with nary a nipple to be seen. Those magazines (even hustler) was soft compared to what a few clicks can find today. Basically you got degrees of nudity back then, but we appreciated it.

Hardcore video was very rare to see as a horny teen kid in the ‘80s. Most porn movies was still pretty well confined to theaters, but advent of VHS meant (again by sheer luck) you had to have a friend whose parents happened to be in to it, who had rented or bought a video, it was in the house and accessible, all the adults had to be gone from the house so you could hurry up and watch a few minutes on the family’s one TV with a VCR. You needed to build in viewing time along with rewind time to hide your tracks.

Now…parents just leave the room for a few minutes and a willing kid with a couple of clicks could be watching something far beyond the most hardcore thing I saw as a teen.

▲Eisenstein 2 days ago | parent [-]

I doubt that the porn in the 70s was less bad than the porn today. Legal CSAM was being sold openly so what makes you think that it was more tame than modern stuff?

The fact is that as difficult as it was to get, you got a hold of it and watched it. Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway?

▲kcplate 2 days ago | parent [-]

Are you implying that perhaps 15-25 mins worth of porn video total throughout all of someone’s teenage years due to such rare access of the material would have a similar emotional and mental impact as having the ability to see that much daily for years as is possible now?

There could have been years between the opportunities we had. I don’t think you conceptualize just how infrequent the opportunity would present itself.

▲Eisenstein 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not making any claims about mental or emotional impacts, you are. What are they?

▲kcplate a day ago | parent | next [-]

A couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway”

So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?

▲Eisenstein 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Person 1: "People are exposed to many more chemicals now than in the 70s, and they smell worse"

Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?"

Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?"

Person 1 is using a claim that is not proven by their statements to make Person 2 responsible for a claim they never conceded was true.

Person 2 is disputing that Person 1's mechanisms make a difference not that their conclusion is valid.

▲kcplate 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Person 1: I once or twice got a small drop of a dangerous chemical on my skin in 1982

Person 2: I bathe in that same chemical for 30 minutes every single day. It’s no different than 1982. The risk of harm is the same.

▲Eisenstein 10 hours ago | parent [-]

In this case Person 2 has no duty to prove that bathing in it is fine or that getting exposed to a small drop is dangerous.

If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.

▲kcplate 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok then, enjoy your bath. Hopefully it’s fine.

▲ 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲71bw 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For instance [1]. I am speaking out of experience, as a GenZ person who has been first introduced to the entire world of sex and porn at EIGHT years old. I myself feel it has harmed my brain in ways which I'll likely never fully understand.

[1] https://eprints.qut.edu.au/217360/1/__qut.edu.au_Documents_S...

▲aidenn0 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But it's been illegal to peddle porn to minors for much longer than it's been illegal to peddle social media, so it's a good proxy for how effective our current efforts are.

▲mbg721 2 days ago | parent [-]

The approximate substitute-good for porn is actual sex, which parents generally stop teens from doing. The substitute-good for social media is talking to people in person, which parents are generally happy with.

▲Gormo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Parental control software has existed for decades. It hasn't worked.

How would you know whether it has worked or not? Wouldn't the relevant criteria be up to parents themselves?

▲anon291 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's also already illegal to send porn to a minor. Porn companies that transmit porn to minors are already committing a sex crime.

▲jacobgkau a day ago | parent | next [-]

It might as well not be illegal if there's no way to prosecute it, and the pre-age-verification status quo was that there was no way to prosecute it.

▲ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲like_any_other 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> has existed

Sorry, but if you would actually read my post, you would notice that I am not proposing that it should merely "exist", but that it should come enabled by default on all new devices.

▲jacobgkau a day ago | parent [-]

My point is that being enabled by default on all new devices 1) would also be fought by people very similar to you (if not you specifically), and 2) would not be effective if the enabled-by-default software is not effective, which would also require additional work that you and people like you would fight.

I do agree it could be done. I disagree with your characterization that it would be easy/easier, or that the current age verification efforts are entirely nefarious and not actually trying to work the problem.