I dont have the hard data but I've been noticing that SWERFy rhetoric has been gradually accepted in like "left leaning spaces" like 5 years ago being a SWERF used to be something to be laughed at but now the word SWERF is barely used anymore. I feel theres some astroturfing going on (like paying someone 5 dollars just to post about the evils of PORN ADDICTION) and a really misguided belief that the best way to prevent sexual harrassment and SA is by making everyone disgusted at everything related to sex. Like personally I am not a huge fan of sex stuff but these people seem to miss that what's ultimately important is CONSENT. Perhaps because I lived in a country that is very prude (Indonesia) I know that mentality ultimately does nothing and if anything arguably made the issues worse.

Anyway in Occupied Korea national ID is essentially required to access the internet it led to great things such as people getting cyberbullied and doxxed through ID leaks. Herr Starmer and Rowling really saw this and thinks that's a good thing.

Do you believe that the lawmakers decided that they would abuse the bill before or after it was passed? For your post to make any sense, you would have to believe that the lawmakers did not have malicious intentions prior to passing the bill.

Based on the observable reality that the law is being abused to prevent people from seeing Israeli war crimes. The law has been active for less than a week and it is already being used to protect Zionist ideology. We are observing the this law being used maliciously immediately after going into effect and you are suggesting that we must still frame the law as if it was passed with good intentions.

Are we to assume that the lawmakers had pure intentions and have made a mistake by blocking anti-Zionist topics? Are we naive? It is necessary to consider that the motivations were malicious prior to the implementation of the bill.

There was already a mechanism that exists for preventing minors from seeing pornography on the internet. It's called parental supervision. Additional to monitoring their child's internet usage, a parent can use a firewall on their own devices to block content unsuitable for minors.

The motivations of internet ID laws are made in bad faith. This has been observed in the past year with over 20 US states requiring porn websites to verify IDs of every visitor and then the states do not provide the websites with the tools needed to verify the ID of each visitor. Then the websites block traffic from the states, so that they don't get sued. The intention of these laws is to outlaw porn websites and the promoters of these laws blatantly say so.

The people pushing Internet ID laws are lying. Their intentions are not protecting children. People who want to ban transgender medical care, claim that they are protecting children. People who want to ban abortion, claim that they are protecting children. People who want to ban same-sex marriage, claim that they were protecting children. It should be considered that reactionaries commonly use "protecting children" to justify enforcing their puritanical world view.

Barely two weeks ago you called a completely innocuous drawing of a lesbian couple "gooner shit."