Working as intended.
Age verification laws aren't about porn and never were. They're about instituting systems by which governments can restrict individuals' access to internet content that is not in itself illegal, and that they just don't want people to be able to see.
A system's purpose is what it does.
Those of you who supported this sort of thing to own the ~~d-generates~~ gooners, I hope it was worth it.
This is goofy posturing when those laws aren't about "gooners," but what is accessible to minors. I don't think it's likely a very useful law because it can be circumvented and is liable to just obstruct non-porn things like seen here, but to take this extremely anti-moralizing-moralizing stance as though the claim was that 13-year-olds are being labeled "d-generates" is comically bad faith.
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.
Let me repeat that I don't support the policy, I think that it's purely detrimental.
I'd understand if you found it tedious, but I was objecting to BeamBrain's specific characterization of the nature of support for the policy (however misguided and incorrect, which you can glean that I believe from my not supporting the policy). Their phrasing made it sound like the stated target of the bill was 20-something porn addicts and the like, which to my understanding was not the case. However:
his 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.
(Emphasis mine) I forgot about this part if I ever knew it, so that's my bad. I don't think that it represents the majority of the support, but I must admit that it is some of it.
I made very clear at the time that my complaint was about the game itself and the drawing was banal. Also, this is pathetic, blatant deflection.
It's not deflection if your anti-erotic bias is showing
That's an extremely poor attempt at an own. It's ""anti-erotic bias"" to despise the mainstreaming of blatantly misogynistic video games.
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.
So glad labour and kid starver could take enough time to do that while working hard to appear on both sides of Israels genocide, and stripping welfare from the British people
I can't believe you'd forgotten that Starmer is getting ninja swords banned. As a 19th century Japanese peasant, this is something that affects me and my family very personally.
In communist north korea
It is my understanding these laws are largely ineffective at stated goals but do allow them to threaten advertisers and payment processors. Basically just a wedge to disrupt the entire backend of thr web 2.0 world and give them effective censorship controll over everything. Like how you can't share LGBT memes on tiktok because it might open an advertisers to some liability somewhere type stuff. But the UK has am even more draconian system already with their obscenity framework too
Not saying it's a good thing but I'm sure that's what I've been getting for ages when trying to click into a Ukraine war report post, it makes me try to prove I'm 18.
Naturally as I intentionally don't have an account on reddit, that's not going to happen
You can bypass that easily by using old.reddit or one of the third party frontends, also has the side effect of making the site much more readable.
Want to add that there's browser extensions that do this for you. It makes life so damn easier, especially as so many Google searches link to a reddit answer.
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.