Conservative government would require ID to watch porn: Poilievre
Conservative government would require ID to watch porn: Poilievre
Conservative government would require ID to watch porn: Poilievre::OTTAWA — A future Conservative government would change the law to require that porn websites verify the age of users to prevent minors from accessing the content, Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre signalled on Wednesday. When asked whether his government would require porn websites to verify the age of users, Poilievre gave a one-word answer: “Yes.” […]
You're viewing a single thread.
I have a few honest questions for anyone who supports this kind of legislation.
First, what problem specifically is this trying to address? Have teen pregnancies gone up since the advent of kids being able to access porn on the internet? Kids with STDs? Sexual assaults on children? What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now? Is there a model that shows a correlation between the behaviors this legislation intends to address and the social ills you believe are associated with it?
Second is the related question of what metrics you think will improve with the introduction of this legislation? How long do you think it will take for that change to come about? If it does not, would you support removing this legislation?
Third, if a social ill were to be associated as per the above with online content, would you support similar legislation to regulate access (eg, if hate speech or LGBT-phobia posted online were to show a positive correlation with intolerance or violence), would you require online services to monitor access to sites hosting that kind of content, such as requiring a government issued ID to be kept on record and associated with specific user accounts?
What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now?
I wondered the same thing and I eventually figured it out. Here are 5 metrics that have gone up: LGBTQ.
Can republicans use this to control women or minorities?
Yes- interested.
No- but can it be used to hurt people?
Yes- interested.
No- but can it be used to increase unprotected sex?
Yes- interested.
No- but can it be used to have sex with minors?
Yes- interested.
No- but can it be used… you see.
First, what problem specifically is this trying to address? Have teen pregnancies gone up since the advent of kids being able to access porn on the internet? Kids with STDs? Sexual assaults on children? What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now? Is there a model that shows a correlation between the behaviors this legislation intends to address and the social ills you believe are associated with it?
The culture war has demanded that porn to be the issue. By porn, I mean: sex education, LGBT+ people, and drag queens.
Second is the related question of what metrics you think will improve with the introduction of this legislation? How long do you think it will take for that change to come about? If it does not, would you support removing this legislation?
None however once everyone is use to banning porn, the Government can now ban other "undesirables" like LGBT people, sex education, and anything else related to sexuality. The Liberals won't ban this however a Conservative government, will be very tempted in pushing their agenda.
Third, if a social ill were to be associated as per the above with online content, would you support similar legislation to regulate access (eg, if hate speech or LGBT-phobia posted online were to show a positive correlation with intolerance or violence), would you require online services to monitor access to sites hosting that kind of content, such as requiring a government issued ID to be kept on record and associated with specific user accounts?
No. Government bans aren't effective. Education, exposure to new ideas and peoples, and empathy are going to be far better tools to combat hate in the long term.
In short term, use freedom of speech to mock the shit of these people or other creative uses of freedom speech.
Kal Penn started a fundraiser in a name of racist for Syrian refugees.
Or the numerous times Redditors took over racist sub-reddits, such r/punchablefaces, r/WhitePolitics, r/Whites, r/StormFront, r/trannys, r/removeds, and more.
The Man who mocked Nazis with tuba playing.
My favorite, when Exit Deutschland used a racist rock show to spread the message about how getting out a hate group. Exit Deutschland pulled it off by handing out free t-shirts that when washed showed how to contact Exit Deutschland. Nazis were clearly outraged and went onto the internet and spread Exit Deutschland’s message, for free.
As Robert Evan’s said in his book “The War on Everyone” when discussing about Richard what’s his face, getting milkshaked. “Blood is cool. Milkshakes aren’t.”
Edit: Links
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think kids should have unrestricted access to the unlimited amount of hardcore porn available on the internet. I think it has a negative effect on their development and can cause all kinds of misconceptions about sex as well as body-dysphoria in men and women. In the past, ID was required to purchase magazines like Playboy or rent adult movies and ID is required to access strip clubs or sex shops. I don't think it's unreasonable to have a way to verify age before accessing internet porn.
And I'm speaking from experience here, I'm a millennial and I started watching porn in my early teens. But in hindsight I wouldn't say it was a good thing.
Sure, but parents are responsible for their kid's internet use, not the fucking government. All these bullshit "won't anyone think of the kids' internet regulation things are all about tracking the whole population, the kids are just the excuse they use to try to roll this nonsense trough.
This is what I worry about. If I’m on a list for accessing porn, what’s to stop them from seeing I like to watch gay porn? Then I’m on the gay list. Wrong government comes in and now I’m in more danger than I already am just for simply existing different from church approved heterosexual behavior.
I don’t want kids watching porn/violence for what it’s worth. Surely there is a privacy respecting aspect to this issue, but ID for access is a dangerous precedent
That's the thing - you think it has a negative effect. It might, but we need real studies to back that up. Laws shouldn't be made because of unsubstantiated feelings. If you want something meaningful to come out of these things you should advocate for unbiased mass studies.
I don't see that previous generations had a better attitude towards sexuality. I rather think it was worse.
Age verification can only be seriously enforced through very intrusive surveillance of internet activity. You'd need a good reason to justify that, which doesn't exist. How about we give all minors cameras to put in their bedrooms, so that CPS can check in on them? Too intrusive? Well, that actually might help against child abuse, which is a real issue.
I'm not sure to what degree that this restriction is practically possible with the way the internet works though. You can probably make it work on big websites dedicated to that content, sure (there's admittedly still the issue of using VPNs to appear to be from a location without such rules, but given that these kinds of laws seem to be slowly becoming more common, maybe that won't be an issue forever), but children are curious about things kept off limits, and includes teenagers who may seek that content actively. As such, if there's a reasonably easy way to find that content, they'll find it, so simply gating big websites isn't enough. In theory, laws about the matter probably apply to more than just those sites, but consider: small websites based in other countries might just not care about foreign laws, any web service that allows user generated content (which is a lot of them) can potentially be used to share pornographic content, and some such web services are set up in a way that moderation sufficient to actually stop this is not realistic (say, discord servers secretly set up for sharing it, or fediverse instances too small to be notified by regulators, or based in another country, or with inactive moderation that doesn't notice what is being shared). As such, I don't think it's really realistic, short of a type of authoritarian control on any site that allows any kind of user uploaded content that would cause way more harm than what it tries to solve, to actually be able to stop minors from being able to access porn if they really want to. As such, I'd think that a better way of addressing concerns like them getting the wrong ideas about how sex works, or having unrealistic standards of appearance or such, is better sex-ed. When they grow up they'll be able to access this stuff anyway, so if one is worried about it giving incorrect ideas, it makes more sense to tell them that they're incorrect, and why, and what the reality of the matter is, rather than try a futile attempt to childproof the internet.
This is being introduced by the party that wants to remove sex education.
This isn't about protecting children.
Usually, anything the Conservatives do in the name of "protecting children" is about anything but. Probably the opposite, in fact.
In this case, I imagine that this won't only apply to pornography, but any "sexually explicit" material. Taken to extremes, that'll likely include resources for learning about sex, sexuality, or even aspects of biology relating to sex. Or hell, maybe even information about abortion access.
Kids looking for support for queer individuals? Banned. Kids looking for information on transgenderism? Banned. Kid looking up whether his/her experience with puberty is normal? Banned.
No problem, people shouldn't be accessing this kind of info (or having sex) until 16 anyway, one might argue? Well, if you (an adult) want access to any of that, be prepared to have your government ID tied to your porn access, and be ready to justify anything questionable the website loads into your browser (including thumbnails and titles for videos you never clicked on).
Nothing the Conservatives do is about protecting children. It's about fucking us over.
I don't want my kid to murder someone, so ban all violence on TV and in movies and videogames for everyone in the entire country so I don't have to parent.
Wow, you really teased out the nuance in a good faith effort champ.