- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- technews@radiation.party
Popular porn sites now display unproven health warnings thanks to Texas law::Popular online adult film sites in Texas are posting health warnings about watching porn, despite the fact a law requiring them to do so was blocked in August.
Remember when people on the Internet generally universally agreed that it was bad when the government (or anyone) regulated or censored the Internet?
I want those times back. It isn’t any better whether it is because of left wing causes like “misinformation” or “hate speech” or right wing ones like the thing this article is about or “piracy” or “terrorist propaganda”.
See those downvotes? Yes, that’s because those times were conditioned by the Internet being a niche thing. You can’t expect such adequacy today even here.
That aside, legally fighting “misinformation” is outright obvious censorship, not even trying to pretend to be something else.
I am 100% fine with censorship of known falsehoods. Let them appeal it in court. Even the tools behind 1/6, besides the biggest tool at the top, won’t even risk perjury and probably contempt, in court, with the risk of jail, unlimited fines, and permenant censorship from mass media on the line.
I would prefer the falsehood to left up, colored a deep red and shrunk down to like 8pt font with a pop up on your curser that comes up when you hover over it, stating the fact of what it is; such as ‘unproven’, ‘demostrably false’ hyperlinked to evidence, ‘conjecture’, or ‘MTG - Jewish Space Laser crazy’.
Pick up social issue, it doesn’t matter your stance on it. Chances are, there is a science behind it that clearly takes a position. Facts over feelings.
Changing your mind when given new information is a strength, not a weakness. Doubling down on error…? That’s some flat earth, you are definitely going to an old folks home now, kind of shit. That’s how it looks. Onset dementia.
I apologize to those with real onset dementia, we know you didn’t choose it, you’re still worthy of respect.
Removed by mod
I once hoped that if the Internet were more popular, society at large would become more like the Internet.
Hahahahahaha no
It’s not censored, it’s a warning label you can click past.
Internet porn addiction is a genuinely harmful thing.
This is why I also mentioned “regulated”, not just “censored”.
In my teen years I was convinced that the government shouldn’t have any business telling us what to do on the Internet and thought that that is what the future would be like, that we were then living in a temporary situation where governments were still trying to do so but eventually the Internet would win.
That turned out different. I really wish I knew how to help achieve a utopia of free worldwide communication.
I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time find porn addiction, or even sex addiction, in my DSM-V. Could you tell me which page(s) it’s on?
As you’re undoubtedly aware, DSM-V is a decade old and the next revision is set to include improved criteria on dependencies (including non-drug ones) and obsessive-compulsive spectrum (which this could likely fall under), as well as adding other “new” conditions like hoarding.
So, not an addiction?
Most sex researchers have noted that actual compulsive sexual behaviors are very, very rare, and that what many people think of as a porn “addiction” comes more from a place of values judgement–especially religious values, whether they recognize them as such or not–rather than from the behavior being significantly outside of the norm in any way, or even damaging to the person.
Mormons–“Fight the New Drug”–have done a fantastic job of convincing people that porn and sex are terrible, and that any consumption at all is problematic.
“I’m not addicted, I can quit whenever I want.”
I hear that all the time. Keep denying the downsides of porn.
That was before someone on Twitter’s best addition to the conversation was to call me “a caribou diaper baby” … which while a very creative insult … is pretty ridiculous conduct.
I agree the government regulating speech is a fine line. We don’t need real information being suppressed, but we also need a way (with checks and balances) to shut people that are entirely full of shit (or people that if the Internet was a real establishment would be kicked out for being deranged and unhinged) up.
I think the concept you’re looking for is that moderation is different from censorship.
Thank you for caribou diaper baby, its getting added to the list alongside baby piss goblin and wailing flesh Muppet.