Technology

True. But the people advocating for these laws don't want to deal with nuance and compromise on what it would take to have a society where you educate people on sex in a healthy and positive way. These prohibitionists see the world as either bad or good - nothing in between. Good (how ever they decide to define it) must win no compromises, and the weapon that they use is unfounded fear of the bad and it works.

And the reason fear works is because it is easy and visceral and reality's complexity doesn't work for media's need for sound bites.

If you were a teenager, back when online porn were all pay sites, and so you were using Kazaa/Limewire instead, then you know.

Pretty sure the normalization of sexual violence and harmful attitudes came from the adults in my life. If parents and teachers adequately teach kids to identify those things and know that they are unequivocally wrong, then teens who see unhealthy stuff in porn will notice and be critical of it. Probably indignant, too, since no one is more justice focused than a teen who has just learned something about the world.

The issue is backward ideas about relationships being reinforced by adults, either through active misogyny or just never talking about it. This argument boils my blood because the porn itself is not the problem. Awful attitudes about relationships and women start very early and they often come directly from parents themselves.

The word "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. A lot of things "can" have negative effects.

They pander to the Christian nationalists for their votes. They just want power, they don’t actually hold those values.

Because we live in a ravenous corrupt oligarchy barely able to keep the appearance of a functioning democracy.

And kids

There's probably a name for this just like the "author's barely disguised fetish". Usually when you see politicians campaigning this hard on topics like those, it's probably because they themselves are doing it

They're against pornography, not prostitutes. There's a difference, I guess.

Doublethink is a core tenant

Yup, and this is exactly why I plan to use a VPN once my state starts enforcing this law. There's no way I'm going to show ID to any website unless they absolutely need it. There are very few websites where that's necessary, so I'll just use a VPN to a neighboring state (or even to Canada) instead of complying with that nonsense.

I already have to worry about identity theft, I don't want to make that even easier...

It's a war on both, but especially on LGBTQ people. The fundamentalists are anti-porn in the same way that they are anti-sex in other ways, like opposing sex education.

But it is absolutely part of their strategy to define anything LGBTQ-related as sexual or pornographic, and therefore to criminalize any public visibility of LGBTQ people.

It's a war on any free speech, they don't like. They could just add more restrictions for certain people.

MAKE POINTY FOODS ILLEGAL

(I think it was "penis shaped" in the original version)

Too many American corporations rely on VPNs for that to happen. The last thing politicians want is to piss off their corporate masters.

Because christians think they can make the rules for the rest of us. And they use scare tactics like, "protect the children", which they are molesting. Plus, they don't want anybody to be happy and have any fun. That's the point of christianity, to make everyone miserable, FOREVER.

Idk, I think teenagers watching porn is harmful, but preventing them from watching it is more harmful. As a parent, you want your kids to come to you with any questions or problems, and locking down everything breaks every ounce of trust you might have with them.

My state is doing this crap, so I'm installing a VPN on my wifi to a state w/o these stupid laws so my kids can make their own choices.

Humanity is smart, those making such laws 1) want the information collected by identifying people, not to forbid porn, 2) just hate autistic people. Because non-autistic teenagers will find something. But then, TBH, autistic ones too.

I didn’t see Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about British law.

Good. They're not supposed to.

The purpose of the VoA is to broadcast American news and perspectives to the rest of the world. Their programming is not intended for Americans and for most of its history the VoA was prohibited by law from intentionally broadcasting directly to American citizens. A lot of Americans aren't even aware the VoA exists because of this. This prohibition was eased somewhat in 2013 to make putting VoA content online easier and to allow Americans access to VoA content if we want it. ie I as an American citizen am allowed to hear what the VoA says but they're still not supposed to talk to me on purpose.

If you do hear the Voice of America trying to get people in the US riled up about anything, be sure to let us know so that we can make the responsible individuals be in trouble.

I assume practically the same in terms of child safety. Teens will find a way around or a more underground alternative to hang out with each other online.

To your question: More headaches and invasion of privacy for everyone due to enforcement. How do you enforce it other than state issued ID? It would also exclude a lot of people who either don't have that ID or don't have access to it. Then there's the whole question if whether you want the government to know what media you're interacting with. For legal reasons the social media company would need to keep evidence on file of your identification, if not report it. Keeping is regardless of whether it's part of that law, CYA and all.

probably just need a VPN. Or a website not hosted in the US lol