← Back to context

Comment by benrutter

7 days ago

I know all the other comments are massively disagreeing, but I'm relieved to find I'm not completely alone.

It's not even that I think this is a good idea, but it does seem a fairly standard extension of existing laws. Potentially I'm missing something? Everyone else seems to be enraged by this.

9 comments

benrutter

Reply
Ensorceled  7 days ago

I'm pretty sure you're not alone: studies show that a median of 31% of the worlds population support authoritarianism(1)

(1) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes...

  • benrutter  7 days ago

    Hmm, assuming you're not just being imflamatory, I definitely wouldn't identify as supporting authoritatianism. Perhaps that's not for me to say, we live in a world where environmental protesters are often labelleed authoritarian, and people who I'd have thought would identify as facists call themselves libertarian.

    I think the bit that I don't understand yet, is: - Most people are not arguing that all pornography should be accessible to all ages - Most people seem horrified that online pornography isn't accessible to all ages

    I think that the second point is a miscategorisation from me. Reading the rest of the comments, people seem more up in arms about the introduction of government tracking into a space where it previously wasn't (obviously commercial tracking already happens a lot in that space, but I don't think that justifies having even more).

    I think I need to read some more on the implications of these kind of laws, I suppose I don't really understand too well what the relationship between government tracking and age checking is.

    • Ensorceled  7 days ago

      Not just being inflammatory, but most people who have a "if the government says they need to protect the children, I'm happy to give up a bunch of rights and privacy" reaction tend to be in the "ok with authoritarianism" group.

      Also, we are up in arms about the introduction of government tracking is 1) it's not JUST government tracking, the age restricted sites will also get your PII and 2) most people get concerned when governments start getting involved in things regarded as private, like sex, porn, etc. 3) What will require verification is unclear "age restricted content" is pretty open.

      2 replies →

protimewaster  7 days ago

I think the biggest difference compared to in-person ID checks is that I've never had to take a picture of my ID or face for an in-person check. Some bouncer or other person takes a quick look at my face and my ID, and that's the end of it. I don't have to wonder if there's a picture floating around forever of my face and ID, because none got taken. For such physical interactions, I'm thus less worried that all that information is getting stored in some database that's inevitably going up be leaked.

Honestly, if the way this worked was that you could head over to the Pornhub office and get unlocked access from the bouncer at the door, that would probably be preferable.

JohnFen  7 days ago

> Potentially I'm missing something?

The problem is the surveillance and tracking, not the age verification itself.

  • benrutter  7 days ago

    Yes, I think you're right. Some of these other comments seem to imply that age-verification would involve taking a photo of your face, giving your full name and having that stored permanently in a database.

    I have no idea if that's true, but if it was, I'd be massively concerned about that (compared to non-phased about the general idea of age-verification)