• deaf_fish@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 day ago

    Let this man watch porn without giving out any of his personal information. I too want to watch porn without giving out any of my personal information. You do too, if you watch porn.

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The people making the rules know this. They just … in their Christian nationalist hearts believe porn shouldn’t exist. And since there’s too much precedent to simply make it illegal (they’ve tried before). So here they’re trying to make watching it as painful and degrading as humanly possible.

      In other words, you’re not wrong - just preaching to the choir.

      • deaf_fish@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        Christian nationalists say that porn shouldn’t exist while watching a lot of porn and they would get mad if someone took away their porn. They only want others to not watch porn.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Christian nationalists say that other people shouldn’t watch porn but that they’ve figured out a curious caveat within the faith that exempts them, personally. Then they establish special repositories of pornographic material that serve as an incentive for membership and a form of blackmail against turncoats.

          Porn becomes a more direct means of patriarchal control - both in how it restricts which senior members are allowed to buy it and (in turn) which women are allowed to sell it, and at what price. It is a form of societal monopsony intended to make sex work a privilege afforded to elites at below market rates.

        • TeddE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          They all have Sunday brain. Living one life Sunday morning that’s just disconnected from their choices they make the rest of the week.

          But, that’s indoctrination for you. The most infuriating part is when otherwise good & great people decide that calling themselves Christian, setting themselves up as human shields for all the abusive controlling monsters among their number. They’ll say the monster is ‘a sinner’ and ‘doesn’t represent our values’ while rushing to the defense of Christianity. They’d rather white-wash the Christian label than fix the structural abuse done by by ‘their neighbors’ (but it’s never their church that’s the problem).

      • aceshigh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah. Except these “Christians” also love to rape children. It’s pure projection on their part.

        • TeddE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          They’re usually (usually) not the same individuals, but the evil ones deliberately use the “good” ones as a shield. They’re a happy to rally as Christians to any attack from outside the religion, but will write off abuses they see internally as “not my church”.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    It’s not a discrimination thing, I’m sure this is just facial recognition failing over his extensive facial tattoos, same as it can fail on people with very dark skin. No racism or discrimination needed to explain it, it’s just the software or sometimes even physics that causes it.

    Having said that, fuck the UK government for implementing this shit.

    Get your porn whilst you can because other countries will follow suit and soon even a VPN won’t save you anymore

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The system is still discriminating against this guy’s face tattoos even if it’s unintentional. Hopefully they will fix the issue.

      This is one of the many ethical issues that can come up when you build software. It might be just a bug for the engineers who built it but this probably ruined this guy’s whole life. I hope he can move on from this hahaha.

      Agreed with all your points though. What a stupid law. It’s crazy they are popping up all over now. We are losing anonymity online. What little we had left.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      same as it can fail on people with very dark skin. No racism or discrimination needed to explain it

      That’s a classic case of implicit racism. The technology is tailored to perform optimally against lighter toned skin, because the people building and evaluating the software are all lighter skinned, themselves. Similarly, I’m sure, the developers of the technology didn’t bother to evaluate how it would work on people with facial skin conditions, markings, or tattoos.

      In classic “Move Fast and Break Things” style, they rushed an application to market that only half worked on some people, and then told anyone who would fail the check by default that this was an individual’s problem to resolve.

      “Who cares if this system works for <Subset of People X>?” shows up in all sorts of lowest-bidder crap work, from medical studies to mechanical engineering. Whether its left-handed car drivers get fucked by a right-hand favorable design or clinical trials that just didn’t bother including women as subjects or dark-skinned people failing facial recognition, the implicit bigotry of poor engineering is rampant in our modern world.

    • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      The technical aspect could be a systemic SDLC problem if the software wasn’t tested on a broad enough range of users. As for what’s broad enough, that’s another issue to debate.

  • biofaust@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 day ago

    From here

    It’s all part of the plan. Only this time they let the cousins across the pond do the first significant move.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The line about “educators and public libraries” gives away the real game; this isn’t about actual pornography at all.

      The “pornography” they’re referring to here is any form of media that portrays LGBTQ+ people in a neutral or positive light.

      • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        The age old problem of “if you remove rights from criminals, you can just change the definition of crime to encompass the people you don’t like”

      • TeddE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Don’t forget people of any color but white having any kind of fun. That’s shameful, too!

        🙄

  • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m confused, can’t literally anyone just generate an AI selfie to submit for the censorship?

    A couple news cycles ago was just talking about how AI video and image generation has progressed so far that it is really difficult for any system to tell it is AI in some cases. This seems like the perfect usecase for that.

    Or does it need to link to a real person ID or something?

    • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Selfie doesn’t work, you need to turn your head left and right to follow instructions.

      But yeah, there’s a bunch of avatars that will bypass it

    • Vreyan31@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The simplist answer is that this guy could buy some high-coverage foundation and a make-up sponge. He could change his appearance in other ways too if he likes - get a wig, fake nose, etc.

      • Ilovemyirishtemper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        In states that have started this requirement (at least in Virginia), they do have ID as an option, but the default is a face scan. I don’t think an ID is better. In fact, it’s even more personal information being exposed.

        I don’t know the technical terms, but my internet provider sometimes routes my internet through Virginia, and even though I live in Wisconsin, I’m forced to adhere to Virginia law online because of it. It’s very annoying. I

  • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    248
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Since when did keeping kids off of porn sites become everyone else’s problem and not the problem of parents? Oh, right, that’s just a bullshit reason to make accessing porn more difficult and a security risk since they can’t just make porn illegal.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      177
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s not even that. Porn is just a bystander here. The first step is put in place a very large framework for making some form of verification mandatory on arbitrary services and sites under the guise of whatever (terrorism, child protection, and extremely niche content are good candidates). Once it’s in place, it becomes the new normal very quickly.

      Then, as the government, you suddenly have the power to extend the provision of said system to whatever the fuck you want. That’s where things gets funky, and not the good kind.

      • bizarroland@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        65
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        And look at the money.

        The reasoning for this is to eventually lock the internet down completely to put up fences and paywalls everywhere to every single site so that even if you pay for the privilege of using the internet, you will have to pay more money to actually use the internet.

        It is all about controlling you and taking every single penny they possibly can out of your pocket.

        All of the tracking, all of the identity verification, all of the invasive watching every single thing you do on your computer and your phone, everywhere, all of the time always, is all about milking you for every single penny they can.

        Even though they are insanely rich, beyond the imagination of any human being that has ever lived in the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity’s existence on this planet they still don’t have enough money and they will still never be satisfied with how much money they have.

        The fact that there are free websites where people can congregate and communicate and have fun with each other without paying them for the privilege galls them.

        It grinds their heart and soul the way watching a dog get shot in the head at the end of old yeller does to a normal person.

        These people are evil, and we need to stop them.

        When it comes down to it, we may have to rise up and slay them.

          • Mirror Giraffe@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Sometimes they will act if they fear for their moneys.

            With that said it bothers me that they will always look to strike a deal with the more pacifist/less disruptive parts of a movement in order to neutralise the threat.

            Which in theory means it’s useless to actually aim for a reasonable goal but rather you need to overshoot by a fair bit in order for the deal to land anywhere near what you believe is decent.

            BUT when you overshoot you come across as disillusioned and a lot of people will distance from you, making any movement impossible.

          • bizarroland@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m not saying that we should start getting pitchforks or anything right now. I’m just saying that like, they need to know that that is an option and that if they keep pushing us, they’re gonna start painting targets on their own back.

            I mean, that’s two billionaires down in a year, and they’re still ramping things up. Next year, it’ll be four. The year after that, it’ll be eight. And in like 15 years, we won’t have any billionaires left unless they fucking straighten up an act right.

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        “Oh look, we just banned all the opposition party from using any online services at all because (checks notes) campaigning against us is hate speech

        All you EU chatters going on about us in the US sitting on our asses and not doing anything about what’s going are gonna eat your fucking words if you don’t show us how it’s done, and quick, because they’re coming for you HARD right now

          • Fla@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Given the context of the UK political climate, who would you have voted for?

            *The tories that caused brexit (along with plenty of other scandals)

            *UKIP/Reform (who’s members also caused brexit)

            *Lib Dems (split the left vote and help the aforementioned)

            *Labour who as of the last election, hadn’t had a go at shafting us in a while

            Im not saying voting isn’t important, it is. But i’m struggling to see the connection between this issue and who could be voted for.

            The only party that i’ve seen against this change is Reform, but they come with more than enough baggage…

              • Furbag@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                With literally one change, a national-level replacement of FPTP with any other ranked choice voting system (there are plenty to choose from) would make 3rd parties not only viable, but competitive. We would no longer be required to settle for the lesser of two evils, and so the evil party and the greater evil party will absolutely do everything in their power to avoid making that change.

      • brax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s when the databases become huge targets and the government officials get their everything leaked online. They voted against privacy, they can enjoy the stones they threw in the glass house they forced themselves into.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s more than that, they want to

      1. limit who can post and make money off porn, and no, this isn’t to support small creators at all unfortunately
      2. build massive blackmail networks
      3. build massive sex work websites with curated AI models and videos

      And yes, any time ANY ONE EVER says, “Do it for the kids, just think of the kids,” when it is not something DIRECTLY and CONSENSUALLY helping kids, but instead FORCING ADULTS TO DO THINGS, is being manipulative every time.

      • bizarroland@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        2 days ago

        The only time the phrase “do it for the kids” is actually valuable is when it’s someone asking you to grill hot dogs at a picnic.

        If it’s a politician saying it, “do it for the kids” is slang for “bend over and take it up the ass because otherwise you’re a bad person”.

        • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes and again, your example is an action of directly and consensually helping kids. The kids directly get the hot dog you made. They consent to eating the hotdog. They aren’t forced to eat it. You aren’t giving the hotdog to a third person who will then eat it and then by extension later help a child in some other way. Which btw, they should be doing in the first place.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I’m gonna be the odd one out, I guess.

          At a picnic, it’s likely that you’re not grilling just for the kids; and likely that grilling means you’re excluded from other activities.

          Activities like playing games with said kids.

          Bringing them into the picture instantly becomes manipulative, where you can make the same argument (that they need to be cooked, and someone has to do it,) without it.

          Edit to add some background: I’m an uncle, but not a father. At family picnics, my bro and parents like to use my nephew and nieces as a guilt trip so I let them task dump; even though we’re organized enough they’re fairly equitable (including watching the kids as a task, even if it’s more fun.)

          SiL in particular is egregious.

          It’s always manipulative, even if when the child’s wellbeing is directly involved, it’s maybe called for. But that really shouldn’t t be the case at a picnic.

          Most parents don’t even realize they’re doing it- ie asking you to cover their summer vacation (and not reciprocating.) at work.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I think the narrative is now that “parenting is hard” and you can’t expect parents to do it right by themselves. Parenting used to be easy so parents didn’t need any help but now it’s just too difficult and government needs to help.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Parenting used to be easy so parents didn’t need any help but now it’s just too difficult and government needs to help.

        Ahh ok, so that means they’re for parental leave, and free daycare/preschool, right?

        And surely they’ll do something to lower the maternal and infant mortality rates, right?

        And they’ll definitely make sure that we’re teaching proper sex education, and making contraceptives free and widely available in order to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies, right?

        Right??

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    He knows that video games where you can pose the character can bypass it, right?

    Iirc death stranding and a few others have been shown to work.

    Alternatively VPNs work.

    Or piracy.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        I want to go full cyberpunk and get QR codes tattooed on my cheeks that will either crash the cameras or tell the recognition software that I’m a stegosaurus.