Porn sites Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat face stricter requirements to verify the ages of their users after being officially designated as “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA).
I personally have mixed feelings, as the information collection could be used to link individuals and profile them. Possibly leading to discrimination if abused.
But I also feel that any random kid shouldn’t be able to just go to these sites and see porn freely.
Ofc, there’s always going to be those who mange to circumvent any protection put in place but it’d be much harder then just clicking a link or typing in the address.
I also feel that parents should actively monitor their kids online activities and step up a Blocklist to pro-actively prevent kids from reaching these sites to begin with.
What are your thoughts on this?
I know we are discussing it. I appreciate the discussion! You have been civil and a good conversationalist presenting your views with thoughtfulness so far. That’s rare on the socials sometimes.
I mean to drive at the manner of how you would accomplish your stated goals above. By voluntary enrollment of those interested who may agree with your approach? With the ability for those like myself who may live near you and who feel, think, believe and act differently to opt-out? Or by compulsory taxation, or other compulsory inclusion of my family in these services you pitch, with penalty of financial, legal, or violent force? For instance, no ability to peacefully remain in my location of birth and/or circumstance, but to opt out and to choose my own path AND choose not to pay for or participate in your scheme should I choose not to. Would that be acceptable?
I hope you can see the parallels I’m drawing to most regions in the world. I am compelled now to submit property tax and other tax for a similar model to what you describe above against my will, under threats, leading up to and including death, should I refuse to pay them, even if I choose not to participate in my neighbors preferred model. So thus under duress and extortion.
In this scenario, you (my neighbors) would not threaten me or use violence directly of course, but instead would use proxies with more manpower and weapons plus the false cloak of legitimacy or law to do it, which is cowardly and unjust. Beurocratic, legal and police action, again, up to and including violence, imprisonment and death force me to to comply to something I disagree with philosophically, morally, spiritually and logically. Today. Not hypothetically.
So what I’m saying is that I’m more than happy for you and yours to do things your way, even if I chose a different way. I wouldn’t compel you to fund or support my way. I would request you afford me the same courtesy and we could coexist in harmony, or at least not conflict, even if we disagree on approach.
This is not how the vast majority of modern society functions today. Which is why I’m curious about how you would approach your hypothetical model.
edit: spelling, clarity, fat fingers