this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
676 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

70302 readers
2843 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors

Citation needed when we're talking about implementing laws and opening up lawsuits suing for $75k+. Multiple robust peer-reviewed citations needed. Preferably not funded by a Catholic church group.

Also it's a leap to say top-down privacy invading laws are the way the state or federal government should handle it instead of the concerned parent monitoring computer usage. There's so many free and subscription based parental control tools out there. Comprehensive sex education would be a potential alternate way for the state to support parents and teens to educate them on porn consumption and safe internet usage.

FYI, NCOSE, the group joining (likely funding) the lawsuit, is against comprehensive sex education.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

You’re talking about a few separate things here.

  1. I never said this is how it should be implemented. I just said stricter guardrails on porn would do some good.
  2. evidence is needed when creating laws. Yes
  3. when a law is already in effect, breaking the law does not require evidence to prove the law should exist. It requires evidence that the law was broken.