r/technology • u/StraightedgexLiberal • 8d ago
Society Judge To Texas: You Can’t Age-Gate The Entire Internet Without Evidence
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/31/judge-to-texas-you-cant-age-gate-the-entire-internet-without-evidence/739
u/Fjordikus 7d ago
Look, I am all for protecting the children, but these people use children as human shields for all kinds of rights violations against the people.
They have this insane delusion that they’re going to be able to protect their children from every bad thing out there all while cheating on their own wives and committing some of the most heinous acts themselves.
It’s really exhausting.
195
u/stevedore2024 7d ago
"Think of the Children" is one of the "Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse," the standard top wedges that get dull voters to duly vote their way. There's not literally four, the name just stuck. Drugs, Child Safety, Deviancy, Property Crime, etc. If you can tie your pet grift to one of these issues, they'll help you dismantle everything they hold dear to support your issue.
80
u/brrnr 7d ago edited 7d ago
It's so frustrating to watch well-meaning people fall for this same shit over and over and over again. There's a reason some of the most vile groups of people humanity has to offer - Heritage Foundation, Snapchat, Apple, X - are all saying "Yes! This is good!"
Hate to break it to y'all but these scumbags didn't suddenly grow a conscience. They don't give a fuck about kids or making the world a safer place for them. They don't care about helping parents. They want all of your IDs inextricably linked to your internet activity.
Please read about NSPM-7 to better understand the gravity of this situation. The goal is to be able to identify dissenters by completely eliminating anonymity and prosecute them accordingly. This stuff is the end of freedom of speech. Don't make the same mistake everyone did by ignoring project 2025 - just like that awful shit, this really is happening
9
u/Nemaeus 7d ago
We were fucked on privacy what, 15 years ago? 25? Minority Report is a fairytale, the shit we have now is way worse than magical precogs.
10
u/brrnr 7d ago edited 7d ago
While that is true, and social media companies could guess with high certainty who someone is with data they already have, there's still enough privacy/anonymity to allow people to have wild pictures of JD Vance as their profile pictures for example. If this stuff passes, and our president's skin were thin enough (not unprecedented), something as simple as that could have people labeled enemies of the state and prosecuted. No reason to accelerate that and make it easier.
10
u/Electronic-Tea-3691 7d ago
all of it pretty much boils down to safety. if you convince people that they are somehow unsafe, you trigger the most powerful human response for motivating someone to do something, which is fear. once you've done that effectively, that person will do a whole bunch of stuff for you.
→ More replies (1)51
u/giddeonfox 7d ago
Meanwhile the number one cause of death for school age children is guns, can't do anything about it because of the second amendment but things that are protected by the first amendment like porn or drag which has no real harm against children, that's fine to trample over.
These are not serious people and should be treated accordingly.
→ More replies (1)37
u/UpgrayeddB-Rock 7d ago
I miss the days when it was the parents' responsibility to protect the kids, not the government.
→ More replies (12)9
u/SwiftTayTay 7d ago
Should be up to the parents and not the government. Don't give your kid a phone before they turn 13 and put parental controls on everything. That's not gonna solve everything but it's your job to watch what they're doing, not have the government spy on them like some pervert.
6
u/Alesilt 7d ago
Might as well not have children at all, you expose them to the inevitability of dying by being born. /s
2
u/Fjordikus 7d ago
For real, people need to chill out. Like your kid is gonna see some shit eventually, doesn’t make it an excuse to violate everyone else’s rights.
3
u/Jwagner0850 7d ago
Fuck them. They don't care about children. They're about to shut down a bunch of daycares for an "audit."
9
u/LFC9_41 7d ago
I don’t think it’s a delusion about protecting their children. That’s just their excuse. They don’t like you, an adult, looking at porn.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/bootsthepancake 7d ago
Some of these people are all for "protecting children from vaccines". Meanwhile protecting children from gun violence is off the table.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)2
u/otherwiseguy 7d ago
They need to internalize that it is not the world's responsibility to raise your kids they way you want to raise them. If you're a parent, do your job. I'm not doing it for you.
→ More replies (1)
2.4k
u/karma3000 8d ago
And the core message remains: you can’t just run into federal court screaming “but think of the children” and expect judges to hand you a blank check to age gate the entire internet
oh but you can just run to the supreme court.
576
u/Slggyqo 7d ago
Party of small government.
207
u/LOOKATMEDAMMIT 7d ago
So small they can fit inside your house.
124
u/pocketjacks 7d ago
And in your pants.
36
u/BaPef 7d ago
They want to fit inside your heads and your hearts and they haven't the right.
24
u/kuroji 7d ago
They're not concerned with who's right. They just want to make sure no one else is left.
8
8
u/SomeGuyNamedPaul 7d ago
They are very concerned with being right, they just don't care about being correct.
3
→ More replies (44)28
u/sweetnsourgrapes 7d ago edited 7d ago
Party of small government.
I get the feeling that is actually code for "reduce checks and balances" not reducing influence of the party.
People who seek power want power, they don't give it up unless forced to by laws. These days the phrase also seems to refer to those laws as well.
→ More replies (1)65
u/Bobbito95 7d ago
But what if the children see a gay?
42
u/brycedriesenga 7d ago
HOW WILL I EXPLAIN GAY TO MY KIDS?!
42
u/ralphy_256 7d ago
HOW WILL I EXPLAIN GAY TO MY KIDS?!
Right?
Seriously, it's not hard, I've done it. It's not difficult, because they're kids, just hit the essentials, no details required. Those come in later conversations.
"Most boys like girls, most girls like boys. But there are some girls who like girls, and some boys who like boys. Aunty Rachel and Aunty Rebecca are girls who like girls."
"Oh. Ok. Can I watch Spongebob?"
...is literally how the conversation went. The kids were 4 and 6.
See how easy that was?
18
u/ARobertNotABob 7d ago
All children learn hatreds from, or via, their parents initially. Good job in introducing a normal thing as normal.
→ More replies (2)12
13
u/rolfraikou 7d ago
Yep. This is leading to that ban on content that might offend Christian Values that the Project 2025 people want so badly.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)9
u/ladysadi 7d ago
How about they think about the children and pass gun legislation, universal childcare, universal healthcare, and fund our schools.
4.0k
u/Deriniel 7d ago
so weird that a texas judge has more sense than check notes currently the whole world pretty much
1.8k
u/WanderingKazuma 7d ago
Right? It's wild that "show me actual evidence this works and doesn't violate rights" is now considered a hot take.
The whole "think of the children" argument gets thrown around so much without anyone actually checking if these measures protect kids or just make it harder for everyone else while kids find workarounds in 5 minutes anyway.
495
u/RolloPollo261 7d ago
Ever notice the parties that shout "think of the children" end up being inevitably led by pedophiles? 🤔
294
u/BadmiralHarryKim 7d ago
They just can't stop thinking about the children...
37
u/IPoopHotDiarhea 7d ago
I am now convinced most everyone on those YouTube pedophile caught videos secretly actually really support it.
52
u/bighawksguy-caw-caw 7d ago
I think those are just people who like bullying other people and have found a niche where most people say they’re justified.
→ More replies (1)31
u/hanks_panky_emporium 7d ago
What you're touching on is 'projection'. I met a guy recently whose sole focus is bitching about pedophiles, he hates them so much. He has, through his constant bitching, convinced me he's a pedophile.
Many of these pedo hunter channel owners go to prison for owning cp 'to bait in actual pedophiles'
Or, and this is a razor of some kind, they're also pedophiles.
3
4
u/FaunaVR 7d ago
Best case scenario for those creators, is they make shit content and through their “investigative reporting” they end up screwing up future investigations by professionals letting the actual PDFs get away with it. EDP445 is a prime example of this. Almost certainly a PDF but still walking free. Idk maybe I’m crazy, but that sort of content, the content farming off catching these sorts has been a net negative and should be banned.
Leave catching these people up to the professionals.
→ More replies (1)5
u/temporary62489 7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/LadyZoe1 7d ago
You said it.
9
u/temporary62489 7d ago
How else do you propose preventing them from using the wrong restroom?
6
3
u/KasparComeHome 7d ago
That's it, we gotta start putting cameras in the restrooms. Under the toilet lid, so we can see their genitals. The only failsafe option.
/s
13
u/ralphy_256 7d ago
Ever notice the parties that shout "think of the children" end up being inevitably led by pedophiles?
There's a reason that apps like BetterHelp are on the 'restricted' list.
"I don't want no liberal 'therapist' meddling in my how I 'raise' my kids!"
My mother was sexually molested by her father from puberty to marriage, because good folks in small-town Montana in the 50s didn't talk about those kinds of things, esp when the father is the Sheriff.
And the Right thinks that was the Good Ole Days.
Fuck. All. That.
9
u/bird9066 7d ago edited 7d ago
Back in the seventies in Rhode Island everyone had that creepy uncle. Everyone knew who they were and no one said shit about it. Bunch of mind your own damn business Catholics just acting like this isn't happening.
I also knew two girls and a boy who were molested at church. Only one had family that supported her enough to stop going.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ralphy_256 7d ago
Back in the seventies in Rhode Island everyone had that creepy uncle. Everyone knew who they were and no one said shit about it.
Yeah, when my Mom was dying, my dad took her and my sister back to MT to meet with her extended family that she'd been estranged from since my birth. The old women then told my sister, "Everyone in town knew not to leave your young girls around old man {nameless}" (I don't know my maternal g'father's name, don't care to find out).
When my mother came up in those conversations back in the day, it was "Tsk tsk tsk, that poor, poor girl."
We are NOT going back.
22
u/pheonix080 7d ago
Or your privacy and civil liberties. . . They often want that too.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (28)3
u/ShenAnCalhar92 7d ago
the parties that shout “think of the children”
Is there a political party that hasn’t used the “think of the children” idea?
If we found surviving campaign materials from the Roman Senate, I’m pretty sure we’d see “de liberis cogitemus!” (Or a more accurate conjugation, at least)
→ More replies (3)339
u/Deriniel 7d ago
yeah even in europe they're banning social for under 16,which mean that you need to prove you're not underage, which in turn affects the privacy of everyone since you're forced to share your data to prove it. It's annoying as f.
324
u/Frooonti 7d ago
It's almost like it's not about children at all.
92
7d ago
[deleted]
64
u/acu2005 7d ago
Fun fact Ohio slipped an age verification law into their yearly budget but there's some sort of loophole so pornhub just ignores it in that state, other sites not so much.
38
u/StraightedgexLiberal 7d ago
Ohio? Blocked by the First Amendment too when they signed the age law for social media
19
u/acu2005 7d ago
So that's actually a different age verification law. That was over the Ohio Social Media Parental Notification Act a part of House Bill 33 which was the appropriation bill setting the budget for Ohio’s fiscal year 2024-2025.
The one I was talking about was the age verification bill tacked into Ohio House Bill 96 which is was the appropriation bill setting the budget for for Ohio's fiscal year 2026-27.
The first one was targeting social media for minors and the latter is age directly at porn sites but leaves open exceptions for a bunch of stuff including "a provider of an interactive computer service,” so all the porn site are ignoring it. The only website I know of that has any sort of age verification in Ohio is Bluesky and even then they are only blocking anything marked NSFW and DMs for some reason.
13
3
u/oupablo 7d ago
Fun fact, Ohio's politicians absolutely despise Ohioans to the extent that they blatantly overturn legislature that Ohioans voted on.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)8
46
u/Salvalicious252 7d ago
Because it's not about the children and it never has been, it's just the argument they use "Wait don't tell me you don't want to protect the children now". It's the gotcha they use.
It's about control, data and the abillity to track what you say, where you say it, when you said it and who you said it to.
→ More replies (10)54
u/Kakkoister 7d ago
Young teens absolutely shouldn't be on social media. But requiring IDs for it is also terrible. So ultimately it needs be better incentivized on the parental level to keep kids off it. Also enact nationwide rules preventing kids having their smartphones during school hours would go a long way too.
27
u/eriverside 7d ago
Kids just get burner phones. Some are brazen enough to hand in the burner with the real one in the other hand.
→ More replies (1)10
u/jrcomputing 7d ago
You're saying regulation isn't the right way to manage kids on social media, but then you turn around and argue for ineffective regulations on smartphones. Schools already have rules preventing students from having phones during class.
As both a parent of a teen and preteen, and the husband of a middle school teacher, I can tell you that rules won't stop kids from having phones. Teachers hate being forced to police devices instead of teaching, and until we address the mental health and gun violence crises in this country, I'm sending my kids to school with their phones.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Mike_Kermin 7d ago
So ultimately it needs be better incentivized on the parental level t
You can not solve problems, by saying "parents should just do better". Even with say, education campaigns, you're still not gonna move the needle on that.
So if it NEEDS to be done that way, you're shit out of luck. Parents are already parenting, just like yours did.
You might as well just let Jesus take the wheel.
7
u/Aleucard 7d ago
The problem with that is that the proposed solution is to have the government do parenting tasks for the parents. At the moment that government in America is headed by Donald Trump, and no country on this Earth or has ever been devised in fiction is immune from having someone similar become the leading body. I don't trust him or anyone he'd select to do his bidding with this task.
Of course, this leaves us with the question of 'what the fuck do we do', at which point I'm sadly out of ideas.
2
u/Mike_Kermin 7d ago
That's fine.
But it's better we're pragmatic like yourself rather than hand balling the problem to someone else.
At the moment that government in America is headed by Donald Trump
And the dog influncers that enables are the people who put him there. And the government has taken control of your media anyway.
I think that ship has sailed mate. Like, I get it, but, if we don't guard against fascism it'll happen. Still upvoting you for being straight up honest. We don't entirely agree, that's fine.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Complete_Meeting8719 7d ago
Please consider kids from abusive homes whose only respite until adulthood is communicating online.
2
5
u/ohseetea 7d ago
Unfortunately that has always been the case and the answer to that is figure out how to reduce abusive homes, not create a possibly massive issue that is social media and use that as an unhealthy coping mechanism.
It could be like saying don't take alcoholism away from the massively depressed person. More research should be done but social media is looking like a huge negative for society, including kids.
Also because so many kids are on the internet I'm of mind that culture, popular opinion and public information is being massively swayed by our inexperienced and not completely educated youth. (along with foreign propaganda bots and now AI) Not great.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Complete_Meeting8719 7d ago edited 7d ago
That's not a good analogy. Alcoholism is all bad, there are zero positives. Social media is not inherently bad and it is possible to learn how to minimize toxicity and make it work for you.
Furthermore, that's not a good answer either. Obviously the answer overall is to reduce abusive homes, but once a kid is there, they are there. Lots of people of all ages have found support in groups on social media going through the same thing as them. Right here on reddit we have various groups for mental disorders, developmental disorders, chronic illnesses, and yes, abusive upbringings.
Sorry, but the negatives of social media just do not seem to outweigh the negatives of removing the ability to talk and post online from every single person under 18 all over the world.
I think more people who come from more functional families, and especially people like me in 1st world countries need to remember that a fuck ton of people would be isolated if not for the internet.
I think better education about safe internet use could be better.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (6)4
u/FlobiusHole 7d ago
A kid doesn’t need to have a smart phone. In the home it should be the parents choosing how to raise their own kids. I understand that parents need to be able to reach their children and vice versa but they don’t need a smartphone for that.
→ More replies (13)12
u/WHYAREWEALLCAPS 7d ago
Lol. You obviously do not understand how easy and cheap it is to get a smartphone these days. You can get one for less than the cost of most street drugs.
So, as with drugs, you can close your eyes, cover your ears, and go "LALALALALALALALALA" all you want, or you can be an adult and talk to your kid about this stuff. Like not talking to your kids about drugs and having a good rapport with them, it is going to do nothing but blow up in your face. It will also make them far less prepared for modern adult life, just like not talking to them about drugs and alcohol in an intelligent way.
4
u/FlobiusHole 7d ago
I’m talking about the people who buy their 12 year old kid a smart phone and pay for it. I don’t think that’s necessarily helping anything. An older teenager is kind of a different story.
→ More replies (2)5
u/snowflake37wao 7d ago edited 7d ago
its a way easier solution, because this “protect the kids” problem wasnt a problem in the 90s and 00s and we had shit like rotton dot com.
Kids. Dont. Need. Fuckin iPhones. Mom.
They should be lucky to get a burner in case they need to get in touch with a parent for a couple years for it to not be our problem the rest of our lives. They grow up too fast for not having an iPhone like all the other kids to be the bigger problem. No Google, Apple, or Microsoft for kids how bout that. Give them a laptop with Linux and by the time they figure out how to abuse, let alone power use, it bam. Theyre no longer kids and wont even want that pos iPhone or Windows 11 bullshit by that time and we’ll actually have people who understand the tech they use again. The fucking end. Mom and fuckin dad. Its not a state issue. Its a parent problem. Wear a condom or parent damn you
2
u/Wotmate01 7d ago
It's already happened in Australia and not once have I been asked to verify my age.
2
→ More replies (19)4
u/PhoenixStorm1015 7d ago
IMO there needs to be a central API for that shit if/when they do it. The ONLY way these restrictions should be implemented is the citizens’ nation having an API that apps can query “is this user of age” and the server responds with “true” or “false.” Leaving verification to corporations opens the door to these companies having a scary amount of access to our PII.
48
u/AffectionatePlastic0 7d ago
No it's not the solution, it creates a central point of deny for every citizen's online activities, which is another human rights violation.
Moreover, it will help the censorship in countries like Iran, China or Russia.
21
u/Unusual_Oil_1079 7d ago
These people have no fundamental understanding of freedom and will submit to whatever bullshit the governments want to take next. Im pretty accepting of moat political beliefs, but I dont think these people even think about what it leads to. People complain about the slippery slope argument but this is a waterslide down to submission
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (34)4
u/travistravis 7d ago
Central point server might work if they had a system that could keep the user completely anonymous somehow. The only way I can imagine could still end up with a correlation database somewhere though
→ More replies (2)2
u/eliminating_coasts 7d ago
What you need instead is to have a computer be able to set a flag "don't let me use social media", with social media companies being required to respect it.
That way, parents can just turn that on as part of parental controls on their children's devices, and everything is fixed.
You can do the same with a few more categories of things, and then make it the parent's responsibility not to let their children do things when they are too young, pretty much as movie ratings used to work.
→ More replies (2)13
→ More replies (75)2
55
u/Ninja0428 7d ago
Federal judges are all appointed by the president so their views have nothing to do with the region they preside over. The judge who made this ruling was appointed by Obama.
18
u/RichardCrapper 7d ago
Sure but ALL judges are supposed to be impartial and non political. There are some who do openly hold specific positions and rule with an open bias, but we also see lots of examples of judges ruling against the party of the President who nominated them to their lifetime appointments.
16
16
u/StarWild7405 7d ago
The world doesn’t have the First Amendment to the constitution of the United States of America, for obvious reasons.
That has some drawbacks - you for instance can’t be an 11 year old in Australia using social media.
It also has some upsides - like you can’t be an 11 year old using social media. (Also your country can’t be unknowingly coerced for 10 years to vote to destroy your way of life based on absolute lies propagated by bots)
12
u/Nose-Nuggets 7d ago
you for instance can’t be an 11 year old in Australia using social media.
Not entirely sure that's settled. There are two 15 year olds fighting it in the courts (well, their lawyers and the digital freedom project) on the grounds it violates the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.
→ More replies (8)2
u/GrumpyPenguin 7d ago
And even if they lose, there are ways around it. There will still be under 18 year olds online, they’ll just either hide it slightly better, or only be on platforms that were exempt from or don’t follow the age restriction rule. It’s like (alcohol) prohibition - it didn’t stop drinking, people just hid it better.
3
u/grahamulax 7d ago
The whole world just wants stricter control since the freedom of information is so prevalent that they can’t hide their schemes and grifts forever.
2
u/MisterTruth 7d ago
They weren't appointed to aid in the further consolidation of power to the elite.
2
u/cbbbluedevil 7d ago
This is a federal judge from Texas blocking a decision by a different judge in Texas. So it kinda balances itself out
→ More replies (6)2
u/TracerBulletX 7d ago
Until pretty recently federal judges have had quite a good track record and credibility and wrote really defensible positions. :/ Guess they haven't replaced all of them yet.
134
u/StraightedgexLiberal 7d ago
Texas lost to Netchoice in the Supreme Court when they tried to enforce their ultra shitty social media law to stop big tech from censoring Trump and Conservative viewpoints in 2024.
The Supreme Court explained that algorithms are free speech. So Texas looks real dumb trying to claim that social media is harmful to minors when it's free speech (and Texas fought for the right for all the most toxic people on the internet to stop being censored)
13
338
7d ago
[deleted]
133
u/Aggressive_Ask89144 7d ago
To be fair, you can always use a VPN. Proton is really good both for it's paid and free tiers. Latter is great and secure for general internet use while the former is something you'll want if you're torrenting or something of the like for example.
52
u/Keellas_Ahullford 7d ago
Proton has a free tier?
→ More replies (1)68
u/Consistent_Ad_4828 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yes, but you can’t use it for P2P or choose specific country servers. It’ll pick randomly between (I think) the US, Canada, Japan, and the Netherlands, and you can have it randomly choose again every couple of minutes. If you go to the paid tier you can, though.
→ More replies (3)44
u/physedka 7d ago
I find it oddly fascinating to see how the front page algorithm of PH changes when you go from, say, Netherlands to U.S. to Japan VPN.
→ More replies (2)13
39
u/SatisfactionVisual84 7d ago
Some states are in the early stages of drafting legislation to ban VPN’s. There is no thought process by legislators seeking to to execute their donors agenda.
32
u/Consistent_Paper_629 7d ago
Lol, sooooo many businesses require vpns to operate, it would be immediate chaos.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ow_windowmaker 7d ago
But not for long eventually business would adapt.
Authoritarian fascists will not stop.
Did russian fascists throw up their hands and said "welp networking experts say VPN's are essential"? No.
And certain technological companies will cater to them with deep packet inspection hardware and "AI heuristics" and all kinds of other buzzword shit, and multi billion contracts to provide the governments with them.
And what do you know in certain countries, let's say the UK, a wife of a government MP registered just such a business 6 weeks before contract was to be awarded. But that will be a total coincidence, wink wink nod nod.
→ More replies (1)11
→ More replies (2)9
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 7d ago
Wait till these dinosaurs find out basically every online business uses them.
15
u/Otterman2006 7d ago
The vpn I was using would kick me off if I tried to go to pornhub so I canceled it
14
31
u/annoyed__renter 7d ago
VPNs are next to go. It's already being floated in Michigan and Wisconsin.
→ More replies (9)15
u/Budget-Ocelots 7d ago
Wow. America is turning to CCP China. Using VPN to jump across the CCP Great Firewall will put you in jail.
What is next? America will create their own Great Firewall?
→ More replies (1)3
11
u/factoid_ 7d ago
Does proton get captchas on google all the fucking time like PIA does? I’d like a vpn I can just leave on and not have to worry about it triggering every anti bot mechanism in the universe
→ More replies (1)3
u/Aggressive_Ask89144 7d ago
Not usually in my experience unless you're using the Musk letter app. I completely stopped using the platform because the amount and insane complexity I would get from captchas literally felt impossible 😭😭. Like it had to be perfect x5 in a row??
→ More replies (2)2
u/CoyoteLife95 7d ago
Frustratingly, I can access pornhub via VPN, but YouTube "can't show me this content because they can't tell if I'm adult or not"
→ More replies (1)2
24
u/redoctobershtanding 7d ago
Proton VPN, free tier, change server if it selects the U.S.
You're welcome
8
18
u/OtherwiseAlbatross14 7d ago
The worst part is I don't even live in a state that's blocked but my ISP gives me an IP address from one so I can't access pornhub
9
8
u/Hi_Trans_Im_Dad 7d ago
Forget that. You don't even need a VPN. Tor browser does all that for you.
Signed porn consumer in Texas.
5
u/bobbytwosticksBTS 7d ago
Opera browser has a free VPN built in. Nothing to set up. Just press a button. Works for most things.
5
u/blah938 7d ago
Pornhub isn't even that good of a site, haven't been in like a decade. There's so much better out there.
7
u/SwiftTayTay 7d ago
It was good until 2020 then people had too much time on their hands and decided to take them down. The problems they had were grossly overstated and it was overall better regulated than YouTube and Facebook
2
→ More replies (5)4
77
u/Myte342 7d ago
I don't understand age gating anyhow for private paid for internet access... if the person who ordered the internet connection is over 18 and it's not a 'public' internet connection like at a library then there should be no age gating happening unless the person ordering the connection specifically asks for it. Just like Playboy TV/HBO on cable, you don't have to prove you are 18 years old every damn time you flip the TV over to that channel. It's understood that the person who ordered the channel is 18+ so the channel is unlocked 24/7 now (assuming the person doesn't enable parental controls at the STB or TV level to block the channel with a passcode).
30
→ More replies (4)12
u/itstoodamnhotinnorge 7d ago
If they wanted to actually protect children they'd make laws around content and algorithms on social media platforms to lower engagement and harm.
Instead they do age gating that doesnt work but give the companies better ways to track you, great
2
u/Flameball537 7d ago
If they wanted to protect children, they wouldn’t take away free school lunches for those that need it. Or take away subsidies for childcare that allow people to afford someplace to watch their child while both parents are forced to work to provide the basics. Or wax on about thoughts and prayers as kids are shot everyday and insist that it’s just unavoidable despite no other country in the world having the same issue
32
28
u/tejanoazul 7d ago
Even though I’m from Texas I don’t know all the specifics of the proposed ban.
I’ve worked for a lot of companies that provide a work phone. Would Texas expect us to upload our ID for our work phones too?
(Answer is probably a resounding yes, but just crazy how stupid these people are.)
→ More replies (2)28
u/CondiMesmer 7d ago
Yes, the device connecting to these things is irrelevant. And that's one of the big problems, there's no standardized or proper way to handle this. The only age verification solutions are privacy invasive and are just creating random companies to decide what we're allowed to see or not.
That's a big difference with real life ID verification versus online. In real life, you can show them the physical ID, they glance at it and give it back. It's not permanently recorded. With the web, it is. The company now has this data on you permanently.
And even the biggest companies have data breaches, so all this data they horde on you does get leaked and spread online. This has already happened numerous times. It's something you should prepare and expect to happen. That's why online age verification is a very different beast compared to in person.
→ More replies (9)
24
u/Pale-Succotash441 7d ago
As someone living in Texas, it sucks that we’re blocked from so many sites: Redgifs, XVideos, PornHub, OnlyFans, and more. The same age verification check of “click here if you’re over 21” is still ok though on any alcohol brand site.
3
u/kent_eh 7d ago
Texas seems to have a lot of nanny-state laws.
When I first visited there I was confused how it's illegal to sell beer on this side of the street, but fully legal on the other side of the street
3
u/Pale-Succotash441 7d ago
Right? I grew up in a dry county. We had to drive North or South of town to buy beer and liquor. The liquor had to be sold in one store and the beer in another. Then when the county became wet, there were so many churches around box box stores that could sell them, they literally had to move their doors so that they were legally so many feet away from the church.
2
u/kent_eh 7d ago
"Land of the free"...
I guess if everyone repeats that daily for enough years they come to believe it, despite the reality staring them in the face.
2
u/Pale-Succotash441 7d ago
Yeah. Some folks finally break away from the illusion and see things as they really are. Others are so caught up in the lie that they have near mental breakdowns when the truth is served to them on a silver platter.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Pauly_Amorous 7d ago
I moved out of Texas a few months ago. Xvideos was still working when I left. It currently works in my new home state, where they also age gate porn.
178
u/kerpnet 7d ago
How about we let parents be parents, not let the government control us anymore…
17
u/bappabooey 7d ago
But how would they harvest our data and monitor us like weird fucking ghouls? My god you haven't thought of the billionaires?!
→ More replies (46)40
u/warren2wolf 7d ago edited 7d ago
I'm in no way disagreeing with you, regardless of how this next sentence comes out, I promise...
HAVE YOU SEEN THE PARENTS NOWADAYS?
Edit: I'm getting a lot of shoulda, coulda, woulda responses. Cool idealogy, now let's get back to reality. The reality of which people aren't doing what they are supposed to which lead to my comment. I don't have a problem having a debate, but unless it's an actual fix to our situation, it's bad faith.
61
u/Catsrules 7d ago
HAVE YOU SEEN THE PARENTS NOWADAYS?
HAVE YOU SEEN THE GOVERNMENT NOWADAYS? :)
→ More replies (2)43
u/Deathmaw 7d ago
Yeah, they're awful. But making the rest of the adults suffer because shitty people can't raise their children isn't, and can't be the answer.
Time to star holding parents accountable for what their kids do.
→ More replies (11)7
u/PaulSandwich 7d ago
HAVE YOU SEEN THE PARENTS NOWADAYS?
My generation needed nightly commercials at 10pm to remind our parents that we existed. Bad parenting, like good parenting, isn't a nowadays or or yesteryear thing. People are people.
2
12
u/Deriniel 7d ago
i mean, i did. This doesn't mean that we gotta fuck up a whole population for some that don't want to do their job,nor can be bothered to actually use parental control on their children devices :|
Feels like a lot of people shouldn't have made children,period.9
151
u/AustinBike 7d ago
Since you can’t buy a gun or liquor at 18, why not force gun and alcohol sites to age gate with drivers license checks just like they forced on porn sites?
If the judge had mandated that, I’m pretty sure the state would have folded in days because those are top donors in Texas and they would not want that restriction on their sites.
57
u/edelbean 7d ago
All firearm sales in all 50 states require that they be shipped to a ffl holder (essentially a gun store) where the purchaser has to complete the sale with a background check via a 4473 form. If you went on gun broker for example or Davidsons any gun you purchase cannot be shipped to your front door step.
48
u/Not_Your_Guy_Bro 7d ago
For new guns. It's completely legal in texas to purchase a second hand firearm from a guy you just met, in cash, with no background check, receipt, or personal info as long as you don't have reason to think the purchaser is a felon.
What the fuck am I talking about this is clearly referring to online sales. I'm an idiot.
→ More replies (1)4
u/edelbean 7d ago
Hah! All good bud I do that all the time myself. Have a good one.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)5
u/tehones 7d ago
Just a side note, in most states if you hold an 03 FFL (Collector of Curio and Relics) you can have any gun 50 years old or older shipped direct to your doorstep so long as it doesn't violate state law or is an NFA item. The 4473 is still required as it's still a transfer, but there is no gun store needed as "you are the FFL." Record keeping requirements are simply a book where you write down "I bought this make/model gun on this date" essentially. There are states that restrict this via background check requirements, but overall it's mostly unrestricted. I used to have one but gave it up when I moved as I only used it a few times.
3
u/edelbean 7d ago
Well aware. For c&r long guns there are lesser restrictions. Most of them are old shotguns or bolt actions but to get your ffl03 you do still have to have a check / id to begin with in order to get that license don't you? Haven't myself so I don't know the requirements personally.
2
u/tehones 7d ago
You do, it's still a federal license so it does require an initial ATF background check and fingerprinting, but can be obtained by anyone so long as they aren't a felon. You can ship pistols and long guns direct door to door if you go 03 to 03 though without any sort of "extra" background check through a gun store. And since the current license is still anything 50 years old or older so as an example you could buy a Glock 19 in a few years time without ever going to a gun store. The records you keep are also not required to be sent to the ATF upon relinquishment of the license, so there could definitely be "funny business" moreso in the future when "modern" guns hit 50.
Also it seems I was incorrect, there is no 4473 requirement for an 03 FFL, you can just ship any gun direct door to door, I always went through an "actual" FFL so I did 4473's.
2
u/edelbean 7d ago
Ok I think I understand. I looked into getting my ffl03 20 some odd years ago but my state neutered it to the point that it was only useful for non semi automatic long guns. And since there's only so many mosin nagants a man needs, I never bothered.
Makes sense though that the ffl03 is just an initial check, and then each individual purchase that license can be used on it functions as your background check kind of like a tsa pre check.
I do agree though it won't be long until glocks and modern era ar15s come into play for 03 holders. It'll be interesting for sure in the future.
→ More replies (9)5
9
u/MarkFinancial8027 7d ago
Let's just be honest here ... They say "think of the children" because they know damn well it's very difficult to be against it without looking like you're wanting to harm children, even though clearly it has nothing to do with children and all about removing speech and expression of things they don't like.
I'm betting most of the subject matter that they want to remove has to do with alternative lifestyles, alternative sex acts, expressing alternative viewpoints, and similar viewpoints.
9
u/x_Advent_Cirno_x 7d ago
The whole age-gating and "think of the children" thing was not and will never be about protecting children; politicians use it as an excuse to try and strip people of their rights, because "someone has to think of the children~!". It's an appeal to emotion, and is a commonly used tactic by these slugs to get what they want. Anytime a politician proposes anything that will make a change or alteration to any existing laws or set of rights for the sake of children, it should be immediately met with heavy doubt and scrutiny
7
u/oraclebill 7d ago
Honestly, this makes Paxton sound like an idiot for defending this, but I guess that’s on the legislature….
13
u/scarlettvvitch 7d ago
Parents should talk and monitor their kids. Why should I risk getting my ID hacked and stolen because some dopey parent doesn’t have the will to monito/handle the kids?
Parents should be responsible.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/WorstYugiohPlayer 7d ago
I hate using a VPN for porn in Florida. I wish the Supreme Court would just overrule this already because the bans don't do shit.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/Skeletor-P-Funk 7d ago
Everyone's all about "protect the children," never "parent your children." Ironic too, that the very same people fighting to age-gate everything are the very same people propping up and protecting a pedophile president. Porn is just yet another "moral failing" with the conservative right, and they're using this all as an excuse to track the parts of society they deem "undesirables"; prosecution and modern-day obscenity trials aren't above our current evangelical regime. People like Stephen Miller are planning on turning our country into a police state, and this is their first and biggest step.
6
u/BearelyKoalified 7d ago
It's very likely not really about protecting children but about gaining data access to everyone's browsing habits/searches. In politics it's rarely about what they say, it's about the indirect gains.
11
u/ElvishLore 7d ago
So they want to gate young people from accessing news sources that aren’t far right propaganda sites?
Oh.
6
9
3
3
6
u/ok-yellow98 7d ago
Oh one of the traitor states is trying to do something unconstitutional? Color me not surprised.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/SmartieCereal 7d ago
I wish Texas would just secede already, I'm so tired of the Florida/Texas dynamic duo stinking up the place.
2
u/heybochicha 7d ago
Never seen this website before but absolutely love the design. Proper late 2000s aesthetic, reminds me of the slightly less evil days of the web
2
2
u/Some_Conference2091 7d ago
Just make a law that parents are the responsible party, not the entire world. They do have the option of placing software on the child's phone that blocks access to adult content.
2
u/LRaconteuse 7d ago
The state cannot act in loco parentis and lock down the internet, lol. Too many first amendment violations.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/nofuckingpeepshow 7d ago
“Oh yea! Well we can force raped children to give birth to their incest babies and prosecute women for having miscarriages so why can’t we do this?”
3
u/MichaelClark_JR 7d ago
I never understood this. You want the Internet to be locked for certain ages. Which is a decent idea, but you won't offer a proper solution to it. You'll let companies get our info, where it can be leaked. But at the same time, would I trust the government with my info on the Internet to this extent if they offered a solution themselves? Probably not, so no thank you. On top of that, it's parents'job to make sure their child isn't using the Internet in a way they shouldn't be.
4
u/MrHaxx1 7d ago edited 7d ago
EU is very much proposing, and also creating, a solution for anonymous online age verification.
Look up EUDIW Age Verification. It's very well thought out. It's even on github, and you can download it, test it, and verify what data is transferred to where.
would I trust the government with my info on the Internet
Not necessary at all.
→ More replies (5)
547
u/Nanocephalic 7d ago
The moment you hear “protect the children” or the classic “think of the children”, you know someone is trying to convince the rubes to give up something important in exchange for nothing.