Anonymous #1 5d

did u even watch the video

-1

Anonymous OP 5d

Yes and it’s nothing I didn’t already know

1

Anonymous #3 5d

This dude is mentally stuck in 1992. He can’t conceive of politics beyond having the ability to engage in vice, and he projects that onto us. He’s an eternal teenager, gnawing on the hand that feeds him while we go hungry. He couldn’t possibly understand what’s at stake. It was men like him that happily threw away the nation their grandfathers fought for in exchange for sex, drugs, and rock & roll.

2

Anonymous #3 5d

TLDR: he is the one who has absolutely no idea what’s coming.

5

Anonymous #3 4d

The hell do you mean? They’re already banning porn- Ask the Romanov’s what happens when you trying to reclaim the nation by banning vices and not fixing real material problems

0

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 4d

Banning porn? They’re just putting age restrictions on it. Is that a problem for you?

6

Anonymous #3 4d

bro they are literally taking away womens rights

-1

Anonymous #3 4d

honestly yeah, it is a problem for me. why should our government IDs be on file with sites that commonly get hacked? its a moral problem fs but this “solution” is a major privacy concern

4

Anonymous #5 4d

I don’t think the effect of regulation is negligible. It acts as an incentive to ward off violations, albeit an imperfect one, but an incentive nonetheless.

0

Anonymous #5 4d

I can understand this concern, and I think a more granular approach to digital ID is necessary. After some brainstorming: If you have the ID info, including a simple boolean (true/false) that stores whether the person is of age, encrypted (RSA encryption, same security as your banking details) and stored on the device itself, you could give certain sites/apps temporary access to the value of that boolean without reading the rest of the ID info.

1

Anonymous #5 4d

There would still likely be ways to circumvent this using other operating systems like Linux, but you could probably get Apple and Microsoft to implement this kind of feature.

1

Anonymous #5 4d

That way, neither hackers nor the site owners could ever get access to anyone’s IDs, and there aren’t any new privacy boundaries being crossed since plenty of people are already comfortable storing their banking details on their devices with tools like Apple Pay or Venmo.

1

Anonymous #3 4d

State identification to browse the internet? You’re fine with that? Sure, first it’s porn, then it’s YouTube, and then it’s every time you search up a banned book. And the state knows. You trust the government that much?

0

Anonymous #7 4d

No, one side wants to kill people for being different and other side would like that to stop.

3

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 3d

side tangent buttttt book banning is such a bigger problem than we think it is too. im in Missouri and its a felony here to be a school librarian and distribute “pornographic” or sexual literature to minors. that law, however, never specifies what that exactly means, and there’s serious potential it could be weaponized against queer and even health-related literature.

2

Anonymous #5 3d

i worked with a detention literacy nonprofit and its a constant struggle trying to get informed content to juveniles and support literacy in that already restricted environment, so facilities are not open to any content that could land them in legal trouble at all.

5

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 3d

Are you slow? That’s not at all what I was suggesting. You clearly have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about lmao

0

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 3d

I’m actually shocked at how badly you misunderstood my idea. People like you are the reason there are instructions on the shampoo bottle.

0

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 3d

You really want to talk about which side is killing people?

2

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 3d

It would store the boolean token, which is literally a single bit of information (either 0 or 1 depending on if you’re of age) in the device’s secure enclave and route all access through an encrypted network the same way you voluntarily give location data to doordash or your credit card number to Amazon. No actual identifying information would ever be transmitted from your device. What part of this do you not understand?

0

Anonymous #3 2d

The part where you think the government isn’t interested in identifying you. You’re under some delusion that we “threw away” the country for vices that have always existed. The video OP is right, the goal is to control you, and your sick idea about internet security won’t ever be used. Obscenity laws are a cover to control the information you consume, and using a State ID to access “obscene” materials put you on a list.

0

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 2d

Ok now you’re just resorting to tired libertarian platitudes instead of addressing my actual argument. My “sick” idea about internet security is ALREADY in use by companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft with their payment processing software. I’ve studied network architecture and cryptography, this is a perfectly secure and reliable solution that does not violate a single new privacy boundary in any way, shape or form.

1

Anonymous evilbusinessmajor 2d

So unless you plan to stage a boycott against online banking, you should pack up your empty grievances and find some actual oppression to fight against.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

it is true that most white women voted for trump but most women overall did not. however one of the demographics that pushed trump over and gave him the win was young men

1

Anonymous OP 2d

No, that demographic that pushed Trump to the win was white women and white men. Remove white women and white men and Kamala wins the biggest landslide in election history. Political lines are way more drawn by race than gender.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I’m fucking sick of raging misandrist assholes framing the 2024 election as men’s fault as if white men are the sole and only males in the world that suck oxygen. The majority… not half, not some, not few… the fucking majority of non white men did not vote for Trump. Regardless of whether women (especially white women) want to hear it or not.

0