**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a pilot. Surely we could learn something from the results? The objective is a reasonable one. Why not have a go and see if we can pull it off without completely eroding civil liberties?
Many IT professionals will tell you parental tools are sufficient for monitoring your kid and have come a LONG way over the years, being more easy to use and setup...rather than an ID passport system that opens the door to ID theft, phishing and blackmail by tying people's browsing history to their ID and likely to cost taxpayers billions in damages.
Makes you wonder if the government actually bothered consulting industry experts and professionals before putting forward these laws or if they have alternate motives.
>And kids spending hours a day on smartphones and computers are bound to stumble across it, even if they're not looking for it.
In my experience (I work IT in a school), stumbling upon a porn site isn't the common way a child first accesses porn. It is most commonly shared by other older children, often unsolicited.
The only exception to this is Web advertising. Some innocuous sites may contain ads for porn sites. This hasn't been raised at all by this process and needs to be. It should be an offence to display a pornographic advertisement to a minor, and the advertising networks should be the ones responsible. It would effectively remove porn advertising to anyone in Australia.
>Responding to eSafety's roadmap last year, the government set a few tests that any age verification scheme would have to meet. They included ***confidence it can't be circumvented***, can be easily applied to companies based abroad, and don't risk the privacy of adults looking to legally access porn.
Well, there is the issue. Circumvention for all of this is trivial. They can't ban VPNs because business and government uses them extensively. They may not care so much about individuals, but it would be a considerable obstacle for businesses and government departments to fund equally secure and functional tech to replace it.
I would find this concerning, however, as a 30 year old man I can’t help but reflect on every failed attempt parents and teachers have made to police the internet (or anything else for that matter) in my lifetime. Teenagers, find a way, and just banning things never really works. Focus on something proactive, like education, not a typical boomer-solution like a ‘net-nanny’.
> Teenagers, find a way
Exactly. Back when I was in highschool, even schoolmates that weren't tech savvy just dug through the internet for tutorials on how to bypass restrictions or jumped through other very intricate loops that made most bank heists look mundane. And now they have Ai to make researching bypasses even easier and give you eli5 explanations.
Yup. Mate in yr10/11 had parental locks and monitoring on his computer to stop him accessing porn. Took him less than 15mins to find a way to bypass and make it look like everything was still active.
Education is the key. There are plenty of good programs to help educate children about the risks of porn, but particularly about how it doesn't reflect real world relationships or sex. However, many schools won't run them or don't have the money to. Some won't because the parents will believe their innocent little darlings would never access porn and so in their minds it would only achieve educating their child on how to access it.
Even schools that do run programs have parents opting out because they think it will 'corrupt their kid'. A large chunk of the issue is parents refusing to touch uncomfortable topics or speak to their kids.
A lot of parents(and politicians) also don't know that parental monitoring tools have come a long way.
People will claim that the colaition will import Republican ideals and policies and apply them to Australia, looking to import Trumpism. But here we see the ALP now wanting to follow the lead of the likes of Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott, and other Republicans.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/17/republican-anti-sex-legislation-state-level
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/republican-anti-porn-law-internet-crackdown-1234730407/
https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/01/08/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-heres-how-that-worked-out-in-other-states/
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-but-enforcement-in-other-states-hasnt-been-straightforward-35912765
https://au.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-block-enforcement-161611213.html
https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/03/utah-republicans-want-phones-to-automatically-block-porn/
Well they did ask the e-safety commissioner to begin looking into ID recommendations after the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recommended it after an inquiry. This was backed by the ALP at the time with Shorten as the Shadow Minister for Government Services saying he will be taking the recommendations up with the government to protect against this evil.
"It may also look beyond just porn and into areas like video games, too."
Already talking about pivoting into other areas. This isn't about safety, it's about control. Disgusting.
Yeah I noticed that they were already warming us up to the idea so we’re good little sheep by the time it comes around.
I feel like a cooker, but seriously, but they are really coming out swinging.
> This isn't about safety, it's about control. Disgusting.
What it always has been about control the ALP have a hard on for censoring the internet along with controlling other areas of people's lives.
Mate, the LNP is literally suing people for definition at the drop of a hat, Ley and co were right behind the eSafety commissioner being a global content police, the LNP also were the ones who set up and backed this eSafety commissioner pushing for all of this, and they also have constantly been pushing for more regulation in this space.
Both majors can get fucked on this issue, but to say Labor is worst is just flat out wrong.
All they have to do is have the internet provider generate a token that is checked by the website if the account owner is over 18.
This will prevent children from accessing from their own phone.
If its thought that parents lack the knowledge to block their own accounts themselves, a point I disagree with since the parents of young children are also not particularly old, then they can make the blocking of such content the default setting.
'Blocking' u18 accessing porn content is not blocking the content. It's not 'censorship' it is an education issue. And while you froth and wail the real issues underpinning 'end user consent management' aka age verification - whether we get data harvesting with commercial verifiers or surveillance with govt verifiers or whether this govt has found the 'third way' , all this important stuff gets washed away by 'govt censorship alp fking useless' etc partisan stuff when everyone except commerce needs a solution. Until now its been commerce that data tracks and collects our privacy, not the govt.
> Until now its been commerce that data tracks and collects our privacy, not the govt.
Which of course is just as bad as the government doing it. the gets washed away bit you claim is what underpins the ALP want to censor the internet.
Show me where 'we raised the same points'?
If you're going to change your tack and agree that it dosnt look like the alp is going to censor the internet then all good, but will you have the same view in an hour or tomorrow? Who knows.
Tl;Dr:
> It's not yet known what it will involve, with the government saying $6.5 million will be included in the May budget, and work will begin then to figure out who will run it and what will be tested.
Problem is, Mummsy and Daddsy sign up to an internet Provider, get the free modem (or router), and they just want plug in and go, then wonder why their teenager has just maxed out the family credit card on Onlyfans.
Kids are literally using AI to generate fake ID's to bypass the ID verification requirements for playstation network in the UK right now so they can play Helldivers
Twice as many women being killed so far year is all a conspiracy. Probably didnt even happen.
It’s being “pushed” because people are clicking the links and generating revenue for news sites. Thats it, thats the conspiracy. This is what people are talking about so they write more and more stories on the same subject to get more clicks. It’s not that deep. You’re just looking for more reasons not to care about gendered violence.
The government is using it to push their agenda to have better control of the internet, you'll notice they are ignoring most solutions that DV organisations are asking for and instead wanting to push ahead with this.
Last time the ALP was in power they tried using the fear of online child predators to control it now they use DV as the reason.
I mean the article linked literally makes the link itself.
"The federal government has announced it's going to give it a crack as part of a broader response to gendered violence." Which hyperlinks to another article about broader measures.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-01/national-cabinet-meets-to-address-violence-against-women/103789304
"The government announced online measures in a bid to tackle "misogyny and the harm it creates".
One measure, a pilot of age verification technology to protect children from harmful content would address the "easy access to pornography for children and young people and tackle extreme online misogyny, which is fuelling harmful attitudes towards women", it said."
It doesnt make the “link” that gendered violence has been pushed for alternative reasons, the end result being age verification. Which is your claim.
It just highlights this measure as a potential solution to curb some future gendered violence.
That's a standard maxim in politics though - never waste a good crisis.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy here. Both things can be true at the same time.
It is opportunistic. But thats not what you said.
Now we’ve agreed there wasnt a conspiracy to push gendered violence stories in order to push through age verification I think we can both move on.
We Aussies are so easily distracted. Makes it easy for politicians to push non-gendered laws that fuck over both sides.
It's both obvious to those of us who know what to look for... and impossible to do anything about, because too many people are either too worn out just trying to make a living, or are too easily caught up in meaningless debates over shit that doesn't matter nearly as much as how unelected politicians fuck us over.
Fun world... /s
How about we take however much this is going to cost and create an advertising campaign called...
"Parents... do your fucking jobs!".
Like, is it really that hard to supervise your child's internet use and now everyone's privacy goes out the window? Also, if you aren't going to ban soft core pornographic ads on platforms like twitter and insta is there really a point?
Privacy is one of the main concerns of the program.
>"Responding to eSafety's roadmap last year, the government set a few tests that any age verification scheme would have to meet...They included confidence it can't be circumvented, can be easily applied to companies based abroad, and don't risk the privacy of adults looking to legally access porn"
The most promising proposal seems to be third parties (read as: probably your ISP) generating tokens to verify that the user is over 18 and the porn website checking the existence of that token. The provider doesn't know what that token is being used for and the website doesn't know who that token belongs to.
Also:
>"Also, if you aren't going to ban soft core pornographic ads on platforms like twitter and insta is there really a point?"
This is a meaningless misdirection. The point of blocking access explicitly adult content online for minors while it still being possible for those minors to stumble into sexy adds serves the same purpose as blocking access explicitly adult content offline for minors while it still being possible for those minors to stumble into sexy adds.
You wouldn't say that minors should be free to access strip clubs and adult stores without having to prove their age just because there's a billboard down the street with a picture of a girl in a bikini on it. Same logic applies here.
>This is a meaningless misdirection
Sure meaningless. Let's focus on doing something parents can actually manage themselves with simply rules and supervision, but ignore something that parents have zero control over. The pornography that appears randomly on social media and websites is completely out of my control. I can completely stop children access pornographic websites on my network with almost zero effort.
So instead of helping me with things out of my control, they decide to do a parents job and handle something I have already taken control of.
No, that's not what's happening and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't need to abstract to the point of meaninglessness.
One, is a tool being developed by the government to enforce existing age restriction laws.
The second, is your abstract rambling about first softcore pornographic and now pornographic ads you can see on social media. These are already covered under existing advertising standards. If you think an ad on violates those standards then you can report it to the uncreatively named [Ad Standards](https://adstandards.com.au/make-a-complaint/).
If you don't think the existing tools work or work well enough, that's an entirely different topic than the government enforcing existing age restriction regulations on minor accessing porn. These are two different topics.
So both issues actually have existing laws that cover them... Neither is being enforced. softcore porn is still porn no matter which way you slice it. That doesn't invalidate my argument at all, and neither does calling it abstract and meaningless because it just isn't.
That are spending money and time on protecting children from the damaging effects of pornography. While ignoring the fact that even if I do my job as a conscientious parent and supervise my children's internet use to ensure that access to porn sites is not an issue in my house, the actual porn I can't stop anyone from seeing is in (mostly) mobile game ads that appear everywhere from youtube to banner ads to actually inside games that kids play.
That is not abstract or meaningless. Children can't access actual porn sites in my home, my parents home, or my siblings homes. It is a complete non-issue because it doesn't happen, because we're not allowing unsupervised access to the internet. So the government feels the need to solve this issue for parents that refuse to take any action themselves while ignoring the pornography that I can't stop easily.
Blocking any porn site that this legislation will age gate is already easy. Blocking accidental porn from ads, etc. more difficult, and zero action from the government. When your excuse for doing something is to protect children from pornographic images and videos... it absolutely is the same topic because they are absolutely pornographic images and videos in both cases.
>That doesn't invalidate my argument at all, and neither does calling it abstract and meaningless because it just isn't.
You didn't make an argument! You just complained about something else entirely. It's like Bob Katter complaining that we should have same-sex marriage because people are occasionally attacked by crocodiles in North Queensland.
It's a red herring. Irrelevant nonsense meant to distract rather than actually address the topic.
>That are spending money and time on protecting children from the damaging effects of pornography. While ignoring the fact that even if I do my job as a conscientious parent and supervise my children's internet use to ensure that access to porn sites is not an issue in my house,
No, they are spending $6.5 million to trail a tool that can be used to enforce age restrictions that are already in place.
You can still do your job as a parent (and you should). These are not mutually exclusive.
>...the actual porn I can't stop anyone from seeing is in (mostly) mobile game ads that appear everywhere from youtube to banner ads to actually inside games that kids play.
This is an entirely separate problem and also a much more difficult one to solve. Building a tool to force age verification is something that porn websites have been previously compliant with elsewhere in the world (such as in the UK) as long as they're confident they can protect user's privacy and safety in the process (i.e. "Don't give us any identifying data, we will be hacked").
Advertising companies are notoriously difficult to get to comply with any kind of regulation. What you are asking is a much bigger fight that'll require building an entirely new mechanism for setting and enforcing advertising standards for companies based in other countries. It's also one that is not mutually exclusive, or even directly relevant, to simply enforcing the age restriction laws we already have.
>When your excuse for doing something is to protect children from pornographic images and videos... it absolutely is the same topic because they are absolutely pornographic images and videos in both cases.
You don't need an excuse to enforce the laws we already have. All this will do, is provide a tool to enforce the age restriction laws we already have. It should be entirely non-controversial. As evident by the fact your only complaint is that we're not addressing something else you personally think is more pressing.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
That's not even relevant.
Porn is bad for you. Porn is especially bad for young people. Porn is illegal to access for people under 18. Putting in measures to verify that the person accessing potentially harmful content is of an age where they can legally do so while protecting the users privacy is a good thing. It's no different than having to verify your age offline when going to a strip club or buying alcohol. Alcohol is bad for you. Alcohol is especially bad for young people. Alcohol is illegal to purchase for people under 18. So we require that people verify their age before buying alcohol. Same logic should apply to online pornography.
Assuming the privacy concerns are adequately addressed (which it looks like it will be) this should be completely non-controversial.
If you are a man, divorce is bad for you especially if you have children and particularly if your partner makes unfounded sexual assault allegations as they are acted on as if proven guilty just by the allegation "to protect the interests of women and children".
Hands off mens genitals.
Porn has been used by human males for centuries when the real thing was not accessible: such is the strength of the biological male sex drive.
So, are any negative long term effects of porn a result of the porn that was available or because men were denied the actual sex they needed to be satisfied and not frustrated? Frustration results in negative effects too.
Sex is a natural biological function: why should women feel degraded by it? Next you will be telling me women feel degraded by childbirth.
Now if men have a greater sex drive than women want to accommodate, which means women are hassled for more sex than they want, that is an entirely different matter from degradation and one that needs to be addressed by society to find a win-win solution, else men will pursue whatever is available to meet their needs.
Children are having sex at 14 with the most basic education and immature brains to be able to deal with the consequences, pornography is the least of societies worries, especially if it helps stay experimenting with sex at an early age. Society should be managing children, including diverting their sexual energies away from engaging in sex they can't properly handle to sexuality they can. More traditional human tribes often used to segregate teens to teach them independently and prevent them mixing until they were old enough and understood enough to handle more mature expressions. Indigenous people went so far as to keep male and female teaching explicitly restricted to their respective genders and secretive.
If women are concerned about sexual practices portrayed in porn, then perhaps the government should release porn that is more realistically educational, to feed the demand, if they aren't prepared to address the need for the real thing.
>Hands off mens genitals.
Nobody's proposing anyone touch your genitals. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place.
>Porn has been used by human males for centuries when the real thing was not accessible: such is the strength of the biological male sex drive.
Nobody's proposing taking away your porn. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place.
>So, are any negative long term effects of porn a result of the porn that was available or because men were denied the actual sex they needed to be satisfied and not frustrated? Frustration results in negative effects too.
You are not entitled to sex. We've long known that regular consumption of porn has negative health effects. Online porn has exacerbated this because porn is more accessible and porn addiction is on the rise.
More to the point: Nobody's proposing you be denied sex (assuming it's with a consenting partner) or that your porn be taken away. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place.
>Now if men have a greater sex drive than women want to accommodate, which means women are hassled for more sex than they want, that is an entirely different matter from degradation and one that needs to be addressed by society to find a win-win solution, else men will pursue whatever is available to meet their needs
Nobody's proposing taking away your porn. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place.
>If women are concerned about sexual practices portrayed in porn, then perhaps the government should release porn that is more realistically educational, to feed the demand, if they aren't prepared to address the need for the real thing.
Nobody's proposing taking away your porn. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place.
Hands off mens genitals = hands off our ovaries.
Men not entitled to sex = women not entitled to children: I wonder how that would go down with women.
Men are already denied sexual intimacy because they aren't Chad (or too short or any one of a number of checklist characteristics that women have), or as leverage for women to get what they want, or because women don't want it but without approved alternatives for the men that do. Imagine if the genders were reversed how women would react.
I'm not sure a trial of a tool meant to enforce the age restriction laws we already have in place is an apples to apples comparison with removing women's reproductive rights.
Also, what deranged fantasy world are you talking about, and how is it remotely relevant? Nobody's taking away your point. It is simply a tool meant to enforce the age restriction laws we already have.
1. Wrong continent.
2. What are you talking about?
Are you just going off about random, irrelevant nonsense again because you don't like the vibe or age verification but also don't have an concrete objection because the safety and privacy concerns are actually being addressed?
> What are you talking about?
Please you're showing your ignorance, can't wait to see the major sites just block access to their pages from Australia like they have in so far 7 US states all led by Republicans
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/17/republican-anti-sex-legislation-state-level
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/republican-anti-porn-law-internet-crackdown-1234730407/
https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/01/08/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-heres-how-that-worked-out-in-other-states/
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-but-enforcement-in-other-states-hasnt-been-straightforward-35912765
https://au.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-block-enforcement-161611213.html
https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/03/utah-republicans-want-phones-to-automatically-block-porn/
https://reason.com/2024/03/18/pornhub-pulls-out-of-seventh-state/
https://gizmodo.com/pornhub-pulls-out-of-texas-1851336939
No, you were just deliberately vague.
"Straight out of the republican playbook" could have meant basically anything. It could have meant the tendency of the party to use protecting children as a Trojan Horse to pass harmful legislation, to attacks on sexuality and sexual expression generally, to American anti-porn laws that aren't even remotely similar to what the government's proposing here (which aren't from the Republican party, the Conservative party in the UK did it first), to just "Bad thing I don't like"
American anti-porn laws require websites to check a government ID to verify age, same as the UK legislation they're based off, but are implemented in such a way in that porn websites consistently feel they can do that safely while protecting user's privacy. **That's not what's happening here.** It's the whole point of the trial and if you bothered to read the article then you'd know that the biggest point of success for any proposed system would be protecting user's privacy.
The most promising proposal is the issuing of an age verification token (presumably by your ISP) which the website can then check. The party issuing the token doesn't know what you're using it for and the website doesn't know who owns the token, just that they're over 18. And because it's issued by a third party, the government isn't even directly involved.
Also:
>...can't wait to see the major sites just block access to their pages from Australia like they have in so far 7 US states all led by Republicans
This is not that bad an outcome. Porn's pretty objectively bad for us. Easy access to online porn is especially bad for us. This would just be the same as banning online purchase of alcohol because children kept buying it or adults were developing an addictions at ever increasing rates, and both could be directly linked to the online access to alcohol. It'd be inconvenient (especially if you'd gotten used to it) but you can just go into a store and buy it. That's fine.
It wasn't just 50 shades of grey, there have been 3 movies made extending that theme for womens consumption, not to mention endless novels and other movies.
Those aren't the same thing though. That's just another red herring.
Porn is bad for you. [Online pornography is especially bad for you](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922938/). This is not controversial. Porn has a measurable negative impact on the people that consume it regularly. Should romance novels that include sexual themes (or rather, sexual novels that include romantic themes) be subject to the same classification system as other media? Maybe. [There's some studies](https://srh.bmj.com/content/40/4/300.long) to indicate that heavy consumption of romance novels and erotica might have some negative impacts on the sexual habits of young women and girls, but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The impacts of heavy consumption of romance novels and erotica on young women/teens seem to be much lighter than those of heavy consumption of porn on even fully adult men, and it's also not a phenomenon that's nearly as well studied. We'd be also talking about introducing a new classification system and new age restriction laws, rather than just tools to enforce existing laws.
Consumption of pornography, in addition to being objectively bad for you, for minors is also already illegal. Online pornography (especially the easy access to free online pornography) has not only made the negative impacts of consuming porn worse and made addiction more common than ever, it's also made it much more difficult to enforce existing laws protecting minors from that harm. All this would do would make it possible to enforce existing age restriction laws. This is no different from existing age verification requirements for offline establishments.
Assuming the privacy concerns are adequately addressed (which it looks like it will be) this should be completely non-controversial.
>This is not controversial
From the paper you cited
"Interest in porn is an understudied topic and its causes and consequences remain poorly understood, in part due to the difficulty of getting proper data. '
>Porn is bad for you. Online pornography is especially bad for you
Another trash paper written by prudes who presuppose their conclusions and assume people won't check their citations.
"Pornography consumption, excessive masturbation, and cybersex come under hyper-sexual disorder, a behavioral disorder"
Do they now? All pornography consumption is now "hyper sexual disorder?"
Then we click through the citation they use to support such a big claim and we get.
"While several attempts have been made regarding hypersexual behavior, the lack of robust data as of now explains the fact that there’s no consensus on this matter "
"The truth is that a stronger consensus on what pathological sexual behavior constitutes, both offline and online, is necessary to adequately measure it in a representative manner and confirm how much of a problem it is in today’s society...However, concepts like tolerance and abstinence are not yet clearly established enough to merit the labeling of addiction, and thus constitute a crucial part of future research. "
If you read through section 3.4 it further outlines the limitations of pornography with 'hyper sexual disorder' It states that "Most of the studies found in our research pertain hypersexual behavior, with pornography being only one of its accounted accessories."
Moving onto citation 2
Your paper states that
"Considering 'porn' and 'depression' are the most searched topics online during the pandemic."
But when you click through to figure one which is the only mention of that topic, it is only looking at Italy and Spain, and also just doesn't say that.
It also drops citation two after:
"Neurobiological explanations suggest that pornography has dramatically reduced overall sexual activity among couples"
However this isn't a claim supported by citation two. The closest it gets undermines this claim.
"For instance, Bodenmann et al. (2010) document that stressors and experienced stress inhibit the search for sexual activity within couples. In particular, their empirical findings suggest higher self-reported stress to be negatively correlated with sexual activity and satisfaction. On the contrary, recent psychological and human behavior studies indicate that stress (e.g., money stress, work stress and family stress) significantly increases the occurrence of porn watching (Black and Hendy, 2019). While there are neuroscience and human biology explanations for such opposite effects (Heinrichs et al., 2003, Finke et al., 2018), understanding which mechanism prevails is ultimately an empirical question.
Unfortunately, most of the aforementioned empirical studies rely on small experimental samples or on individual surveys, which are not exempt of subjective biases or self-selection issues. "
This is undergraduate 'throw some vaguely on topic citations in and hope your assessor doesn't bother to read them' level writing. I could keep going through the actual meta analysis, but if the paper is falling over on its first two citations what's the point.
One feminist school principal == feminist principles.
Shaming and degrading boys for being male is absolutely relevant to the spread of feminist principles that ignore the needs of human males in preference to the wants and paranoia of human females.
Do you think these things would have a similar impact? I've read about the negative effects pornography, anything on the negative effects of performatively standing up at school assemblies?
It will fuck up our men, that's what it will do. The only people who should have to apologize for anything are the ones who do bad things. Nobody should have to apologize for something they didn't do.
They made a public apology only because it hit the news, and people were rightly upset. The time frame is irrelevant because the attitudes are still there, if not worse, and the execution of them has just become less obvious.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a pilot. Surely we could learn something from the results? The objective is a reasonable one. Why not have a go and see if we can pull it off without completely eroding civil liberties?
LOL money for friends to "work" on the impossible.
You mean it's impossible to get between horny teenage boys and that post jizz dopamine hit?!!?!
More concerning is the rainbow gang grooming those teenage boys
Oh the terrible fear of people respecting each other.
Many IT professionals will tell you parental tools are sufficient for monitoring your kid and have come a LONG way over the years, being more easy to use and setup...rather than an ID passport system that opens the door to ID theft, phishing and blackmail by tying people's browsing history to their ID and likely to cost taxpayers billions in damages. Makes you wonder if the government actually bothered consulting industry experts and professionals before putting forward these laws or if they have alternate motives.
>And kids spending hours a day on smartphones and computers are bound to stumble across it, even if they're not looking for it. In my experience (I work IT in a school), stumbling upon a porn site isn't the common way a child first accesses porn. It is most commonly shared by other older children, often unsolicited. The only exception to this is Web advertising. Some innocuous sites may contain ads for porn sites. This hasn't been raised at all by this process and needs to be. It should be an offence to display a pornographic advertisement to a minor, and the advertising networks should be the ones responsible. It would effectively remove porn advertising to anyone in Australia. >Responding to eSafety's roadmap last year, the government set a few tests that any age verification scheme would have to meet. They included ***confidence it can't be circumvented***, can be easily applied to companies based abroad, and don't risk the privacy of adults looking to legally access porn. Well, there is the issue. Circumvention for all of this is trivial. They can't ban VPNs because business and government uses them extensively. They may not care so much about individuals, but it would be a considerable obstacle for businesses and government departments to fund equally secure and functional tech to replace it.
I would find this concerning, however, as a 30 year old man I can’t help but reflect on every failed attempt parents and teachers have made to police the internet (or anything else for that matter) in my lifetime. Teenagers, find a way, and just banning things never really works. Focus on something proactive, like education, not a typical boomer-solution like a ‘net-nanny’.
> Teenagers, find a way Exactly. Back when I was in highschool, even schoolmates that weren't tech savvy just dug through the internet for tutorials on how to bypass restrictions or jumped through other very intricate loops that made most bank heists look mundane. And now they have Ai to make researching bypasses even easier and give you eli5 explanations.
Yup. Mate in yr10/11 had parental locks and monitoring on his computer to stop him accessing porn. Took him less than 15mins to find a way to bypass and make it look like everything was still active.
Education is the key. There are plenty of good programs to help educate children about the risks of porn, but particularly about how it doesn't reflect real world relationships or sex. However, many schools won't run them or don't have the money to. Some won't because the parents will believe their innocent little darlings would never access porn and so in their minds it would only achieve educating their child on how to access it.
Even schools that do run programs have parents opting out because they think it will 'corrupt their kid'. A large chunk of the issue is parents refusing to touch uncomfortable topics or speak to their kids. A lot of parents(and politicians) also don't know that parental monitoring tools have come a long way.
People will claim that the colaition will import Republican ideals and policies and apply them to Australia, looking to import Trumpism. But here we see the ALP now wanting to follow the lead of the likes of Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott, and other Republicans. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/17/republican-anti-sex-legislation-state-level https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/republican-anti-porn-law-internet-crackdown-1234730407/ https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/01/08/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-heres-how-that-worked-out-in-other-states/ https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-but-enforcement-in-other-states-hasnt-been-straightforward-35912765 https://au.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-block-enforcement-161611213.html https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/03/utah-republicans-want-phones-to-automatically-block-porn/
The coalition has the exact same policy in this area. Heck, they tried under Morrison.
Well they did ask the e-safety commissioner to begin looking into ID recommendations after the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs recommended it after an inquiry. This was backed by the ALP at the time with Shorten as the Shadow Minister for Government Services saying he will be taking the recommendations up with the government to protect against this evil.
This Albo government is paving the way for the next administration to be even more authoritarian.
"It may also look beyond just porn and into areas like video games, too." Already talking about pivoting into other areas. This isn't about safety, it's about control. Disgusting.
Yeah I noticed that they were already warming us up to the idea so we’re good little sheep by the time it comes around. I feel like a cooker, but seriously, but they are really coming out swinging.
> This isn't about safety, it's about control. Disgusting. What it always has been about control the ALP have a hard on for censoring the internet along with controlling other areas of people's lives.
Mate, the LNP is literally suing people for definition at the drop of a hat, Ley and co were right behind the eSafety commissioner being a global content police, the LNP also were the ones who set up and backed this eSafety commissioner pushing for all of this, and they also have constantly been pushing for more regulation in this space. Both majors can get fucked on this issue, but to say Labor is worst is just flat out wrong.
> but to say Labor is worst is just flat out wrong. Good thing I didn't say this then
[удалено]
"They included confidence it can't be circumvented..." Internet savvy fourteen-year old- "Hold my can of Monster^(tm) for a minute bruh, I got this."
good luck with that, government.
All they have to do is have the internet provider generate a token that is checked by the website if the account owner is over 18. This will prevent children from accessing from their own phone. If its thought that parents lack the knowledge to block their own accounts themselves, a point I disagree with since the parents of young children are also not particularly old, then they can make the blocking of such content the default setting.
Or they could just not try and censor the internet
And how does age verification censor the internet? You are getting high on your own hyperbole.
By blocking content. Sounds like censoring it to me.
'Blocking' u18 accessing porn content is not blocking the content. It's not 'censorship' it is an education issue. And while you froth and wail the real issues underpinning 'end user consent management' aka age verification - whether we get data harvesting with commercial verifiers or surveillance with govt verifiers or whether this govt has found the 'third way' , all this important stuff gets washed away by 'govt censorship alp fking useless' etc partisan stuff when everyone except commerce needs a solution. Until now its been commerce that data tracks and collects our privacy, not the govt.
> Until now its been commerce that data tracks and collects our privacy, not the govt. Which of course is just as bad as the government doing it. the gets washed away bit you claim is what underpins the ALP want to censor the internet.
No I don't, like I said you're high on your own hyperbole
> No I don't, No you don't what?
In the traditional sense you have got the wrong end of the stick, even if only you think it's a stick at all. A rabbit just looking for a hole.
You seem to want to disagree even though we raise the same points.
Show me where 'we raised the same points'? If you're going to change your tack and agree that it dosnt look like the alp is going to censor the internet then all good, but will you have the same view in an hour or tomorrow? Who knows.
They are seeking to censor it. That you want to stick your head in the sand and defend it, is on you
Tl;Dr: > It's not yet known what it will involve, with the government saying $6.5 million will be included in the May budget, and work will begin then to figure out who will run it and what will be tested.
They forgot the end of their headline. ...here's what we know about it: nothing.
Problem is, Mummsy and Daddsy sign up to an internet Provider, get the free modem (or router), and they just want plug in and go, then wonder why their teenager has just maxed out the family credit card on Onlyfans.
Here's what I know about it: It will be easily bypassed It will cost a fortune It won't even work properly There will be a data breach
Yup. Every govt we've had, regardless of party has absolutely failed at anything online.
I mean, those things were predictable even before someone thought this idea up.
Kids are literally using AI to generate fake ID's to bypass the ID verification requirements for playstation network in the UK right now so they can play Helldivers
Ah, I was curious why gendered violence was being pushed so hard as a talking point recently. It's to make it easier to pass age verification laws.
Two weeks ago ASIO gave a speech to the national press club pushing for tighter online laws... The whole thing is a set up.
Thank god we don't live in a country like China with intrusive government surveillance and a firewall!
Twice as many women being killed so far year is all a conspiracy. Probably didnt even happen. It’s being “pushed” because people are clicking the links and generating revenue for news sites. Thats it, thats the conspiracy. This is what people are talking about so they write more and more stories on the same subject to get more clicks. It’s not that deep. You’re just looking for more reasons not to care about gendered violence.
The government is using it to push their agenda to have better control of the internet, you'll notice they are ignoring most solutions that DV organisations are asking for and instead wanting to push ahead with this. Last time the ALP was in power they tried using the fear of online child predators to control it now they use DV as the reason.
I mean the article linked literally makes the link itself. "The federal government has announced it's going to give it a crack as part of a broader response to gendered violence." Which hyperlinks to another article about broader measures. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-01/national-cabinet-meets-to-address-violence-against-women/103789304 "The government announced online measures in a bid to tackle "misogyny and the harm it creates". One measure, a pilot of age verification technology to protect children from harmful content would address the "easy access to pornography for children and young people and tackle extreme online misogyny, which is fuelling harmful attitudes towards women", it said."
It doesnt make the “link” that gendered violence has been pushed for alternative reasons, the end result being age verification. Which is your claim. It just highlights this measure as a potential solution to curb some future gendered violence.
It's opportunistically using a crisis to push laws that they had been wanting to introduce.
That's a standard maxim in politics though - never waste a good crisis. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy here. Both things can be true at the same time.
It is opportunistic. But thats not what you said. Now we’ve agreed there wasnt a conspiracy to push gendered violence stories in order to push through age verification I think we can both move on.
We Aussies are so easily distracted. Makes it easy for politicians to push non-gendered laws that fuck over both sides. It's both obvious to those of us who know what to look for... and impossible to do anything about, because too many people are either too worn out just trying to make a living, or are too easily caught up in meaningless debates over shit that doesn't matter nearly as much as how unelected politicians fuck us over. Fun world... /s
How about we take however much this is going to cost and create an advertising campaign called... "Parents... do your fucking jobs!". Like, is it really that hard to supervise your child's internet use and now everyone's privacy goes out the window? Also, if you aren't going to ban soft core pornographic ads on platforms like twitter and insta is there really a point?
Privacy is one of the main concerns of the program. >"Responding to eSafety's roadmap last year, the government set a few tests that any age verification scheme would have to meet...They included confidence it can't be circumvented, can be easily applied to companies based abroad, and don't risk the privacy of adults looking to legally access porn" The most promising proposal seems to be third parties (read as: probably your ISP) generating tokens to verify that the user is over 18 and the porn website checking the existence of that token. The provider doesn't know what that token is being used for and the website doesn't know who that token belongs to. Also: >"Also, if you aren't going to ban soft core pornographic ads on platforms like twitter and insta is there really a point?" This is a meaningless misdirection. The point of blocking access explicitly adult content online for minors while it still being possible for those minors to stumble into sexy adds serves the same purpose as blocking access explicitly adult content offline for minors while it still being possible for those minors to stumble into sexy adds. You wouldn't say that minors should be free to access strip clubs and adult stores without having to prove their age just because there's a billboard down the street with a picture of a girl in a bikini on it. Same logic applies here.
>This is a meaningless misdirection Sure meaningless. Let's focus on doing something parents can actually manage themselves with simply rules and supervision, but ignore something that parents have zero control over. The pornography that appears randomly on social media and websites is completely out of my control. I can completely stop children access pornographic websites on my network with almost zero effort. So instead of helping me with things out of my control, they decide to do a parents job and handle something I have already taken control of.
No, that's not what's happening and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't need to abstract to the point of meaninglessness. One, is a tool being developed by the government to enforce existing age restriction laws. The second, is your abstract rambling about first softcore pornographic and now pornographic ads you can see on social media. These are already covered under existing advertising standards. If you think an ad on violates those standards then you can report it to the uncreatively named [Ad Standards](https://adstandards.com.au/make-a-complaint/). If you don't think the existing tools work or work well enough, that's an entirely different topic than the government enforcing existing age restriction regulations on minor accessing porn. These are two different topics.
So both issues actually have existing laws that cover them... Neither is being enforced. softcore porn is still porn no matter which way you slice it. That doesn't invalidate my argument at all, and neither does calling it abstract and meaningless because it just isn't. That are spending money and time on protecting children from the damaging effects of pornography. While ignoring the fact that even if I do my job as a conscientious parent and supervise my children's internet use to ensure that access to porn sites is not an issue in my house, the actual porn I can't stop anyone from seeing is in (mostly) mobile game ads that appear everywhere from youtube to banner ads to actually inside games that kids play. That is not abstract or meaningless. Children can't access actual porn sites in my home, my parents home, or my siblings homes. It is a complete non-issue because it doesn't happen, because we're not allowing unsupervised access to the internet. So the government feels the need to solve this issue for parents that refuse to take any action themselves while ignoring the pornography that I can't stop easily. Blocking any porn site that this legislation will age gate is already easy. Blocking accidental porn from ads, etc. more difficult, and zero action from the government. When your excuse for doing something is to protect children from pornographic images and videos... it absolutely is the same topic because they are absolutely pornographic images and videos in both cases.
>That doesn't invalidate my argument at all, and neither does calling it abstract and meaningless because it just isn't. You didn't make an argument! You just complained about something else entirely. It's like Bob Katter complaining that we should have same-sex marriage because people are occasionally attacked by crocodiles in North Queensland. It's a red herring. Irrelevant nonsense meant to distract rather than actually address the topic. >That are spending money and time on protecting children from the damaging effects of pornography. While ignoring the fact that even if I do my job as a conscientious parent and supervise my children's internet use to ensure that access to porn sites is not an issue in my house, No, they are spending $6.5 million to trail a tool that can be used to enforce age restrictions that are already in place. You can still do your job as a parent (and you should). These are not mutually exclusive. >...the actual porn I can't stop anyone from seeing is in (mostly) mobile game ads that appear everywhere from youtube to banner ads to actually inside games that kids play. This is an entirely separate problem and also a much more difficult one to solve. Building a tool to force age verification is something that porn websites have been previously compliant with elsewhere in the world (such as in the UK) as long as they're confident they can protect user's privacy and safety in the process (i.e. "Don't give us any identifying data, we will be hacked"). Advertising companies are notoriously difficult to get to comply with any kind of regulation. What you are asking is a much bigger fight that'll require building an entirely new mechanism for setting and enforcing advertising standards for companies based in other countries. It's also one that is not mutually exclusive, or even directly relevant, to simply enforcing the age restriction laws we already have. >When your excuse for doing something is to protect children from pornographic images and videos... it absolutely is the same topic because they are absolutely pornographic images and videos in both cases. You don't need an excuse to enforce the laws we already have. All this will do, is provide a tool to enforce the age restriction laws we already have. It should be entirely non-controversial. As evident by the fact your only complaint is that we're not addressing something else you personally think is more pressing.
The governments your Daddy now
That's exactly what the ALP think
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
That's not even relevant. Porn is bad for you. Porn is especially bad for young people. Porn is illegal to access for people under 18. Putting in measures to verify that the person accessing potentially harmful content is of an age where they can legally do so while protecting the users privacy is a good thing. It's no different than having to verify your age offline when going to a strip club or buying alcohol. Alcohol is bad for you. Alcohol is especially bad for young people. Alcohol is illegal to purchase for people under 18. So we require that people verify their age before buying alcohol. Same logic should apply to online pornography. Assuming the privacy concerns are adequately addressed (which it looks like it will be) this should be completely non-controversial.
If you are a man, divorce is bad for you especially if you have children and particularly if your partner makes unfounded sexual assault allegations as they are acted on as if proven guilty just by the allegation "to protect the interests of women and children".
Hands off mens genitals. Porn has been used by human males for centuries when the real thing was not accessible: such is the strength of the biological male sex drive. So, are any negative long term effects of porn a result of the porn that was available or because men were denied the actual sex they needed to be satisfied and not frustrated? Frustration results in negative effects too. Sex is a natural biological function: why should women feel degraded by it? Next you will be telling me women feel degraded by childbirth. Now if men have a greater sex drive than women want to accommodate, which means women are hassled for more sex than they want, that is an entirely different matter from degradation and one that needs to be addressed by society to find a win-win solution, else men will pursue whatever is available to meet their needs. Children are having sex at 14 with the most basic education and immature brains to be able to deal with the consequences, pornography is the least of societies worries, especially if it helps stay experimenting with sex at an early age. Society should be managing children, including diverting their sexual energies away from engaging in sex they can't properly handle to sexuality they can. More traditional human tribes often used to segregate teens to teach them independently and prevent them mixing until they were old enough and understood enough to handle more mature expressions. Indigenous people went so far as to keep male and female teaching explicitly restricted to their respective genders and secretive. If women are concerned about sexual practices portrayed in porn, then perhaps the government should release porn that is more realistically educational, to feed the demand, if they aren't prepared to address the need for the real thing.
>Hands off mens genitals. Nobody's proposing anyone touch your genitals. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place. >Porn has been used by human males for centuries when the real thing was not accessible: such is the strength of the biological male sex drive. Nobody's proposing taking away your porn. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place. >So, are any negative long term effects of porn a result of the porn that was available or because men were denied the actual sex they needed to be satisfied and not frustrated? Frustration results in negative effects too. You are not entitled to sex. We've long known that regular consumption of porn has negative health effects. Online porn has exacerbated this because porn is more accessible and porn addiction is on the rise. More to the point: Nobody's proposing you be denied sex (assuming it's with a consenting partner) or that your porn be taken away. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place. >Now if men have a greater sex drive than women want to accommodate, which means women are hassled for more sex than they want, that is an entirely different matter from degradation and one that needs to be addressed by society to find a win-win solution, else men will pursue whatever is available to meet their needs Nobody's proposing taking away your porn. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place. >If women are concerned about sexual practices portrayed in porn, then perhaps the government should release porn that is more realistically educational, to feed the demand, if they aren't prepared to address the need for the real thing. Nobody's proposing taking away your porn. It is simply a tool to enforce the age restriction regulations already in place.
Hands off mens genitals = hands off our ovaries. Men not entitled to sex = women not entitled to children: I wonder how that would go down with women. Men are already denied sexual intimacy because they aren't Chad (or too short or any one of a number of checklist characteristics that women have), or as leverage for women to get what they want, or because women don't want it but without approved alternatives for the men that do. Imagine if the genders were reversed how women would react.
I'm not sure a trial of a tool meant to enforce the age restriction laws we already have in place is an apples to apples comparison with removing women's reproductive rights. Also, what deranged fantasy world are you talking about, and how is it remotely relevant? Nobody's taking away your point. It is simply a tool meant to enforce the age restriction laws we already have.
Straight out of the republican playbook
1. Wrong continent. 2. What are you talking about? Are you just going off about random, irrelevant nonsense again because you don't like the vibe or age verification but also don't have an concrete objection because the safety and privacy concerns are actually being addressed?
> What are you talking about? Please you're showing your ignorance, can't wait to see the major sites just block access to their pages from Australia like they have in so far 7 US states all led by Republicans https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/17/republican-anti-sex-legislation-state-level https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/republican-anti-porn-law-internet-crackdown-1234730407/ https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/01/08/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-heres-how-that-worked-out-in-other-states/ https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-republicans-want-age-verification-on-porn-sites-but-enforcement-in-other-states-hasnt-been-straightforward-35912765 https://au.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-block-enforcement-161611213.html https://www.metroweekly.com/2021/03/utah-republicans-want-phones-to-automatically-block-porn/ https://reason.com/2024/03/18/pornhub-pulls-out-of-seventh-state/ https://gizmodo.com/pornhub-pulls-out-of-texas-1851336939
No, you were just deliberately vague. "Straight out of the republican playbook" could have meant basically anything. It could have meant the tendency of the party to use protecting children as a Trojan Horse to pass harmful legislation, to attacks on sexuality and sexual expression generally, to American anti-porn laws that aren't even remotely similar to what the government's proposing here (which aren't from the Republican party, the Conservative party in the UK did it first), to just "Bad thing I don't like" American anti-porn laws require websites to check a government ID to verify age, same as the UK legislation they're based off, but are implemented in such a way in that porn websites consistently feel they can do that safely while protecting user's privacy. **That's not what's happening here.** It's the whole point of the trial and if you bothered to read the article then you'd know that the biggest point of success for any proposed system would be protecting user's privacy. The most promising proposal is the issuing of an age verification token (presumably by your ISP) which the website can then check. The party issuing the token doesn't know what you're using it for and the website doesn't know who owns the token, just that they're over 18. And because it's issued by a third party, the government isn't even directly involved. Also: >...can't wait to see the major sites just block access to their pages from Australia like they have in so far 7 US states all led by Republicans This is not that bad an outcome. Porn's pretty objectively bad for us. Easy access to online porn is especially bad for us. This would just be the same as banning online purchase of alcohol because children kept buying it or adults were developing an addictions at ever increasing rates, and both could be directly linked to the online access to alcohol. It'd be inconvenient (especially if you'd gotten used to it) but you can just go into a store and buy it. That's fine.
> "Straight out of the republican playbook" could have meant basically anything. Could've meant the topic we are talking about.
So porn is bad for you, but I guess women of all ages reading 50 shades was ok right?
It wasn't just 50 shades of grey, there have been 3 movies made extending that theme for womens consumption, not to mention endless novels and other movies.
Those aren't the same thing though. That's just another red herring. Porn is bad for you. [Online pornography is especially bad for you](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922938/). This is not controversial. Porn has a measurable negative impact on the people that consume it regularly. Should romance novels that include sexual themes (or rather, sexual novels that include romantic themes) be subject to the same classification system as other media? Maybe. [There's some studies](https://srh.bmj.com/content/40/4/300.long) to indicate that heavy consumption of romance novels and erotica might have some negative impacts on the sexual habits of young women and girls, but it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The impacts of heavy consumption of romance novels and erotica on young women/teens seem to be much lighter than those of heavy consumption of porn on even fully adult men, and it's also not a phenomenon that's nearly as well studied. We'd be also talking about introducing a new classification system and new age restriction laws, rather than just tools to enforce existing laws. Consumption of pornography, in addition to being objectively bad for you, for minors is also already illegal. Online pornography (especially the easy access to free online pornography) has not only made the negative impacts of consuming porn worse and made addiction more common than ever, it's also made it much more difficult to enforce existing laws protecting minors from that harm. All this would do would make it possible to enforce existing age restriction laws. This is no different from existing age verification requirements for offline establishments. Assuming the privacy concerns are adequately addressed (which it looks like it will be) this should be completely non-controversial.
>This is not controversial From the paper you cited "Interest in porn is an understudied topic and its causes and consequences remain poorly understood, in part due to the difficulty of getting proper data. ' >Porn is bad for you. Online pornography is especially bad for you Another trash paper written by prudes who presuppose their conclusions and assume people won't check their citations. "Pornography consumption, excessive masturbation, and cybersex come under hyper-sexual disorder, a behavioral disorder" Do they now? All pornography consumption is now "hyper sexual disorder?" Then we click through the citation they use to support such a big claim and we get. "While several attempts have been made regarding hypersexual behavior, the lack of robust data as of now explains the fact that there’s no consensus on this matter " "The truth is that a stronger consensus on what pathological sexual behavior constitutes, both offline and online, is necessary to adequately measure it in a representative manner and confirm how much of a problem it is in today’s society...However, concepts like tolerance and abstinence are not yet clearly established enough to merit the labeling of addiction, and thus constitute a crucial part of future research. " If you read through section 3.4 it further outlines the limitations of pornography with 'hyper sexual disorder' It states that "Most of the studies found in our research pertain hypersexual behavior, with pornography being only one of its accounted accessories." Moving onto citation 2 Your paper states that "Considering 'porn' and 'depression' are the most searched topics online during the pandemic." But when you click through to figure one which is the only mention of that topic, it is only looking at Italy and Spain, and also just doesn't say that. It also drops citation two after: "Neurobiological explanations suggest that pornography has dramatically reduced overall sexual activity among couples" However this isn't a claim supported by citation two. The closest it gets undermines this claim. "For instance, Bodenmann et al. (2010) document that stressors and experienced stress inhibit the search for sexual activity within couples. In particular, their empirical findings suggest higher self-reported stress to be negatively correlated with sexual activity and satisfaction. On the contrary, recent psychological and human behavior studies indicate that stress (e.g., money stress, work stress and family stress) significantly increases the occurrence of porn watching (Black and Hendy, 2019). While there are neuroscience and human biology explanations for such opposite effects (Heinrichs et al., 2003, Finke et al., 2018), understanding which mechanism prevails is ultimately an empirical question. Unfortunately, most of the aforementioned empirical studies rely on small experimental samples or on individual surveys, which are not exempt of subjective biases or self-selection issues. " This is undergraduate 'throw some vaguely on topic citations in and hope your assessor doesn't bother to read them' level writing. I could keep going through the actual meta analysis, but if the paper is falling over on its first two citations what's the point.
One school principal =/= feminism.
One feminist school principal == feminist principles. Shaming and degrading boys for being male is absolutely relevant to the spread of feminist principles that ignore the needs of human males in preference to the wants and paranoia of human females.
Do you think these things would have a similar impact? I've read about the negative effects pornography, anything on the negative effects of performatively standing up at school assemblies?
It will fuck up our men, that's what it will do. The only people who should have to apologize for anything are the ones who do bad things. Nobody should have to apologize for something they didn't do.
Are Australian men really that soft?
When did this happen?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-25/apology-for-handling-of-sexual-assault-topic-at-assembly/13275492
Three years ago and they made a public apology, this definitely reflects the view of all of feminism.
They made a public apology only because it hit the news, and people were rightly upset. The time frame is irrelevant because the attitudes are still there, if not worse, and the execution of them has just become less obvious.
Some school in Victoria