Facebook and pornography cannot just be left to the market

Here’s one way to discredit the market system:

Arnold Kling asks the question:

I am sick of reading about people who want to regulate Facebook. You didn’t come up with the idea. You didn’t build the business. Now that it’s here, who the heck do you think you are telling them how to run it?

There is not a business in the world anywhere in the present or at any time in that past that is not and was not regulated by government (see the toothpick industry for a salient example – and you really ought to go to the link). It is sometimes done well and sometimes with devastating consequences. At the present moment in most market economies, the level of regulation is heavy-handed and could use much greater restraint. But to imply that because a business has been set up by some private entrepreneur that there is nothing further to be said by the community via its government shows such a lack of sense that I can barely believe this was a genuine quote.

Let’s therefore have a look at another area of the business community that has just come to our attention: A Group Of Republicans Want The Government To Start Fighting Hardcore Pornography. They’re Right. Here’s Why.

As National Review reports, a small group of Republican lawmakers have sent a letter calling for Attorney General Bill Barr to enforce obscenity laws as a way to fight hardcore pornography. Representative Jim Banks of Indiana explains that pornography causes measurable harm in a number of significant ways.

Who can deny it? And speaking of Facebook and pornography, as it happens this was the front-page story in The Australian just yesterday: Facebook fuelling avalanche of child sex abuse.

Facebook was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of child sexual abuse material last year, as a new international threat assessment warns of a looming ­“tsunami” of online child abuse and exploitation in 2020.

The report found publicly ­accessible social media and communications platforms were the most common place for meeting and grooming children online. It warned that the nearly 12 million incidents of child sexual abuse material reported by Facebook Messenger were likely to be the tip of the iceberg.

Regulation is a balancing act, but this is a cesspool that most people will agree that something needs to be done, even if Arnold is not one of them. There was then this, also in The Oz: Google hit for billions but EU chief regrets not going harder.

A European competition chief who imposed fines of more than €8bn against Google says she should have been “bolder”, as the Morrison government moves to respond to the Australian regulator’s report into the tech titans.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher are on Thursday to ­announce the government’s ­response to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s digital platforms inquiry released six months ago.

“There are privacy issues, consumer protection issues, competition issues, a lot of media policy issues, and so we are obviously working through our response on that,” Mr Fletcher said.

His comments came after ­European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said with hindsight she would have taken a different line with Google despite imposing massive fines after a decade-long investigation.

“If I knew then what I know now I would have been bolder,” Ms Vestager said.

For me it’s their disgusting political bias that riles me the most, but there are other things as well that are also clearly important.

And then there’s this, from our ABC even, which you can tell by the snide leftist presenter who is even more unctuous than normal. But the story is truly interesting, bias or no bias.

“By now we should realise that we can’t really trust Facebook.”

This entry was posted in Ethics and morality, Market Economy. Bookmark the permalink.

160 Responses to Facebook and pornography cannot just be left to the market

  1. stackja

    P0rn doesn’t harm anyone we are reassured. Linda Lovelace? Facebook only allows certain things. People who trust the Internet, should be also buying bridges.

  2. Facebook was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of child sexual abuse material last year, as a new international threat assessment warns of a looming ­“tsunami” of online child abuse and exploitation in 2020.

    Shut it down boys, I won’t have to listen to stupid boomers telling me to get onto FaceBook 12 years after I did and ten years after I dropped it.

  3. Porter

    Frydenberg and Morrison want to go after Google but can’t control the ABC. These clowns really are stupid.

  4. Tel

    The only place for government here is enforcement of contract law. When Facebook says, “These are our terms and conditions” that’s an agreement with the end user, who then tries to build up a following on that platform.

    In cases where Facebook either violates their own terms or applies those terms in an inconsistent manner, there should be damages payable to the injured party. Since there’s many cases of people getting kicked off and Facebook refuses to say even what this person did wrong, while others are doing exactly the same thing and not getting kicked off, seems there’s a requirement for some kind if tribunal to settle these.

    No new laws are required, any business that makes a promise to their customers is bound by that. We have existing consumer laws and fair trading laws.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    In the US it should be unconstitutional for Facebook to ban conservatives.
    I hope Barr has the cojones to ream Facebook, Google/YouTube and Twitter new arseholes.
    So, no, I don’t think it should be left to the market when the market is controlled by a totalitarian monopolist.

  6. Sinclair Davidson

    To the contrary both Facebook and porn should be left to the market. When the government does porn we get SBS.

    Sorry to point this out: but any story the Australian posts of Facebook is, by definition, fake news. The Australian has been rent-seeking. So fake stories re Facebook suits its agenda.

  7. Let’s get real. FB does sell your data to intel. agencies or their contractors.

    Libertarians can’t seriously support FB.

    …I’ll go a step further…Operation Mockingbird is real and FB is part of it.

  8. Tel

    Facebook was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the 18.4 million worldwide reports of child sexual abuse material last year, as a new international threat assessment warns of a looming ­“tsunami” of online child abuse and exploitation in 2020.

    But you are talking about an already illegal activity that is not only illegal in this county, but also all the major Western nations. There shouldn’t be anything political about this … it’s the job of the cops to go investigate and Facebook has an obligation to comply with a search warrant as per normal. If the Canberra numpties are finding it a bit difficult to get their shit together on this, we blame them, not Facebook.

  9. Sinclair Davidson

    Dot – bullshit. The government already spies on us. They don’t need Facebook for that.

  10. Infidel Tiger

    All porn should be forced onto the .xxx domain names.

    Would make it much easier to block and filter.

    Failure to comply? Death penalty.

    A sensible light touch regulation that actually helps the consumer.

  11. Infidel Tiger

    If our government does go after Facebook, expect Trump to punish us with tariffs too.

    He may not have many friends in Silicon Valley but he has been righteous in going after other countries who threaten American companies.

  12. Iampeter

    Facebook and pornography cannot just be left to the market

    It’s good that more and more conservatives are openly saying stuff like this.
    We can all stop pretending they are an alternative to the left.

    There is not a business in the world anywhere in the present or at any time in that past that is not and was not regulated by government…

    Ugh. The level of “argument” here is basically what I expect to hear from any run-of-the-mill teenage marxist.
    Do conservatives even politics, bro?

    And then there’s this, from our ABC even, which you can tell by the snide leftist presenter

    You’re also a snide leftist, Steve. But unlike the ABC presenter you just don’t know it.
    So what’s worse, a leftist, or a politically illiterate leftist that doesn’t even know he’s a leftist?
    The former are progressives and the latter are conservatives.

  13. Infidel Tiger

    How good was yesterday’s British election, Iampercy?!

    A return to proper conservative values.

    Vice to be punished. Virtue to be promoted.

    Whigs and Libs to The Tower.

  14. candy

    I would not trust too much what The Australia says either. They seem to overly support the authoritarian Morrison government.

    But how is that ASIO and Federal Police can sift out terrorists but can’t track down Facebook child exploitation.

  15. Porter

    Child porn should never be left to the market.
    Hard core and child porn are also major funders of terrorism.

  16. mh

    The free market has resulted in Pornhub dominating.

    Is domination a good thing?

  17. Tel

    But how is that ASIO and Federal Police can sift out terrorists but can’t track down Facebook child exploitation.

    Man Monis was able to fool them relatively easily. You would have to presume that most everyone else can too.

  18. Hard core and child porn are also major funders of terrorism.

    Can you explain how?

    What do you mean by hard core – actual X rated pornography which is legal or sicko fetish stuff like animals etc?

  19. But how is that ASIO and Federal Police can sift out terrorists but can’t track down Facebook child exploitation.

    This always makes me conclude that it is controlled by the mafia in failed states like Russia.

  20. Sinclair Davidson
    #3261483, posted on December 14, 2019 at 12:18 pm

    Dot – bullshit. The government already spies on us. They don’t need Facebook for that.

    It’s not bullshit at all. It is more metadata to create patterns with and it makes it easier – like the States using shared satellite imagery to spy on farmers.

    Trump has shown us there is indeed a deep state which operates above the law as well.

  21. Iampeter

    How good was yesterday’s British election, Iampercy?!

    A return to proper conservative values.

    Well, yea. A socialist got trounced. It was a pretty big renunciation and a great win.
    And Boris is indeed a return to proper conservative values. He is a politically illiterate, middle-of-the-road leftist.

  22. RobK

    I often do OzPanel surveys.
    Yesterday I received the following sms:

    OzPanel> Please answer 5 quick questions about social media to earn 0.5 points. Do you agree or disagree that ‘overall, social media solves more problems than it causes’? A = Agree, D = Disagree, Opt-out = Stop

    I answered: A
    Next:

    OZPanel >Do you agree or disagree that ‘The Australian Government should setup an independent regulator to help ensure digital platforms (such as Facebook and Google) act in the public interest’? A = Agree, D = Disagree, Opt-out = Stop

    I answered: D
    I didn’t get the remaining 3 questions. I don’t know why.
    I don’t do Facebook instagram etc.

  23. BorisG,

    When Facebook says, “These are our terms and conditions” that’s an agreement with the end user, who then tries to build up a following on that platform.

    Not all terms and conditions are legal.

  24. W Hogg

    There should be no regulation of Facebook, per se.

    FB must comply with the same laws as every other company.

    If they want to be a political group that does not provide services equitably but discriminates by political allegiance, they need to either
    – comply with electoral laws applying to PACs etc or
    – fit in with exemptions that are unlikely to apply to for-profits.

    Discrimination in goods and services is generally illegal in most countries.

  25. BorisG,

    The Australian has been rent-seeking. So fake stories re Facebook suits its agenda.

    This is a classical ad hominem fallacy.

  26. Mother Lode

    I hate Facebook so I don’t go near it.

    And no one is forcing me to.

    My beef with them as they operate is largely their political bias and censorship but hat is not a core of their business model. It could operate as easily with out it – in which case there would be an spike in demand for new monitors as lefties triggered by divergent thought would be smashing at least one a week.

    I think people have got used to the idea of Facebook as an entitlement though, and it should be forced to be more the way they want it. But as a business Facebook works by innumerable people as consumers into contact with exactly the same people as providers plus a host of organisations that honk a Facebook vector to consumers a good idea. Through various means Facebook is able to make money from this.

    If the terms and conditions are accepted by users, including information sharing, then that is it. You don’t like it then stay off. If someone comes up with a new platform and can manage to run it with conditions closer to what people want they will steal users from Facebook. Good luck to them.

    When I was a kid and watched free to air TV the ads used to drive me nuts. But suppose I demanded that the ads had to be only so many in number and of such a length that it interfered less with the TV show. What would have happened to the networks ability to make money? And the businesses advertising?

    We already have a network with no ads called the ABC.

  27. BorisG,

    a small group of Republican lawmakers have sent a letter calling for Attorney General Bill Barr to enforce obscenity laws as a way to fight hardcore pornography. Representative Jim Banks of Indiana explains that pornography causes measurable harm in a number of significant ways.

    Coffee and cream also do us harm. Regulate them! Fortunately I cannot see Trump suppler this bullshit.

  28. BorisG,

    You don’t like it then stay off.

    Exactly

  29. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Discrimination in goods and services is generally illegal in most countries.

    What?? Where and how?

  30. dover_beach

    Amazing that people compare coffee and cream to hard-core pornography.

  31. Tel

    My beef with them as they operate is largely their political bias and censorship but hat is not a core of their business model. It could operate as easily with out it – in which case there would be an spike in demand for new monitors as lefties triggered by divergent thought would be smashing at least one a week.

    But when you sign up they do not admit to political bias and censorship, they claim to be a platform that everyone can use. Now you know otherwise, and so to many people, but that’s irrelevant.

    If a shop in the street is claiming to sell you an orange, then it had better actually be an orange. Just like any business, Facebook must be honest about what they are offering. That goes for privacy too, they have made a number of privacy claims that turned out to be somewhat dubious, like this security breach for example:

    https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-security-breach-50-million-accounts/

    Well there is a place for government to step in if a company says, “Hey we are really secure” and then turns out no they can’t achieve what they promised. Exactly where you draw the line is something we can argue about, but there’s been sloppy security in quite a number of these tech giants and other than some bad press most of them get away with it.

  32. BorisG,

    Restricting adult pornography is a classical nanny state policy. Shame that some conservatives support that.

  33. Infidel Tiger

    Real conservatives punish vice.

    Pornography is an insidious poison that is destroying young minds.

    Impossible to ban it, but it could effectively be siloed.

    Libertarians and progressives are moral degenerates who will thankfully burn in hell fire.

  34. BorisG,

    about, but there’s been sloppy security in quite a number of these tech giants and other than some bad press most of them get away with it.

    If a ship were selling you rotten oranges then you probably won’t come to that shop again. This means most customers don’t really care about either security or privacy.

  35. Infidel Tiger

    You don’t like it then stay off.

    Never mind the children who are inadvertently and intentionally accessing it.

    Morally sick people.

  36. Porter

    So you think the market should decide about child porn as well, Boris? Seriously?

  37. What idiot gives their kid a fully functional smart device?

    No one:

    But that’s everyone else’s fault!

  38. Porter
    #3261712, posted on December 14, 2019 at 5:15 pm

    So you think the market should decide about child porn as well, Boris? Seriously?

    WTF?!

  39. BorisG,

    So you think the market should decide about child porn as well,

    No. And I think it needs to be severely punished. But widely expanding the list of banned things will make enforcement much harder.

    More generally, we should reduce the number of regulations by one or two orders of magnitude but enforce critical regulations more strictly.

  40. Infidel Tiger

    What idiot gives their kid a fully functional smart device?

    No one:

    But that’s everyone else’s fault!

    Nearly every child in the western world will have access to a PC, phone and tablet. They’ll also have more IT skills than their parents. It’s almost impossible to stop children accessing porn.

    We need to silo it and execute pornographers.

  41. dover_beach

    Real conservatives punish vice.

    Pornography is an insidious poison that is destroying young minds.

    Impossible to ban it, but it could effectively be siloed.

    Indeed.

  42. Infidel Tiger

    The more we hear from libertarians the more we are sure they have no real world experience.

    A strange cult of incels obsessed with their sacred text books and models. Thankfully none of them reproduce or find gainful employment in the private sector. It would be very dangerous otherwise.

  43. So you “seriously” want to execute:

    Kim Kardashian
    Paris Hilton
    Colin Farrell
    Chelsea Handler (and Jason Biggs, I guess)
    John Edwards
    Kid Rock

    …and reader contributors to People and Picture?

  44. Infidel Tiger

    There’s no one on that list I would be unhappy not executing.

    KK appears to be on a oath of righteousness under her husband’s guidance.

    We will spare her.

  45. There’s no one on that list I would be unhappy not executing.

    You’re as serious as Mel Brooks’ History of the World.

  46. max

    Gary North:

    Ah, yes: “inadequate consumer protection.” Protection by what? By the state. This always produces oligopolies, higher prices, and reduced service. It is the ultimate protection racket.

    The free market’s system of profit and loss produces chaos, we are told. Government is needed to provide order, we are told. To bring order, stability, and fairness, there must be a government agent with a badge and a gun. He must point his gun at the supplier of a competitively priced service and say: “This is illegal. Don’t do this again.”

    State officials have been promising us the right mix of liberty and tyranny for centuries, but they never get it right in any field. If they did, there would be no opportunities for the Ubers of this world.

  47. max

    political and economic connection between regulation and the protection of the super rich has been known for half a century. In 1963, the New Left historian Gabriel Kolko wrote a book about it: The Triumph of Conservatism. He showed how the regulatory apparatus of the federal government was promoted by the rich, who were supposed to be the targets of the regulation. But for 50 years, the Left has not figured out that this is the name of the game. Neither has the Right, except for a handful of free market economists and Rothbard libertarians.
    Gabriel Kolko wrote a book about it: The Triumph of Conservatism. He showed how the regulatory apparatus of the federal government was promoted by the rich, who were supposed to be the targets of the regulation. But for 50 years, the Left has not figured out that this is the name of the game. Neither has the Right, except for a handful of free market economists and Rothbard libertarians.

    Protection by the state. This always produces oligopolies, higher prices, and reduced service. It is the ultimate protection racket.

    “The idea that multiplying rules and statutes can protect consumers and investors is surely one of the great intellectual failures of the 20th century. Any static rule will be circumvented or manipulated to evade its application.”

  48. Ivan Denisovich

    Feser’s journey:

    That is just a brief sketch of Mack’s point; I develop and defend it at length in my article “There is No Such Thing as an Unjust Initial Acquisition,” which I linked to above. But it is a point that any Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law theorist has to take very seriously, for two reasons. First of all, the A-T ethicist grounds morality in a teleological conception of human nature, and cannot fail to agree with Mack that many of our powers are inherently world-interactive. In particular, no A-T natural law theorist can fail to agree that our realizing what is good for us, our flourishing as the kinds of beings we are, requires that we be able to bring those powers to bear on the world. Secondly, for those A-T theorists who are open to the idea of natural rights, those rights have themselves a teleological foundation. We have the natural rights we have precisely as a means of safeguarding our ability to flourish as the kinds of beings we are, to pursue what nature has determined is good for us and perfects us. So, if an A-T approach to natural rights could ground the thesis of self-ownership, it would have to ground something like Mack’s self-ownership proviso as well. So far so good, I concluded at the time I wrote the “There is No Such Thing” article.

    But no sooner had I finished writing up that article than I could see that the implications of this conclusion were very far-reaching indeed. For among our powers and capacities are various moral capacities. And for the Aristotelian, our moral character is initially formed as a matter of acquiring the right habits, in childhood, and only later coming to understand the rationale behind those habits. To cause a child to fall into bad moral habits is therefore to damage the distinctively moral powers he owns by virtue of being a self-owner, and thus (given Mack’s self-ownership proviso) arguably to fail to respect his right of self-ownership in a substantive rather than merely formal way. But that in turn seemed to entail that at least in principle, certain governmental measures to protect children from moral corruption could be justified on self-ownership grounds! There is also the fact that it doesn’t take a lot of effort to see how Mack’s self-ownership proviso might be deployed in an argument against abortion. (To be sure, I was pro-life even when I was a libertarian. But Mack’s proviso seemed to provide a further argument.) I developed and defended these ideas at length in my article “Self-Ownership, Abortion, and the Rights of Children: Toward a More Conservative Libertarianism,” which I wrote during the same summer that I finished up work on On Nozick and wrote the “There Is No Such Thing” article. It was later published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

    Certain libertarians freaked out after it appeared, and accused me of all sorts of ridiculous things. They also missed the point, which — as I made clear in the paper — was not to endorse any particular piece of morals legislation, but rather to argue that contrary to what so many libertarians (including my younger self) supposed, shouting “self-ownership” simply does not by itself suffice to rule out certain kinds of morals legislation. This includes left-of-center morals legislation, as I have made clear elsewhere. If you think that public “hate speech” corrupts the youth, then you have grounds in self-ownership for curbing public hate speech by law. Whether or not that’s a good idea, the thesis of self-ownership itself, when its implications are worked out, doesn’t tell you either way. That was the main point — that the thesis of self-ownership on its own simply doesn’t rule out nearly as much as people think it does.

    RTWT:

    https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-road-from-libertarianism.html?m=1

  49. Infidel Tiger

    Thanks Ivan.

    Great stuff.

  50. BorisG,

    Impossible to ban it, but it could effectively be siloed.

    Well it is banned in China all right. Maybe concerned conservatives need to relocate to China. That is a well regulated society suitable for our conservatives. /sarc

  51. Infidel Tiger

    Child porn is banned too, Boris.

    I know that troubles you.

  52. Infidel Tiger

    BTW the two biggest signs that a person is a complete cockhead are using “/sarc” and “FIFY”.

    Anytime someone uses that I know they suck arse.

  53. FelixKruell

    Given you don’t seem to be able to distinguish Facebook messenger from Facebook, I think your opinion on this matter should be given little credit.

  54. Infidel Tiger

    “Respect the market”. Here’s the market:

    Less than 2% of people on earth identify as libertarian.

    STFU you stupid xunts. There are more transsexual jugglers than you weirdos.

    And stay away from children FFS.

  55. Okay IT let’s look at your wildly stupid, nay, mentally retarded idea.

    We can “silo” porn by giving it a triple x domain name, because children are too tech savvy today.

    That’s an idea that defeats itself.

    The best idea is to make parents accountable for their children’s misadventures.

  56. Infidel Tiger

    No, weirdo.

    If it is siloed it can then be filtered and blocked much more easily.

    Normal families can protect their kids and you can then jerk yourself blind to Ayn Rand being fisted by a well hung Austrian.

    I shouldn’t have to explain this, but it is patently obvious that the degenerate “market rules” types really want kids watching porn.

    Very sick.

  57. BorisG,

    I have no problem with government coercion to enforce protection of children. I have a big problem with government protecting adults from themselves and from their own desires and choices. I have less problem with government coercion to protect innocent by-standers. For instance I support compulsory third-party insurance (shock, horror!).

  58. If it is siloed it can then be filtered and blocked much more easily.

    Sexy times dot com is just as easy to filter as sexy times dot triple x.

    Normal families can protect their kids

    They can do that already. All it takes is for them to not be lazy.

    but it is patently obvious that the degenerate “market rules” types really want kids watching porn.

    Now you reckon Margaret Thatcher wanted kids to “watch porn”.

    You’ve lost the plot IT.

  59. BorisG,

    If it is siloed it can then be filtered and blocked much more easily.

    if true Maybe not a bad idea then. Haven’t seen a downside yet.

  60. BorisG,

    They can do that already. All it takes is for them to not be lazy.

    Sorry here I deviate from dot. I want the government to help protect children even when their parents are lazy, ignorant or outright criminals. You can’t choose your parents but the society can help a little bit.

  61. BorisG,

    Sexy times dot com is just as easy to filter

    One obvious name yes. But to filter a thousands of names, some obvious and some not, may not be so easy.

  62. Why not assign a social worker for every home?

    In your heart you know I’m right, etc.

  63. Infidel Tiger

    Well done Boris. And apologies for my intemperate ways.

    This is a learning forum. My ways are crude, but I find libertarians so deeply poisoned by their cult that nothing else works.

  64. Tel

    Oh looky here! The free market already solved the p0rn filtering problem … years ago.

    https://www.telstra.com.au/internet/extras/broadband-protect

    Gosh … incredible stuff.

  65. Dan

    Lucky I guess that such an infinitesimal number of people are interested in pornography, makes it easy to ban. After all less than a third of all web pages loaded are on pornographic sites. Even X***eos has less than 50 billion visits per year. Politicians of course can be relied upon more than anyone else to make morally upright decisions in the interests of preserving heterosexual intercourse within the confines of faithfully monogamous marriage too.

  66. Infidel Tiger

    Look Dan, we know you love porn. Maybe one day that inflatable girl will even respond.

    In th meantime, we don’t want to ban porn. We want to make children accessing it very hard- like your penis when you see Ayn Rand double teamed by two Austrian guys.

  67. Fisky

    Sorry here I deviate from dot. I want the government to help protect children even when their parents are lazy, ignorant or outright criminals. You can’t choose your parents but the society can help a little bit.

    Very sensible, Boris. In fact, a large number of parents are like that, even the very rich ones. We need the state to aggressively enforce higher standards of behaviour, and ignore the Whiggish dandies and their degeneracy.

  68. mh

    GenX ers were the last generation to grow up with stick mags.

    I wouldn’t change a thing either.

    We did ok.

  69. Judge Dredd

    Failure to comply? Death penalty.

    Infidel Tiger, that is something I can get behind. Great idea!
    The sooner we get rid of Facebook and more importantly pornography, the better. Porn is very destructive.
    It makes you wonder how millions of hours of high def porn can be streamed for free? I wonder (((who))) is controlling it all and funding this soul destroying stuff? We should all investigate (((who))) that is further methinks.

  70. Tel

    You can’t choose your parents but just imagine if we could all have Pru Goward looking over our shoulder as our mum … and why not Derryn Hinch as our dad? You know you all secretly love the idea. Barnaby Joice could be like a little brother, of course Dutton gets the job of Big Brother.

  71. struth

    You can live without facebook.

    No….It’s true.
    I’m still breathing and getting work that young people should be stealing off me.
    They’re not because pressing like button is not a work skill……so don’t tell them.

    If the porn wasn’t free the western world would never be conquered.
    Boys would compete for girls again and vice versa.

  72. tgs

    Infidel Tiger
    #3261721, posted on December 14, 2019 at 5:23 pm
    What idiot gives their kid a fully functional smart device?

    No one:

    But that’s everyone else’s fault!

    Nearly every child in the western world will have access to a PC, phone and tablet. They’ll also have more IT skills than their parents. It’s almost impossible to stop children accessing porn.

    We need to silo it and execute pornographers.

    </blockquote

    This is the same guy who rails against islamic immigration.

    m8 executing porn producers would get you a mid-level bureaucrat role in Riyadh.

    That's some facist shit you psycho.

  73. tgs

    Goddamnit I’m terrible at html.

    Infidel Tiger
    #3261721, posted on December 14, 2019 at 5:23 pm
    What idiot gives their kid a fully functional smart device?

    No one:

    But that’s everyone else’s fault!

    Nearly every child in the western world will have access to a PC, phone and tablet. They’ll also have more IT skills than their parents. It’s almost impossible to stop children accessing porn.

    We need to silo it and execute pornographers.

    </blockquote

    This is the same guy who rails against islamic immigration.

    m8 executing porn producers would get you a mid-level bureaucrat role in Riyadh.

    That's some facist shit you psycho

  74. tgs

    Bleh, point is up there somehwere.

  75. We need the state to aggressively enforce higher standards of behaviour

    Indeed.

    The best idea is to make parents accountable for their children’s misadventures.

  76. Judge Dredd
    #3261873, posted on December 14, 2019 at 9:09 pm

    Failure to comply? Death penalty.

    Infidel Tiger, that is something I can get behind. Great idea!
    The sooner we get rid of Facebook and more importantly pornography, the better. Porn is very destructive.
    It makes you wonder how millions of hours of high def porn can be streamed for free? I wonder (((who))) is controlling it all and funding this soul destroying stuff? We should all investigate (((who))) that is further methinks.

    Hey fuck off. My grandfather killed plenty of “master race” shitheads like you in the hedgerows of France and Germany in 1944 and 1945.

  77. Dan
    #3261861, posted on December 14, 2019 at 8:35 pm

    Lucky I guess that such an infinitesimal number of people are interested in pornography, makes it easy to ban. After all less than a third of all web pages loaded are on pornographic sites. Even X***eos has less than 50 billion visits per year. Politicians of course can be relied upon more than anyone else to make morally upright decisions in the interests of preserving heterosexual intercourse within the confines of faithfully monogamous marriage too.

    Did they ever catch “the hacker” who misused Chrissy Payne’s work computer?

  78. struth

    I’m with dot on this.
    Those asking for the government to step in for bad parents need their arses kicked.
    Grow some fucking balls.
    If you know someone who let’s their kids access porn give them an earful yourself.
    That’s how it used to be done.
    Everyone wants the government to take over from their duty to be good responsible adults.

    The abo situation was the same.
    When churches ran missions success…..taken over by government. ….hell on earth.

    Same thing different subject.

  79. struth

    I’m with dot on this.Those asking for the government to step in for bad parents need their arses kicked.Grow some fucking b a lls.If you know someone who let’s their kids access porn give them an earful yourself.That’s how it used to be done.Everyone wants the government to take over from their duty to be good responsible adults.The abo situation was the same.When churches ran missions success…..taken over by government. ….hell on earth.Same thing different subject.

  80. Infidel Tiger

    Notably Dot and Stuth have no kids of their own.

    Go away, you sick freaks. You are poison to a functional society.

  81. candy

    You can’t choose your parents but the society can help a little bit.

    I don’t think so, Boris. People don’t care enough and no-one intervenes. Even the Children’s Services are too scared to intervene and as we know, every few months we hear of a little child abused terribly and dead.
    Society has given up. The law needs to step up.

  82. struth

    That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that there is a real problem with free porn for adults young and old.
    That this stuff is free means someone else is paying.
    This shit isn’t all volunteer work.
    Men draining their own spuds on high quality fdee pohrn is keeping them sedate and greatly assisting with the cultural Marxist attack on the west.

    Who’s paying?

  83. Snoopy

    This is a genuine question.

    Long before Facebook arrived common carriers and publishers were both subject to regulation. How can Facebook not be subject to either one or both suites of regulation?

  84. struth

    Mine are grown IT.
    I’m against the porn , but I’m also against government control of it.

  85. Dan

    Hey fuck off. My grandfather killed plenty of “master race” shitheads like you in the hedgerows of France and Germany in 1944 and 1945.

    Yeah but Nazis weren’t armed with super-scary triple parentheses back then.

  86. Infidel Tiger

    Facebook is not a problem.

    Pornography is the greatest scourge of our age. It is worse than meth.

    Don’t try and be cool. Punish vice in all its forms.

  87. Dan

    Shorten did say he would be getting (ahem) “to the bottom of this” but no, I never heard of anything being found.

  88. struth

    There are two evils that you must choose between.
    A government sensored internet by regulating one or two big social media companies is the more evil f the two.
    Or let them destroy themselves.
    Best to let the market sort it out because as this last UK election shows you, facebook and Twitter don’t count.

  89. Dan

    Who’s paying?

    Well…it’s not some kind of mystery. Jon Ronson has a podcast series looking at the economics of free porn and how we got to here, and the effects that free (as in money) porn and free (as in access) porn have led to. Basically though, the free sites are owned by the same companies that run the paid sites and there is a symbiotic relationship, where the two types of site feed off each other. One large company owns almost everything and has enormous revenues.

  90. struth

    No decent journalist in the world feels the need to work out who is paying for all this porn.

    Even small scale businesses know what it can do for them.
    Transport companies that keep men away from home or employ men who have already lost their families from being away from home for long periods supply ipads and such for company paperwork etc but also have unlimited internet access paid for by company.
    A small price to pay for halfing the demands for getting home for the weekend.
    Anyone who thinks all this porn is not part of a cultural marxist attack on the west and paid for by the likes of Soros and his ilk are more naive than I am a conspiracy theorist.

  91. struth

    Dan……….millions are not paying a cent except for downloading gigs from providers.
    Are providers in on it?
    How, with all this free stuff and no necessity to pay help these companies symbiotic

  92. BorisG,

    Society has given up. The law needs to step up.

    When I say society I mean government enforcing existing laws.

  93. Infidel Tiger

    Let’s be honest.

    Libertarians love porn, not because they like sex, but because they hate families.

    They love child pornography for the same reason. Very sick people.

  94. jupes

    I wonder (((who))) is controlling it all and funding this soul destroying stuff? We should all investigate (((who))) that is further methinks.

    Piss off you racist fuckwit.

  95. Whalehunt Fun

    Facebook is not a publisher. You are wanting to regulate Marconi because of what people say on live radio.
    You are trying to regulate the printing press manufacturers because of what is written by authors.
    Chase the content creators, not the transmission medium.

  96. tgs

    We’ve got IT acting like an imam and Judge Dredd advocating antisemitic hate.

    Fucking hell.

  97. iain russell

    I think the use of ‘unctuous’ and ‘slime ball’ needs to be mandatory in any article or mention of Their ABC. ‘Stinking’, ‘rancid’ and ‘necrotic’ could be alternatives.

  98. Lazlo
    #3262008, posted on December 15, 2019 at 12:20 am

    Have lurked around here, off and on, for nearly a decade. It used to be vibrant. But recently the bile and pile-ons are making it little different to the leftist twitter-sewer. Shame about that.

    It would be nice to have a thread that didn’t end in facile threats of lawsuits, urging for another Bergen Belsen or Birkenau, calls for hanging enemies for treason or child abuse or shit testing people more than a sullen, passive aggressive spouse looking for an excuse to get a divorce…

    This is why we can’t have nice things!

  99. struth

    If you are a traitor you should be shot.
    We didn’t overstep the mark.
    They did.
    Old labour in Britain just voted for a tory because it was a choice between a tory and a traitor.
    The left have crossed over into blatant traitorous , in your face destruction of the west and it’s sovereign nations.
    The only way we can have democracy.

    They are therefore enemy combatants and should be treated as such.

  100. struth

    Anyone who has signed their country up to the Paris agreement without the permission of the people is a traior as is anyone who keeps their country in it who has the power to withdraw.
    The Paris agreement is a pledge to International socialism to destroy your western nation and hand its wealth to them.
    I think that deserves a bullet in the head.
    I bet there’s a few million who died in wars defending the west who would agree if they were still alive.

  101. Iampeter

    Real conservatives punish vice.

    Pornography is an insidious poison that is destroying young minds.

    Impossible to ban it, but it could effectively be siloed.

    Indeed.

    Indeed. So move to the Middle East and live in the cultures you support. Leave the West alone.

    Amazing that people compare coffee and cream to hard-core pornography.

    Of course it’s much easier to have no principles and treat each issue in a disjointed manner, not realizing that all your positions contradict each other.
    This how today’s conservative movement has basically become the left but more clueless about everything.

  102. JC

    Plodes

    Let me guess

    .

    Am I right?

  103. Iampeter

    A strange cult of incels obsessed with their sacred text books and models.

    Yea…that’s totally not a prefect description of religious people.

    Libertarians love porn, not because they like sex, but because they hate families.

    They love child pornography for the same reason. Very sick people.

    Yea…unlike healthy death cultists like you. It’s a good thing you’re not sick enough to take any of your own nonsense seriously.

    Less than 2% of people on earth identify as libertarian.
    STFU you stupid xunts. There are more transsexual jugglers than you weirdos.
    And stay away from children FFS.

    No one’s forcing you to read and post on a right wing and LIBERTARIAN blog. Feel free to go off to some ISIS chat channel where you’ll feel much more at home. As I called it a long time ago, it makes no sense for you to be here given your actual beliefs.

    This is the same guy who rails against islamic immigration.
    m8 executing porn producers would get you a mid-level bureaucrat role in Riyadh.
    That’s some facist shit you psycho.

    Yep. But glaring contradictions, having no principles and being evasive is the cornerstone of religious conservatism in the West.
    The reason they rail against it from overseas is because it holds up a mirror of their own beliefs but taken seriously and they don’t want to deal with disaster that their ideas are.

  104. Iampeter

    We’ve got IT acting like an imam and Judge Dredd advocating antisemitic hate.

    Fucking hell.

    What…your first day at the Cat or something?

  105. Iampeter

    Wow, listen to these guys!

    I wonder (((who))) is controlling it all and funding this soul destroying stuff? We should all investigate (((who))) that is further methinks.
    Piss off you racist fuckwit.

    Hey fuck off. My grandfather killed plenty of “master race” shitheads like you in the hedgerows of France and Germany in 1944 and 1945.

    You have no problem with the sludge that someone like Infidel Tiger is spewing, but Judge Dredd comes along with a much more direct statement, taking these ideas to their logical conclusion and suddenly you all get worked up?

    This is why the groypers, or something like them, is going to eat the moronic conservative movement alive.

  106. Kneel

    Heh.
    Facebook filters “hate speech” that hits their mark, but not the ones it thinks are OK.
    So, can’t say “no gay marriage”, but can say “Death to infidels!”.
    Fix that first – get rid of the incitements to violence, get rid of filtering of what people consider “offensive” first. You don’t “give” offense, you only “take” it and no-one has the right to not be offended – trying to ban everything “offensive” is so far beyond stupid, you can’t even see stupid from there.

    “Impossible to ban it, but it could effectively be siloed.”

    How will you silo it, smartypants?
    Should “blowme.com”, “blow.me”, “blowmedry.com” et al be deemed a porn site? In actual fact, these three names were registered by a hair drying service. I know, I registered them and know who the registrant was. Along with plenty of names from many different countries – some are very clever (well, I thought so anyway) like “ibuysh.it” (yeah, “eye buy shit”, noice!)
    To “silo” you’d have to get every country with a TLD to agree to the same rules and every hosting provider in every country to monitor content to make sure no-one “snuck it in” – hard when many people can “self host” on their internet connection anyway. And then you’d have to change the name registration in most places too – in Aus, .au names are only leased and you need to show a connection to the name or you can lose it. But that is the exception, most give you a time limited ownership, so you can do what you want with it. In every case, you can move to new hosting in a different country pretty much as soon as the new hosting is ready. Or geo-locate and push the user to a different server and service based on where the client machine is (which VPN services and geo-unblocker services bypass) – so you can make sure you are only showing people in particular countries specific content – which means “it looks legal to me” in the USA, eg, but completely different from, say, Aus.

    Or “back-door” services where you log into the local knitting club blog, and if you have the admin pre-set your account, you get to see stuff normal users don’t. Looks perfectly legit and is – with some “extras” on the side for those in the know.

    Then there’s the dark web – completely impossible to block without breaking thousands of current, legitimate services and preventing new services from even starting. Breaks the entire concept of the internet, making it just another FTA TV clone, completely destroying innovation. Not very helpful.

    And don’t forget PKI based encryption – “https” etc. Combine that with a back-door service on a dark web site, using geo-location, and how they hell do you even know it’s there?

    But let’s say you managed it – they’ll just go back to peer-to-peer sharing, bulletin boards etc.

    Sorry, but it’s like drugs or guns – make it illegal and you just create a black market worth trillions that only bad people make money off of. Better, despite any revulsion at the concept, to regulate it and keep some form of control – if it’s more trouble than it’s worth to go illegal, if getting caught by-passing the rules is way more expensive than paying the govt fees, almost no-one will try to do it. Yet that pretty much hits the same issues re: hosting, names etc. So very difficult to actually do. If Tavula refuses to ban it, will you block all .tv sites? Happy to pay the compensation to legitimate users who have already invested millions in advertising their .tv name?

    Not so simple, when you get down to brass tacks, is it?
    No, if you want some specific thing “banned” from the internet, no matter if 99.9% of the world agrees and every single country does the same, the 0.1% will find a way.
    So stop focusing on the delivery and make possesion illegal, if that’s what you want to do. “Worked” for kiddie porn as well as it is likely to ever work, and it’s still there I’m sure – no idea where, not interested in looking for it, but pretty certain it’s there if you know where to look. “Normal” porn might be bad, but there’s no way you’ll get close to the agreement you get for kiddie porn, is there?

  107. Infidel Tiger

    I never realised how important it was for libertarians that children have access to pornography.

    Very weird people. Thankfully they have limited contact with society.

  108. Walter Plinge

    Looking at the “toothpick” link:” that could be where Ayn Rand got the idea for the Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act inm Atlas Shrugged.

  109. JC

    Artie

    There are plenty of tools available to keep kids away from porn – in fact much more than in the old days when porn came in magazines that could be stashed away. If parents don’t avail themselves of these protections then it’s their problem. Stop looking for government to arrange your life. That’s for leftwingers like Plodes.

  110. Infidel Tiger

    All the preventions are easily got around by tech savvy kids.

    And considering most porn is seen on mobile devices how do you protect your kids 24/7 from other kids or libertarians?

    Pornography neeeds to be siloed as much as possible. We also need to shame its users and participants.

    Jerking off is for cucks, betas and incels.

  111. JC

    Artie

    If you’re going to ban or restrict it in some way, you’re going to have to have impose sanctions on both suppliers and users. You really want people going to jail because they watched Jemma Jamison having it off with some male pornstar?

    Good luck with that one.

    Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has ruled on a closely related subject years ago. They are not going to overturn that decision.

  112. dover_beach

    Amazing that people compare coffee and cream to hard-core pornography.

    Of course it’s much easier to have no principles

    Well, that answers that then.

  113. Infidel Tiger

    If adults wish to degrade themselves, they are welcome too. Perhaps if they stopped jerking it, they would meet a real life woman.

    We are discussing making pornography harder for children to access. We now know that libertarians consider this a terrible thing.

    Very very sick people.

  114. JC

    Artie

    You can”t really just ban porn without changing our modern social structures. I mean you can, but you’ll create more problems without making unrealistic changes in the larger sphere.

    You ban porn, but still have sheilas out and about rooting or trying to only root the most desirable menfolk you will end up with lots of males unable to satisfy themselves in any way. Jerking off is a reease for most of these incels. Remove porn and you end up with very frustrated males. I would say that 95% of the mass killings we see these days are because of sexually frustrated males taking it out on a mass of people. Get ready to see a massive increase in this evil if you remove porn.

    Porn is the release for these idiots.

    Be very careful with government tinkering.

  115. Infidel Tiger

    We are not banning porn.

    We want it siloed.

    You depraved and degenerate animals will still be able to stroke yourselves silly. Your shameful actions are your business.

  116. Iampeter

    You depraved and degenerate animals will still be able to stroke yourselves silly. Your shameful actions are your business.

    Depraved and degenerate people are the ones who think they have “personal relationships” with god.
    People who want to pleasure themselves to porn are moral giants by comparison.

    I never realised how important it was for libertarians that children have access to pornography.
    Very weird people. Thankfully they have limited contact with society.

    This is true. All that capitalists want is to show porn to children, exploit the proletariat, pollute the environment and insert whatever other clueless leftist talking point here. You’ve spent your years reading and blogging about politics pretty well to be talking at the level of the spergiest teenage Marxist.

    I love the implosion of the conservative movement. It’s very convenient for those of us who are actually right wing to just be able to use the same arguments against both conservatives and progressives.

  117. Iampeter

    That’s for leftwingers like Plodes.

    LOL!
    We can all see who the real leftwingers here are. You’re not fooling anyone and the desperation is kinda cringe.
    I’ve been calling out for years that conservatives are and always have been just dumber progressives with more Jesus.

    There’s no escaping it anymore…

  118. dover_beach

    Porn is the release for these idiots.

    No no, the opposite, most jihadis are obsessed with porn.

  119. dover_beach

    Porn is the release for these idiots.

    No no, the opposite, terrorists are obsessed with porn.

  120. Iampeter

    No no, the opposite, terrorists are obsessed with porn.

    They are also obsessed with religion, regulating peoples lives and banning porn for everyone else…

  121. struth

    Jerking off is for cucks, betas and incels.

    Yeah, so there, IT has never once fed the chooks?

    Er, yeah, neither have I, nope, no siree, never ever, never thought about it…..ever.
    Disgusting.
    Pwuueee…………………….

  122. struth

    IT.
    You should immediately throw your hand on the bed and rraaaaaape it for all it’s worth.
    Stops scab eating.

  123. dover_beach

    1.Parents are within their powers to regulate their children’s moral education; in fact, they have a moral duty to do so for the benefit of their children, primarily, and the community they are a part of, secondarily. 2. There is no in-principle reason why parents acting in concert cannot make this easier by passing laws that make the dissemination of porn to children, in particular, and the community, as a corollary, more difficult. 3. Ergo, the regulation of porn is morally and legally justified.

    How extensive such regulation can be is a matter of dispute, but not the regulation of porn per se.

  124. Iampeter

    Dover, what a parent should do with respects to their children is not a basis for anything a government should do with respect to anything, so all you’ve posted there is a non-sequitur.

    To those of us who are actually right wing, the argument is:
    1. The function of government is to protect rights.
    2. Porn does not violate rights.
    3. Ergo porn should not be regulated in any way.
    It’s that simple.

    Whether or not children have access to porn, or parents are struggling controlling it in any way, is all irrelevant to the political question anyway.

    Of course to understand why a government should only protect rights requires the philosophical understanding of the requirements of human life, if we’re to live among each other. This in turn requires the understanding of more fundamental philosophical ideas which deal with knowledge and the facts of reality.

    So, there’s a lot more to it than just trying to dishonestly rationalize positions you haven’t arrived at logically and given your outsourcing of thinking to religious beliefs, you’re not going to get very far.

    This is the dilemma facing conservatives to which there is no way out without either abandoning the dead end of conservatism, or embracing the fact that you are religious leftists and statists.

  125. max

    I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” – Ronald Reagan

    Majority of people here believe that bureaucrats are moral, honest,smart and hardworking and by passing law and regulations they will protect us and our children from harm.

    Hahaha Hohoho … What A Maroon!

  126. dover_beach

    Dover, what a parent should do with respects to their children is not a basis for anything a government should do with respect to anything, so all you’ve posted there is a non-sequitur.

    Not at all. I said that parents have a right and duty to protect their children’s moral education, and that no one’s rights are violated by making the dissemination of porn more difficult.

    To those of us who are actually right wing, the argument is:
    1. The function of government is to protect rights.
    2. Porn does not violate rights.
    3. Ergo porn should not be regulated in any way.

    2 simply begs the question. 3 as a matter of principle would justify pornography being sold to children, children being used in porn, porn being displayed on storefronts, and so on.

    Whether or not children have access to porn, or parents are struggling controlling it in any way, is all irrelevant to the political question anyway.

    No, that is precisely the political question or set of political questions that need to be engaged. Anyone that doesn’t understand this is politically inept at best, or morally depraved, at worst.

  127. Porter

    So IamPeter you’re saying that violent porn, child porn, beastiality porn, all porn should never be regulated ever? Seriously?

  128. dover_beach

    Majority of people here believe that bureaucrats are moral, honest,smart and hardworking and by passing law and regulations they will protect us and our children from harm.

    No, like people everywhere, they are prone to all manner of indifference and excess, this doesn’t mean we should avoid all law and regulation, only that we use it prudently.

  129. Porter

    They are also obsessed with religion, regulating peoples lives and banning porn for everyone else…

    No. Porn is a major financer of terrorism. That’s been known for over 10 years now.

  130. Iampeter

    Not at all. I said that parents have a right and duty to protect their children’s moral education…

    Yes I read what you said and pointed out that it has nothing to do with what a government should do. If you’re going to be making a political argument, your major premise has to be POLITICAL. Not some random non-sequitur. That makes your entire argument a non-sequitur. Nothing you said makes any sense.

    and that no one’s rights are violated by making the dissemination of porn more difficult.

    Except those that want to access porn. Rights are a freedom of action, like accessing porn. Violating those rights would be using force to prevent someone from taking action, like “making the dissemination of porn more difficult.”

    2 simply begs the question.

    It does not beg the question, you don’t understand what rights are and what it means to violate them.
    This is a show stopping problem for discussing politics.

    3 as a matter of principle would justify pornography being sold to children, children being used in porn, porn being displayed on storefronts, and so on

    No it wouldn’t. This is another non-sequitur.

    No, that is precisely the political question

    LOL. Politics pertains to what a government should do. What parents do has nothing to do with it.
    So it is not a political question.

    You seem to have literally no clue.

  131. mh

    Let Peter get back to what he does best

  132. dover_beach

    It would be amusing to see Iampeter argue at a town hall meeting that his ‘right’ to obtain porn outways the right of parents to effectively morally educate their children. That any siloing of its dissemation is an egregious infringement of his rights, and to hell with the children and parents concerned.

  133. Infidel Tiger

    Hard to know if Iampeter is a parody account or just a complete nutter.

    This shit can not be real.

  134. Tel

    I never realised how important it was for libertarians that children have access to pornography.

    Very weird people. Thankfully they have limited contact with society.

    I think most people agree that parents should have reasonably levels of control over what their children can do, and I already pointed out that right now in Australia there are easily available free market filtering solutions. Parents who give a shit have the choice available.

    Sounds to me like you are pulling a “Nuclear Milkman” stunt and getting yourself all handle cranked over a non-problem … then blaming the lack of a problem on hypothetical “libertarians” who don’t take your flapping seriously enough.

    If adults wish to degrade themselves, they are welcome too. Perhaps if they stopped jerking it, they would meet a real life woman.

    We are discussing making pornography harder for children to access. We now know that libertarians consider this a terrible thing.

    Well it seems like you are motivated by something else, because you insist on persistently ignoring the fact that the problem of restricting children’s access has already got a solution. Most likely a better solution than anything you have proposed so far.

  135. Dan

    Dan……….millions are not paying a cent except for downloading gigs from providers.
    Are providers in on it?
    How, with all this free stuff and no necessity to pay help these companies symbiotic

    The free sites are owned by the paid site owners (Mindgeek etc). The free sites are crammed full of ads for upselling various services and sites. Conversely, the paid sites allow or turn a blind eye to the free sites ripping off their content as it’s all aimed at having people click through to the valuable stuff.

  136. Infidel Tiger

    Don’t worry, Tel, I don’t want to ban your pornography. It’s going to be okay.

    My gosh libertarians get upset when you point out how morally depraved and sick they are. Very dangerous people.

  137. Tel

    So you insist on continuously ignoring the perfectly good existing free-market solutions, and prefer to maintain the charade that children are somehow at risk.

    How long do you think this will keep sounding remotely plausible?

  138. Infidel Tiger

    The free market solution is not working.

    Look at the evidence of how often children are viewing or exposed to pornography. It’s out of control.

  139. dover_beach

    Why can’t free market solutions be supplemented by lawful siloing of pornography? The latter would make the former more efficacious.

  140. Ivan Denisovich

    Why can’t free market solutions be supplemented by lawful siloing of pornography? The latter would make the former more efficacious.

    Chris McCormack:

    The link between online porn consumption and the scourge of rape and murder in this country somehow escapes public scrutiny
    The U.S, porn industry churns out 11,000 videos each year
    The use of porn coarsens men’s attitudes towards women
    After the Christchurch massacre, Prime Minister Scott Morrison called for social media companies to restrict extremist views and content being posted online. The footage of the shooting is grotesque, but just as pernicious is the effect that increasingly violent and degrading sexual acts present in pornography, so easily accessible online, have upon all of society.

    Despite its adverse effects being well documented, online pornography seems to escape any public scrutiny. Why is no one questioning the link between online-porn consumption and the horrific acts of rape and murder of young women in this country? A former girlfriend of Adrian Bayley, who raped and murdered Jill Meagher in Melbourne in 2012, told police that Bayley used her computer to look up rape pornography.

    Bradley Edwards, the West Australian man accused of murdering three women and sexually attacking two others in the 1990s, when arrested in 2016, was found to have a “meticulously” maintained catalogue of almost 4000 porn websites he’d visited and extreme pornographic material depicting the rape and torture of young women and a movie which closely resembled one of his alleged crimes of rape. The trial judge did not allow this evidence to be used in court because he considered it irrelevant.

    Online porn is immediate and does not discriminate on the basis of age or sex. Even if a child (or adult, for that matter) is not looking for it, online porn is only a click away. Additionally, pornographic content that was once the domain of XXX video stores is now filtering down into the mainstream media.

    Telstra research shows that 68 per cent of children aged 3–17 have a smartphone and they spend an average of 21 hours and 48 minutes on them a week. Thirty-six per cent of all internet traffic is porn. Fourteen per cent of boys use porn daily and 20 per cent of boys in their late teens are addicted to it.

    Worldwide porn industry sales generate more income than Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft combined. While Hollywood makes 400 films a year, the American porn industry makes 11,000 films a year. In the highest selling porn videos in the U.S., physical aggression occurs in 88 per cent of scenes, of which 94 per cent is perpetrated against women.

    A 2012 University of Sydney study of porn users by Dr Gomathi Sitharthan and Professor Raj Sitharthan revealed that 43 per cent of those surveyed started to view porn between the ages of 11 and 13, and 47 per cent spent between 30 minutes and three hours a day watching porn. They found excessive users had severe social and relationship problems and had often lost their jobs or been in trouble with the law as a result of their addiction.

    Some users proceeded to viewing more extreme and often illegal material. About 20 per cent of participants said that they preferred the excitement of watching porn to being sexually intimate with their partner.

    A 2007 review of research on the matter by Jill Manning demonstrated that children exposed to pornography may become obsessed with acting out adult sexual acts that they have seen; and children under 12 years old who have viewed pornography are statistically more likely to sexually assault their peers.

    Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant conducted a series of studies in the 1980s of young adults exposed to pornography that demonstrated the following changes in attitude compared with the control group:

    Male subjects demonstrated increased callousness towards women.
    Subjects considered the crime of rape less serious.
    Subjects were more accepting of non-marital sexual activity and non-coital sexual practices such as oral and anal sex.
    Subjects became more interested in more extreme and deviant forms of pornography.
    Subjects were more likely to say they were dissatisfied with their sexual partner.
    Subjects were more accepting of sexual infidelity in a relationship.
    Subjects valued marriage less and were twice as likely to believe marriage may become obsolete.
    Men experienced a decreased desire for children, and women experienced a decreased desire to have a daughter.
    Subjects showed a greater acceptance of female promiscuity.
    The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers stated that “obsessive interest in pornographic sites” was cited as a major reason for divorce in 56 per cent of cases, second only to “met new love interest over the internet”, at 68 per cent. This makes a lie of the oft-heard claim by pornography advocates that pornography helps spice up marriages in peril of breakdown due to boredom.

    Ted Bundy, the US serial sexual murderer executed for his crimes in January 1989, the night before his execution explained his addiction to pornography in a radio interview: “It happened in stages, gradually … My experience with … pornography that deals on a violent level with sexuality is that, once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction like other kinds of addiction, I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder, harder, something which gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far … It reaches that jumping-off point where you begin to wonder if, maybe, actually doing it will give you that which is beyond just reading about it or looking at it.”

    Journalist Edward Marriott, in a 2003 article in The Age, writes: “Access to internet pornography has never been easier, its users never younger, and the heaviest demand, according to research published in The New York Times, is for ‘deviant’ material including paedophilia, bondage, sadomasochism and sex acts with various animals.”

    Professor Freda Briggs (now deceased), foundation chair of child development at the University of South Australia, in a submission to the 2016 Senate Inquiry into Harm Being Done to Australian Children through Access to Pornography on the Internet, maintained that child sex offenders used pornography to seduce targeted victims.

    “There is international evidence that some children become addicted to downloading pornography and rape younger children … clearly we are paying too high a price for adults’ right to view whatever they wish regardless of the consequences for young people and society.”

    One measure the Federal Government could adopt is requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to offer network-level filters that block online porn. An “opt-in” system was introduced in Great Britain in 2013 and between 6 and 40 per cent (depending on the ISP) of customers took up the filter by June 2015. An “opt-out” system for Australia would be a more effective measure, whereby the default setting was that porn was blocked and users had to nominate unlocking the filter.

    Anyone who argues that porn has no harmful effects is either ignorant or disingenuous. The Australian Government must act now to stop ubiquitous online porn resulting in violence against women, family breakdown, increased crime rates, sexual grooming and, as we are seeing, even in sexual violence between very young school children.

    http://www.newsweekly.com.au/nwmobile/article.php?id=58479

  141. egg_

    The U.S, porn industry churns out 11,000 videos each year

    And Grigs has critiqued most of them.

  142. Iampeter

    It would be amusing to see Iampeter argue at a town hall meeting that his ‘right’ to obtain porn outways the right of parents to effectively morally educate their children.

    The right to access porn has no conflict with the right of parents to effectively morally educate their children. It’s a non-sequitur.

    Also, as we’ve already established in this thread, the ones who tend to have issues with porn are those that try to regulate it.

    Hard to know if Iampeter is a parody account or just a complete nutter.
    This shit can not be real.

    I wonder who this level of delusional projection is supposed to fool…

  143. Iampeter

    Why can’t free market solutions be supplemented by lawful siloing of pornography? The latter would make the former more efficacious.

    Because then they wouldn’t be “free market solutions.”
    It’s like everything you post is a non-sequitur, question begging, or outright self contradiction.

  144. dover_beach

    The right to access porn has no conflict with the right of parents to effectively morally educate their children. It’s a non-sequitur.

    Not at all, you appear to believe the former involves an unconditional right to disseminate porn however one pleases. Now, if the right of parents to effectively morally educate their children is frustrated by their children’s ongoing and easy exposure to freely available pornography, then it clearly does conflict with that right. And any sane society would curtail the dissemination of pornography insofar as it frustrates the effective moral education of children.

    That you do not understand this is indeed a grave problem.

  145. Iampeter

    Not at all, you appear to believe the former involves an unconditional right to disseminate porn however one pleases.

    No, I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m just pointing out your non-sequitur.
    But even if I was saying such a thing, it still wouldn’t have anything to do with the right of parents to educate their children. It would STILL be a non-sequitur.

    You have no political argument and don’t know where to even begin. But you want people to be regulated by the government when no rights are violated. A politically illiterate leftist.

  146. dover_beach

    No, I’m not saying anything of the sort.

    You said above

    3. Ergo porn should not be regulated in any way.

    which implies that porn can be disseminated however one pleases.

    I’m just pointing out your non-sequitur.
    But even if I was saying such a thing, it still wouldn’t have anything to do with the right of parents to educate their children. It would STILL be a non-sequitur.

    No, but your replies, indeed, are non-sequiturs.

  147. Iampeter

    Oh yes. When you’re not spouting glaring logical fallacies, you engage in evasion and projection.

    Classic.

  148. Tel

    Now, if the right of parents to effectively morally educate their children is frustrated by their children’s ongoing and easy exposure to freely available pornography, then it clearly does conflict with that right. And any sane society would curtail the dissemination of pornography insofar as it frustrates the effective moral education of children.

    Filtering is already available.

    Parents can use this, right now, today, anytime they want. If you were interested you could have either followed the link I provided or simply looked it up yourself because lots of free market solutions are out there.

    Tap tap tap, is anyone at home? Please stop making straw-man arguments. No government regulation has been necessary for this, people figured it out all by themselves.

    Yes, there is open distribution without restriction, and yes there’s also ways to filter this if you choose to do so, without anyone needing to be regulated, legislated, or any creation of special laws. There’s no practical or moral conflict here … you are inventing a problem for the purpose of railing about it.

  149. dover_beach

    Parents can use this, right now, today, anytime they want. If you were interested you could have either followed the link I provided or simply looked it up yourself because lots of free market solutions are out there.

    Tap tap tap, is anyone at home? Please stop making straw-man arguments. No government regulation has been necessary for this, people figured it out all by themselves.

    Have I denied the availability of filtering software? No, I have said there is no in-principle objection to government legislation that supplemented this by siloing porn sites to an .xxx domain, as IT has suggested. You certainly have provided no in-principle objection to any such development.

    Yes, there is open distribution without restriction, and yes there’s also ways to filter this if you choose to do so, without anyone needing to be regulated, legislated, or any creation of special laws. There’s no practical or moral conflict here … you are inventing a problem for the purpose of railing about it.

    So, indeed, we have a problem, open distribution without restriction does indeed present a problem to parents wanting to morally educate their children. What you’re arguing is that the problem should be left to the parents and the children because, according to your own lights, nothing must impinge the open distribution without restriction of porn.

  150. Kneel

    “…what a parent should do with respects to their children is not a basis for anything a government should do with respect to anything,…”

    Perhaps.
    But it is worth noting that governments are elected, which means getting votes, which means saying you’ll do what voters want you to. And if voters want porn restrictions…
    So, in practice, what governments do is what voters want – and if they don’t, they aren’t the government for very long. Sounds political to me…

  151. Iampeter

    You certainly have provided no in-principle objection to any such development.

    The principle preventing this is individual rights, but it doesn’t matter since you haven’t stated a logical political argument for why porn should be regulated in the first place.

    But it is worth noting that governments are elected, which means getting votes, which means saying you’ll do what voters want you to.

    To those of us who are actually right wing, the function of government is to protect rights. Not do “what voters want.” That’s the kind of leftist mob rule that statists appeal to.

    Sounds political to me…

    Yes politics is political. Very good.
    But it has nothing to do with parents teaching their children, or whatever other random nonsense people like Dover bring up because they don’t have political arguments.

    Not sure what your point is, but I suspect you don’t have one and are just arguing for the sake of arguing, with no real idea what’s going on.

  152. JC

    Plodes

    Not sure what your point is, but I suspect you don’t have one and are just arguing for the sake of arguing, with no real idea what’s going on.

    And

    .

  153. Tel

    Dover you claim is right here:

    Not at all, you appear to believe the former involves an unconditional right to disseminate porn however one pleases. Now, if the right of parents to effectively morally educate their children is frustrated by their children’s ongoing and easy exposure to freely available pornography, then it clearly does conflict with that right.

    That clearly does put forward a straw-man argument based on the pretense that private filtering options are not right now available to parents.

    You could at the very least man up and be direct about what you are arguing, instead of trying to be slippery.

  154. dover_beach

    That clearly does put forward a straw-man argument based on the pretense that private filtering options are not right now available to parents.

    It isn’t a straw man at all. Are you pretending that porn is not easily and freely available even with the availability of filtering software?

    You could at the very least man up and be direct about what you are arguing, instead of trying to be slippery.

    I have been direct, you quoted an example above.

  155. Porter
    #3262572, posted on December 15, 2019 at 4:25 pm

    They are also obsessed with religion, regulating peoples lives and banning porn for everyone else…

    No. Porn is a major financer of terrorism. That’s been known for over 10 years now.

    Fuck off with your bullshit. MindGeek is owned by bin Laden?

    You lunatic.

  156. The alt-right argument for censorship is if you leave your kids at home alone, they look at porn.

    It is entirely the parents fault.

Comments are closed.