> <i>Most cases when minors view porn are primarily instances of “stumble upon” cases meaning that most minors navigate to age-restricted content by accident.</i><p>Not sure I believe this part. If we're talking about 8 year olds or 12 year olds, sure, except in weird cases.<p>But I was definitely consuming pornography at 17 years old, and I didn't trip and fall into it because I typed whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov.
I like how the title already has decided it is __stupid__ instead of having an honest faith debate.<p>My view on pornography as someone who suffered from addiction and still sometimes fall back to it is, it’s a symptom of a underlying societal pathology.<p>Human beings are designed to crave physical intimacy. That’s what make a species successful at the evolutionary stage. If you believe in evolution and science then you must believe that’s true. If you go against that, you are doomed as a species.<p>The problem is in many aspects, we are doing everything we can as a species to counter our evolutionary fitness.<p>I bet if there was a societal dynamics where people were to find partners in organic manner and have meaningful relationships, worrying about pornography reaching to kids would be less of a thing.<p>Too many of our personal relationships are polluted with doses of dopamine, coupled with dysfunction in the dynamics in relation to the way people seek their partner.<p>There is a reason sperm count has dropped 50% just in a generation and 25% of young women are on SSRI. What is going on in America?Is it the food we are eating, garbage we are consuming in our phone everyday that cause us to live in a dysfunctional reality where porn becomes the mean to release your evolutionary urge? Why is every millennial and GenZ choosing to delay family and relationship formation? Is it rent seeking class choke holding an entire other class of people? Ultimately is that too a class war issue?<p>no one is asking these questions. Our beloved journalists are busy studying the Russian aggression on Ukraine more than corporate invasion on every aspect of American soul.
> Most cases when minors view porn are primarily instances of “stumble upon” cases meaning that most minors navigate to age-restricted content by accident.<p>Does the OP know what happens in band camp, in classrooms and basically and other setting where kids wit smartphones are left on their own?
Depending on liability for when the filter lets something through (which anything other than a whitelist would, and a whitelist probably would too), this bill might well be stupid. But the quoted provision seems fine? It's illegal to give minors drugs, alcohol, and porn as it is. Imagining some miracle filter existed, why wouldn't it be illegal to disable it for a minor without parental consent?<p>I'm big on free speech, but it gets real weird when people are against mandating parental controls <i>exist</i> and claim it's a form of censorship. Giving porn to children is already illegal[0], but little to nothing is done to enforce it on computers. It seems reasonable that people <i>want</i> to have consumer devices be <i>capable</i> of filtering, even if people more familiar with tech would know why that's challenging to do perfectly.<p>Edit: It sounds like they have to ask the user's age on setup, and if the user answers that they're a minor, activate the filter. And liability<p>> does not apply to a manufacturer that makes a good faith effort to provide a device that, upon activation of the device in the state automatically enables a generally accepted and commercially reasonable filter<p>So I'm not really seeing the issue. It just says parental controls have to exist on the device, and you can't go turning off someone else's kids' parental controls.<p>[0] Here's a federal law that carries up to 10 years in prison for knowingly providing porn to someone under 16 using the Internet. The law is almost as old as the web. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1470" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1470</a>