- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Spain heading towards North Korea censorship
Posted on 2/4/26 at 2:20 pm to SludgeFactory
Posted on 2/4/26 at 2:20 pm to SludgeFactory
that’s a bingo!
0
Posted on 2/4/26 at 2:24 pm to jnethe1
quote:
Leftist are inherently violent and incapable of impartiality. I wonder why they would create such laws….. surely not to silence any dissent.
Leftist republicans in Georgia...unanimously, passed a bill last year prohibiting anyone in the state access to porn sites without proper ID. The porn sites unanimously shut down access to ANYONE in the state, with or without ID. Those porn site owners are obviously Conservatives, thats why they are in the porn business, right. To recap...Georgia Republicans, pinko commies and well known for it, restricted access with ID, to prevent collecting ID the staunch conservative owner of Porn Hub, for example, simply no longer anyone in the state to access their content. You know those owners have to be in the family values crowd....
The trouble with the law in Georgia is it is very easy to circumnavigate, especially for tech savvy minors. Not so much for people relative to age....folks in their 80s wouldn't have a clue, those under 12 all know how to....
I doubt seriously if anyone will defend unrestricted porn in the form of a magazine to a minor...certainly no one in their right mind. I suspect no one would do if for internet porn....most people would agree a 24 year old ought not be on Porn Hub.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 2:28 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
1. Prohibition of social networks for children under 16 years of age with mandatory age verification: This is not just about children - it requires platforms to use strict controls, such as requiring ID or biometrics.
I mean this is reasonable, but honestly this is the parents responsibility. Neither one of my girls have any type of social media.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 2:30 pm to AgCoug
quote:
I know this is meant "tongue in cheek," but I could not disagree more. I believe most of the Poli Board posters are imbeciles, but they should be able to freely speak their mind without censorship... no matter how much misinformation and drivel they wish to spew.
Should they be allowed to use a public asset to plan the assassination of the president without the specter of the government stepping in? If censorship is bad a website where pedophiles can swap information and images of child porn should be allowed to operate as it sees fit, no? If the aim is an end to censorship we have to be willing to ban ALL censorship. If that's the direction we decide to go societally who am I to complain? I don't think many people would support that idea but social media execs have certainly been able to thread the needle thus far....who knows, maybe in a few years some entrepreneurial minded pedophile will do for him and his kind what Facebook has done for the elderly.....and that will be a good thing, no????
Posted on 2/4/26 at 2:38 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
1. Prohibition of social networks for children under 16 years of age with mandatory age verification:
This is a pretty good thing, actually.
quote:
3. Criminalization of algorithmic amplification: Amplifying "harmful" content through algorithms becomes a crime.
I don't know about "criminilization", but there should be penalties for this happening.
quote:
4. Follow-up of the "hateful and polarization": Platforms must monitor and report how they "feed the division."
Again, if a platform is feeding one side or the other heavily, they should report it. A platform, shouldn't be feeding anything. If they are, they become a content creator. I think twitter was sued for this a few years back.
This post sounds like some lefty wants the twitter files type operations to continue again. Maybe i'm reading this wrong???
Posted on 2/4/26 at 2:43 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
1. Prohibition of social networks for children under 16 years of age with mandatory age verification
I’m 100% behind that.
I’ll do you one better, ban it for everyone. Social media is society’s cesspool.
Posted on 2/4/26 at 3:03 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Should they be allowed to use a public asset to plan the assassination of the president without the specter of the government stepping in? If censorship is bad a website where pedophiles can swap information and images of child porn should be allowed to operate as it sees fit, no? If the aim is an end to censorship we have to be willing to ban ALL censorship. If that's the direction we decide to go societally who am I to complain? I don't think many people would support that idea but social media execs have certainly been able to thread the needle thus far....who knows, maybe in a few years some entrepreneurial minded pedophile will do for him and his kind what Facebook has done for the elderly.....and that will be a good thing, no????
Holy strawman!
Posted on 2/4/26 at 3:18 pm to AgCoug
quote:
quote:
Should they be allowed to use a public asset to plan the assassination of the president without the specter of the government stepping in? If censorship is bad a website where pedophiles can swap information and images of child porn should be allowed to operate as it sees fit, no? If the aim is an end to censorship we have to be willing to ban ALL censorship. If that's the direction we decide to go societally who am I to complain? I don't think many people would support that idea but social media execs have certainly been able to thread the needle thus far....who knows, maybe in a few years some entrepreneurial minded pedophile will do for him and his kind what Facebook has done for the elderly.....and that will be a good thing, no????
Holy strawman!
How is this remotely a strawman? It is not an exaggeration to say that there are people in the world who be OK with child porn being published on the web with unrestricted access. While I hope they are few in numbers I think most people would agree that should be illegal. That is an acceptable form of censorship for all but the depraved among us. Porn sites argued for YEARS that unrestricted access to their sites should be legal and argued that point successfully. Again, I think most people agree that children should not have access to such sites. I get the fear of censorship, it is a bad idea....but if its good in some instances, which I think most agree it is, then it can be applied in other areas where the majority of people agree. The shite that people post on Facebook, mostly foreign actors with an agenda, is damned dangerous. People have suffered grave damages by those kinds of shite....the owners of those sites have thus far threaded the needle based on first amendment rights....and thats fine but if its good for facebook its good for the new york times. If its fine for the times why is it not OK for some sick bastard to publish child ponography? If its a slippery slope that is unacceptable its a slippery slope that is unacceptable. Thats not what a strawman argument is my friend, it is simply going to the logical conclusion....there is shite we all agree should not be allowed in the way of free speech....if we are of the opinion that anything goes then by damn anything goes....
Posted on 2/4/26 at 3:27 pm to hawgfaninc
Most European countries have been licking their lips at the thought of this.
Germany and the UK will be adopting this soon.
Germany and the UK will be adopting this soon.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News