Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Poem]

Who would you prefer to prosecute? The children?

No and I have made it clear what my position is. Governments are responsible to make sure the internet is safe for children. That is not an option but something they have legally agreed to. Porn companies should, at the very least, make sure kids are not going on their sites.

That the USA (and only the USA) has not ratified the convention is perhaps worth exploring.

 

[Poem]

According to wikipedia:

Nations that have ratified this convention or have acceded to it are bound by international law. When a state has signed the treaty but not ratified it, it is not yet bound by the treaty's provisions but is already obliged to not act contrary to its purpose.

Based on that, the USA is an appalling violator of human rights - the rights of children....and every other country is failing too. The UK's OSA is a step in the right direction.

 

[Poem]

How Do US States Measure Up on Child Rights?

www.hrw.org

The US government and US child rights experts were instrumental contributors to the ideals and text of the Convention. Officials from the administration of former US President Ronald Reagan were very active during the CRC negotiations and proposed many of its provisions. A diverse network of US advocates and psychologists collaborated with experts from around the world to provide input, culminating in the Convention’s adoption in 1989. Many people in the United States value the protections offered by the CRC, including the protection of children from violence and exploitation, and children’s rights to education, health care, and an adequate standard of living. Not only did US officials, experts, and advocates contribute to the development of the CRC, but polling data has found that across party lines, four out of five people in the United States favor the ratification of the CRC.

 

[Poem]

How Do US States Measure Up on Child Rights?

www.hrw.org

Research by Unchained at Last finds that over a quarter million children, some as young as 10, were married in the US between the years 2000-2018. Most child marriages in the US are girls marrying adult men. In fact, many of these marriages occurred at an age or with a spousal age difference that would typically be considered sexual violence.

 

[3point14]

Parents should do all they can - but the evidence (and I have posted it many times) is that it won't be enough.

Your opinion is noted - but the fact is that every country (with the exception of the US) has signed and is legally bound to make sure children can access all that the internet has for then and in a safe way. Government must make sure they are protected from porn.

That is not happening.

The most ratified human rights treaty in history.

https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=How%20was%20it%20decided%20what,specific%20needs%20of%20developing%20countries.

If your opinion had any significance, then we would expect a little more resistance than just the USA.

God you really need to go look up what fallacies are.

The Abrahamic god is (probably) the most worshipped god in history, therefore you should absolutely believe in him/her/it.

Serously, fallacies. Look them up.

 

[3point14]

Really?




On the other hand:

We prosecute parents when and if they fail to prevent their children from accessing porn?

Yeah, I think someone should beover the age of 18 to obtain a phone contract or a contract from an ISP. Cos there's dangerous stuff on that there internet.

I think that those adults who provide access to dangerous things to minors should not do so. They should be prosecuted in just the same way that anyone providing porn to choldren by other means should. Why are you giving parents a free pass to be negligent here?

Seriously, this is not the gotcha you think it is.

 

[Lithrael]

I'd be fully in favor of some kind of widely available kids' jitterbug phone/internet account where an associated legal guardian has to whitelist things you can do on it. Be nice if there was a kid safe whitelist that was reliably maintained by someone sane too. The only ones you hear about tend to be by the same people who homeschool to protect their kids from idk cat-identifying pronouns.

There's the issue of the risk of cutting off abused/neglected kids looking for help/information and the issue of invading older kids' right to privacy to be debated, though.

The other problem of trying to get commercial companies to make kid targeted products kid safe is that if you really try to crack down on making them liable for not self moderating, they are just as likely to decide it's not worth it full stop and shuttering the company. Now you have even fewer spaces for kids! Though this IS the same problem as a victorian bakery shutting down if they're not allowed to use 50% chalk, you do still need to figure out how to incentivise people to make the actual bread you want to see in the world.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The other problem of trying to get commercial companies to make kid targeted products kid safe is that if you really try to crack down on making them liable for not self moderating, they are just as likely to decide it's not worth it full stop and shuttering the company.

I see another problem with a kids-only enclave on the internet: companies would fall over themselves to secure the advertising in it. Remember Saturday morning cartoons, with all the junk food and toy commercials? A children-only enclave would be a gold mine to some.

Not every exploitation is sexual in nature.

 

[Lithrael]

True, but I'm not sure how bad that actually is, as long as the transaction isn't right there on the same platform. I lived through that blitz and the main side effect seems to be that I'm still very excited about having cool stuff.

Though I do recall making myself very obnoxious about wanting to try Twizzlers.

 

[Poem]

God you really need to go look up what fallacies are.

The Abrahamic god is (probably) the most worshipped god in history, therefore you should absolutely believe in him/her/it.

Serously, fallacies. Look them up.

An appeal to authority is not a fallacy if their expertise is recognized and there is strong consensus. How many countries haven't signed and or ratified?

How was it decided what should go into the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
The standards in the Convention on the Rights of the Child were negotiated by governments, non-governmental organizations, human rights advocates, lawyers, health specialists, social workers, educators, child development experts and religious leaders from all over the world, over a 10-year period. The result is a consensus document that takes into account the importance of tradition and cultural values for the protection and harmonious development of the child. It reflects the principal legal systems of the world and acknowledges the specific needs of developing countries.

Your opinion, whilst worth listening to, is of little consequence because (excepting the US) everyone has ratified. They are all legally bound to adhere to the convention. Even the US must not be seen to be going against it.

I put it to you that the states parties must be making sure that kids can go on the internet and be safe from porn. Access to all that is beneficial on the web is a child's right.

 

[3point14]

God you really need to go look up what fallacies are.

An appeal to authority is not a fallacy if their expertise is recognized and there is strong consensus. How many countries haven't signed and or ratified?

How was it decided what should go into the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
The standards in the Convention on the Rights of the Child were negotiated by governments, non-governmental organizations, human rights advocates, lawyers, health specialists, social workers, educators, child development experts and religious leaders from all over the world, over a 10-year period. The result is a consensus document that takes into account the importance of tradition and cultural values for the protection and harmonious development of the child. It reflects the principal legal systems of the world and acknowledges the specific needs of developing countries.

Your opinion, whilst worth listening to, is of little consequence because (excepting the US) everyone has ratified. They are all legally bound to adhere to the convention. Even the US must not be seen to be going against it.

I put it to you that the states parties must be making sure that kids can go on the internet and be safe from porn. Access to all that is beneficial on the web is a child's right.

You know it's possible for someone to disagree with legislation, don't you?

We both want the same thing. However, you think that this should be achived by curtailing free speech and free expression. I think it should be achieved by those parents and guardians who have chosen to be such and therefore accepted the responsibilty of protecting a child actually doing what they are supposed to do and being parents.

Society has always held that the parent is responsible for the wellbeing of the child. Why do you think they should not be?

 

[Poem]

Yeah, I think someone should beover the age of 18 to obtain a phone contract or a contract from an ISP. Cos there's dangerous stuff on that there internet.

I think that those adults who provide access to dangerous things to minors should not do so. They should be prosecuted in just the same way that anyone providing porn to choldren by other means should. Why are you giving parents a free pass to be negligent here?

Seriously, this is not the gotcha you think it is.

Pornhub et al ARE showing kips porn. So is X. Musk is the worst offender.

I'm not giving parents a free pass. They should do all they can - but you continually fail to recognise that a child has a right to accessing the internet. The internet is not the preserve of adults. You seem to think it is.

 

[3point14]

Pornhub et al ARE showing kips porn. So is X. Musk is the worst offender.

Through means provided by their parents.

Again - Why are you giving negligent parents a free pass to allow their children access to adult material?

I'm not giving parents a free pass.

Yes, you are. You believe that the responsibility for restricting a child's access to adult material should be undertaken by the state, not the adult in charge of that child.

They should do all they can - but you continually fail to recognise that a child has a right to accessing the internet. The internet is not the preserve of adults. You seem to think it is.

I didn't say that. Children should absolutely be allowed to access the internet, under the supervision (in some way) of their legal guardian. i.e. The person who has accepted responsibility for the child's wellbeing.

 

[Poem]

You know it's possible for someone to disagree with legislation, don't you?

I do. Justifying disagreeing with practically the whole world would require some effort.

We both want the same thing. However, you think that this should be achived by curtailing free speech and free expression.

We could start by making absolutely sure that adult material could not be stumbled upon by minors. How long would social media / porn companies take to solve that if forced? Given their profits, it's not a stretch to suggest they could do it pretty quick.

I think it should be achieved by those parents and guardians who have chosen to be such and therefore accepted the responsibilty of protecting a child actually doing what they are supposed to do and being parents.

Hasn't and won't work. All it takes is a friends phone or a flash drive.

Society has always held that the parent is responsible for the wellbeing of the child. Why do you think they should not be?

If the experts I have been citing thought as you do then I do not see any reason why they wouldn't say so. They are saying the opposite.

 

[3point14]

I do. Justifying disagreeing with practically the whole world would require some effort.

No, just a little thought. I agree with the need to protect and educate children. I disagree that this means porn should be illegal. I disagree that this should mean draconian restrictions on free speech and expression on the internet.

We could start by making absolutely sure that adult material could not be stumbled upon by minors. How long would social media / porn companies take to solve that if forced? Given their profits, it's not a stretch to suggest they could do it pretty quick.

Maybe prosecute those who disregard safety restrictions in pursuit of profit? (crazy, I know...)

Hasn't and won't work. All it takes is a friends phone or a flash drive.

No, I mean why do you, personally, think it is not the responsibility of parents to protect their children?
A friend who, presumably, has parents..?

If the experts I have been citing thought as you do then I do not see any reason why they wouldn't say so. They are saying the opposite.

Again, you suggest that protecting children from seeing things they shouldn't is not the responsibility of the person who has willingly accepted responibility for the child. I really want to know why you think that's the case.

 

[Lithrael]

Hasn't and won't work. All it takes is a friends phone or a flash drive.

I honestly think that the cure is worse than the disease, when it comes to trying to stamp out all possible access by determined youths. Let's see whether a niche issue like the sneakernet is a significant problem after we genuinely discourage minors' access to porn on twitter etc on parentally controlled devices.

 

[Poem]

Maybe prosecute those who disregard safety restrictions in pursuit of profit? (crazy, I know...)

You do agree with the Online Safety Act in that respect then? 10% or £18 million fines (whichever is greater) for companies that fail to implement robust age verification?

 

[Darat]

You are chasing Poem down the rabbit hole again, they want to ban all pornography, they are not concerned about children accessing pornography unless that accessing can be used as a wedge to remove all pornography.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Kids. Libraries. Books. Bad books? OH NOES! --> Ban certain books.

That wasn't acceptable before the internet, it's not acceptable with the internet.

The solution is to actually mind the children, not sanitize the cosmos.

eta: an even better example: TV. TVs have been in households for multiple generations now. Do parents want kids watching every program on TV? Of course not. The solution? It wasn't banning programming types, it was watch your damn kids. If you didn't want little Timmy watching "Dream On" it was on you to not let little Timmy have unrestricted access to a TV at 11pm.

 

[3point14]

You do agree with the Online Safety Act in that respect then? 10% or £18 million fines (whichever is greater) for companies that fail to implement robust age verification?

You've veered off. I suggested prosecution for social media companies bypassing theoretical controls on social media to prevent minors from seeing the unsuitable.

You are chasing Poem down the rabbit hole again, they want to ban all pornography, they are not concerned about children accessing pornography unless that accessing can be used as a wedge to remove all pornography.

You're right, of course. I shall desist.

I am still with TM here. There may be underlying reason for the 'Oh, won't somebody think of the children'