Privacy

31815 readers

435 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

[Matrix/Element]Dead
Discord

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

242

e621, a furry image forum, will be forced to verify their users identities if this bill passes (slrpnk.net)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by tsugu@slrpnk.net to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Here's a link to the news. https://e621.net/news_updates

Edit: As people in the comments pointed out, this bill targets all websites hosting porn. e621 just happens to be hosted in Arizona, and it therefore affects them directly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ji59@kbin.social 27 points 7 months ago (3 children)

...PUBLISHES OR DISTRIBUTES MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS ON THE INTERNET FROM A WEBSITE THAT CONTAINS A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS...
Since furry porn isn't harmful, they should be ok.

[–] blujan@sopuli.xyz 39 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't know the site that much, but I know that "harmful to minors" can mean anything.

[–] FilterItOut@thelemmy.club 10 points 7 months ago

Think of the children!

I'll believe they're thinking of the children when they use that phrase to make laws that agree with the environmental groups and governing bodies.

[–] Dirk_Darkly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah, like it could mean they'll become furries.

[–] ignotum@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

How much is a "substantial amount"? There's not thaaat much porn on e621, most of it is marked safe
Well a lot of it is...
Well some of it is...
I'm relatively sure i saw one marked safe once...

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that viewing pornography can be harmful to young children.

Not all "minors", but some people forget that the phrase includes both 17 year olds and 4 year olds in some states...

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If a 4 year old is exposed to furry porn, I don't think the culprit is the website.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I didn't assign blame to the website, or to anything. I just said that viewing sexual material can be harmful to children.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago

Which is the problem with completely open ended language, which is always used in such bills so as to only apply to whoever they want to persecute.