>>106000513
>Society already decided the internet isn’t some special exemption zone
It did actually. Hence net neutrality.
>You also didn’t say parents should follow their kids around outside 24/7
Because there is no need to do so.
>Yet online, you expect total responsibility to fall on them, ignoring enforcement gaps and real-world behavior.
Parents are responsible if their kid drink alcohol that they allow it to access.
In the same way, parents should be responsible if their kid watched porn they allow it to access.
>the resistance to ID checks isn’t about principle
It is about privacy.
>You don’t want anyone knowing what you’re doing.
Adding ID verification doesn't let everyone know what I'm doing.
But it let's goverment and hackers know what I'm doing and what is my personal data. This is a real danger.
>But porn isn’t a human right
I never said so. You keep doing strawman fallacy.
>anonymous access to it isn’t sacred.
Never said so. Again strawman fallacy.
>If you want privacy, there are real solution that kids can’t use.
There are right now, but that doesn't justify goverment attempts at infringing on your privacy.
>You just don’t want friction and even further
This friction will put people's privacy at risk.
>want anonymity because you deep down understand using porn is embarassing
No matter if it's embarrassing or not, goverment mandating online websites to collect your personal data and IDs puts their privacy at risk.
>red flag of why porn more than many other adult activities need MORE gating, not less.
The fact that people don't want to be controlled doesn't justify adding more control.
