Re:Assembly Four announces closure of sex-work-friendly soci...
by burnoutgal on Tuesday February 15, 2022 @08:21AM
(#30346017)
In practice people will accuse non-pornographic LGBT educational resources of being pornography and breaking the law. Pornography is subjective, and straight people have historically tried to say that any information about gay sex or being trans is pornographic. This just hurts queer youth by depriving them of resources and forums to talk about their experiences
Re:Assembly Four announces closure of sex-work-friendly soci...
by Kye on Tuesday February 15, 2022 @08:30AM
(#30346113)
For example: that mayor withholding already allocated funds until the library removed anything that didn't reflect his views on LGBT people.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/mississippi-mayor-withhold...
You might have heard of a queer-majority community stepping up to help raise funds to replace what he denied: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdpen/mississippi-furry-boo...
Re:Assembly Four announces closure of sex-work-friendly soci...
by tomp on Wednesday February 16, 2022 @05:28AM
(#30358306)
This is strawman; the worn "porn" doesn't appear in the PBS article. The mayor objected to "homosexual material", not "porn".
Re:Assembly Four announces closure of sex-work-friendly soci...
by Kye on Wednesday February 16, 2022 @10:58AM
(#30361666)
The two are the same to this sort of person. It seems absurd until you've watched someone call a goodbye kiss between two men pornographic.
Re:Assembly Four announces closure of sex-work-friendly soci...
by mojzu on Tuesday February 15, 2022 @08:13AM
(#30345945)
It depends where the lines are drawn, given pressure from religious or other organisations I could easily see websites being put into these kinds of categories without much cause to score political points. I also doubt it would make the web safe by default unless they're targetting other kinds of potentially offensive but legal/age-restricted content
Given that similar systems have disproportionately affected LGBTQIA+ groups in the past (whether that's maliciously or not), I think it's a fair point to bring up in response to this new legislation (in addition to it being an expensive waste of time and resources)
A private company managed block list is very different in nature to requiring that adult content providers implement age verification, with a human regulatory process that kicks in if they refuse.
Indeed one could argue that by making this a requirement of the website, and making the web safe by default, it negates the need for these overly puritanical 3rd party blocklists and actually increases access to non-pornographic LGBT material. It's a weak argument, but two can play at that game...