Removed by mod
Outside the box solution: don’t age restrict access to porn. Every teenager is going to get it anyway.
Couldn’t agree more if I cared to try.
Methinks this is much more about controlling and surveilling adults than “protecting” children from porn. If it was ever really about the latter at all.
It’s about the latter but it doesn’t have to work, just looks like you took action to solve a Daily Mail agenda…
Pornographic content that consists only of text is not covered by today’s guidelines.
Ao3 users can’t stop winning.
I always thought that it’s Erotic Literature and not Text Pornographic… Since text isn’t graphic.
Since text isn’t graphic.
Sounds like someone’s never seen ASCII porn before.
I wonder if one could make a renderer that translates ascii characters into squares of solid colours. Colour depends on the character.
Zoom out far enough and you have a bitmap.
Your text renderer already does that. It’s why ascii art works in the first place. The blocks are just smaller than the characters.
There are tools that faithfully convert images into ascii art to the point where they just look like the images with zoomed out enough.
Its amazing how excluding the smut tag practically drops at least 50% of the stories, sometimes more depending on the fandom
Let’s just waste some more money to appease some bigots who have illegal seed behind close doors, right? Coz normally that’s exactly what happens…
I’m torn on what to think about the uks stance on technology. Like one one hand they’ve been forcing apple to be normal. But on the other hand they love trying to restrict porn in the most ridiculous ways.
The government and the courts are different things and they don’t like each other.
The current UK government are basically Posh Fascists (Notice the anti-demonstration legislation, sending people asking the UK for asylum to Rwanda and sending surveillance planes to help Israel with what the UN has deemed a Genocide in Gaza) so this is hardly surprising.
The Conservative wing of the Tory party has been well and trully buried by the UKIPers that invaded the party back in the Brexit Campaign days and all that’s left leading that party are people with a Fascist outlook on the world and the learned posh manners that you get from the very expensive private education institutions (curiously and with no irony called “Public Schools”) in that country.
They’re called public schools because anyone could attend them as long as they paid the cost. They were the alternative to private schools which were for nobles or religious training etc that you couldn’t buy in to. Comprehensive schools, free schools for anyone, came a lot later.
Same kind of “public” as the The Ritz: anybody can spend a night there as long as they have the 400 quid a night to pay for it.
Not sure what The Ritz is but that sounds public to me. The access is not restricted by any other mean than paying for the service.
The Ritz is a luxury hotel in London and that sentence I wrote is often used as an illustration of what “public” means in the sense with which it’s used in “public school” in the UK (no other nation whose language I know uses it like that and I can actually speak a number of them).
It’s also a great illustration about how de jure can be the opposite of de facto and of how one can mislead without outright lying by picking a rarelly used meaning of a word of a commonly used expression and thus produce an expression with an alternative meaning which is still naturally understood by others as meaning its most common meaning - thus allowing the making of claims which are strictly speaking true, whilst most people will semantically understand them differently. This is probably the main verbal deceit technique used by the English upper classes.
That said, in the UK “public school” has been so long used to mean what in other countries would be called “private school”, that all Brits nowadays understand it as meaning a “privatelly run and managed school with paid tuition were access is open to anybody who can pay (theoretically as some have subtle filters beyond mere cost)”, but all non-Brits need to be expained that in a British context this combination of words means something else than what it does in the rest of the World, which is why I point this out.
Thanks for explaining. I can see how it can be considered public (by my own argument) while still not being public in the sense everyone else (myself included) would understand it.
good
No, not it’s not. And not even just for the lulz of having access to porn.
You wanna know why? For the same reasons that decriminalisation of drugs is has potential upsides, and for the same reasons why repression breeds kinks.
People are going to try to get porn anyway. If you force young people (or people who can’t provide ID) to resort viewing porn illegally, then it is infinitely easier for them to go browsing for porn in places that will let them find really illegal porn.
In other words, would you rather have your kids watching main stream porn, or would you like them to potentially end up on the dark web?
