A letter I sent my senators, please consider similar.

[Jazman]

Rather than banning TikTok, make it illegal for young people under the age of at least 18-21 to produce content for social media of any sort.

Looking at other's content isn't a big thing. But to produce content requires a bit of maturity and introspection beyond the average middle-schooler or even high schooler. The tragedies and strife caused by online interactions by immature individuals hidden behind a shield of distance from the immediate interaction- if not outright anonymity- are well known.

I wish you would also sponsor a bill that would put pornography behind an ".XXX" domain. It's been discussed before, but I think this is a fight and a cause worth fighting for, however long and however hard.

I never saw "hardcore" porn until I was nearly 30 years old, now every 12-year-old has seen things that I couldn't have imagined at the time I was exposed to the VHS tape at a friend's house. No little kid, or even a young adult, should have that sick garbage available to them until they are 18-21.

Please consider this. I'm also writing Senator Warnock, and my Congressional representative as well. I beg of you for the sake of the sanity of future generations to work for the rest of your life if need be to enact these changes.

"Influencers" who urge kids to run away from home, and engage in sexual activities should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law. Whether they directly interact with children or not.

Please work to make the digital world a place that's more than a dark cesspool of violence, lust, self-indulgence, and despair, and make it into the potential great library of the human race.

Thank you sir.

I think the intention and motivation is good. I like the last line's beginning... "make the digital world a place that's...." But, how do you propose this is done (practical / technologically speaking) and how do you think it could be enforced? Even if every single person in gov today - all parties, all positions supported the same thing you propose here... Have you thought through those questions?

The place to start is with the vision. We don’t necessarily even have to think about, let alone offer, exact specifics. There are professionals for that. A random Senator also would have exact solutions. The starting point, is the “want to”. Once the right people have the want to, the implementation can follow.
To demand a complete blueprint, start to finish, from the plebes before the powerful lift a finger, is a beautiful derailment tactic.

"Derailment" was not my intention... like I said; I'm basically on board with the sentiment - the "vision". But since you bring it up, I'm not sure I can share this sentiment though... "We don’t necessarily even have to think about, let alone offer, exact specifics."
Hmmm no, that is an approach I couldn't get on board with no matter the topic or situation... I guess I've seen/heard a lot of similar in american evangelical christianity (including the menno varieties, maybe especially the charismaticy or fundamentalist variety...) Lots of talking-noise, lots of wishing, lots of politician promises, lots of exaggerated visions of sweeping cultural, political instant! change, lots of bumper sticker sloganeering... (Revival!) - Especially in the areas of culture war issues (like the one raised by the op!). And guess what, very little to nothing to show for all that... at least not much positive change to show for it. I'm similarly skeptical of the Other political party or activist base as well.. so much noise, so many simple 'visions' with no thinking through or contextualizing the 'visions'.

And so I guess I'm a bit knee-jerk tired of it... Recent big example - overturning Roe v Wade... years seemingly spent "not thinking about' or 'offering...specifics"... What's been the fruit of that my friend? What has been the fruit of that?
I'm sure you don't intend the line I quote, to sound like it did; but to me it looks like our american religious community's tendency towards anti-intellectualism (or maybe better termed, anti-wisdom-seeking...)

So, I'm sorry, but I will generally side towards this: I, we, and the church should actually start with the questions, the hurdles and the specifics and add some wisdom, some contextualization, some practicality to the germs of our 'visions' from the start... So, I'm probably going to keep asking hard questions... especially in a Discussion forum... where I thought the point is - to discuss, ie wrestle with things! Looks like most of us are doing that already with the back and forth on ID's, tokens, databases, etc... Carry on with that!

[Josh]

What do you think the reaction would be if the government required a national ID for people to sign into a website? I'm not opposed to a national ID, but after having encountered all the conspiracy theory drama here and elsewhere, I think the reaction would be an epic meltdown.

A National ID is offtopic. I am saying the same mechanisms used to log in to tobacco websites to get coupons, ID.me to sign in to my IRS account, or methods to access online banking would be suitable.

I am amazed, though, that anyone defends pornographic websites not ensuring children won't see pornography.

I also don't see why there needs to be "anonymous" access to pornography. If it's such a good thing, then people should feel comfortable identifying themselves.

[Ken]

What do you think the reaction would be if the government required a national ID for people to sign into a website? I'm not opposed to a national ID, but after having encountered all the conspiracy theory drama here and elsewhere, I think the reaction would be an epic meltdown.

A National ID is offtopic. I am saying the same mechanisms used to log in to tobacco websites to get coupons, ID.me to sign in to my IRS account, or methods to access online banking would be suitable.

A national ID is most definitely NOT off topic.

There are essentially two ways to implement universal age restrictions on all social media sites.

• Require all social media sites to separately collect sufficient identification documentation such that age can be verified. Which means that all Americans would be submitting a lot of personal information to web sites and trusting that it is maintained securely.
• Establish a universal national electronic ID program such that age can be verified through a central government portal (the token thing Outsider is talking about). This is tantamount to creating a national ID system. It doesn't matter whether the outward evidence of the national ID is a digital profile on a government server or a plastic card in your wallet. It amounts to the same thing.

Those are your two choices.

And note, I'm not claiming anywhere here that it is impossible to implement robust age-restrictions. Only that such a policy has policy implications and potential unintended consequences. Here in Washington State they gave up trying to regulate age-restricted tobacco sales online because they turned out to be unenforceable. So they just banned online sales completely.

I am also suggesting that there are probably better policy solutions for protecting children that can be more quickly implemented and with less unintended side effects.

[Josh]

A national ID is most definitely NOT off topic.

Can you explain to me why tobacco companies can do this for downloading coupons, the IRS and various state level tax agencies can implement robust identity and age verification, and all 50 states have online banking?

There are essentially two ways to implement universal age restrictions on all social media sites.

• Require all social media sites to separately collect sufficient identification documentation such that age can be verified. Which means that all Americans would be submitting a lot of personal information to web sites and trusting that it is maintained securely.
• Establish a universal national electronic ID program such that age can be verified through a central government portal (the token thing Outsider is talking about). This is tantamount to creating a national ID system. It doesn't matter whether the outward evidence of the national ID is a digital profile on a government server or a plastic card in your wallet. It amounts to the same thing.

You are wrong. Age verification has already been implemented for a variety of sites. It does not require a universal national electronic ID program.

If the tobacco companies can figure it out, so can pornographers.

[Ken]

A national ID is most definitely NOT off topic.

Can you explain to me why tobacco companies can do this for downloading coupons, the IRS and various state level tax agencies can implement robust identity and age verification, and all 50 states have online banking?

There are essentially two ways to implement universal age restrictions on all social media sites.

• Require all social media sites to separately collect sufficient identification documentation such that age can be verified. Which means that all Americans would be submitting a lot of personal information to web sites and trusting that it is maintained securely.
• Establish a universal national electronic ID program such that age can be verified through a central government portal (the token thing Outsider is talking about). This is tantamount to creating a national ID system. It doesn't matter whether the outward evidence of the national ID is a digital profile on a government server or a plastic card in your wallet. It amounts to the same thing.

You are wrong. Age verification has already been implemented for a variety of sites. It does not require a universal national electronic ID program.

If the tobacco companies can figure it out, so can pornographers.

What are you talking about with Tobacco Companies?

I just went to two different tobacco companies to find coupons and all they did was have me check a pop-up box agreeing that I was 21 years of age. That was it. Nothing else.

http://disctobacco.com/promo/index.html
https://www.longhornsnuff.com/coupons/

And in any event, there are tobacco scanned and digital tobacco coupons posted all over the internet on coupon sites.

As for porn? I have no issue with pornhub and other paid porn sites being required to do age verification. It is a paid porn site so they are already collecting credit card information and verifying identity. My objection is to implementing universal age restrictions on all online social media discussion forum sites. Which I think is going to be a futile whack-a-mole effort. When there are much better tools available to restrict what children have access to online.

[Josh]

Here's how the most popular cigarette brand in America restricts its website. You have to sign up first before you can even get past the front page, let alone request coupons.



I don't see why porn sites can't do what Marlboro does. Buying Marlboro cigarettes in a store requires showing ID. Using their website requires entering identifying info. The end.

[RZehr]

I think the intention and motivation is good. I like the last line's beginning... "make the digital world a place that's...." But, how do you propose this is done (practical / technologically speaking) and how do you think it could be enforced? Even if every single person in gov today - all parties, all positions supported the same thing you propose here... Have you thought through those questions?

The place to start is with the vision. We don’t necessarily even have to think about, let alone offer, exact specifics. There are professionals for that. A random Senator also would have exact solutions. The starting point, is the “want to”. Once the right people have the want to, the implementation can follow.
To demand a complete blueprint, start to finish, from the plebes before the powerful lift a finger, is a beautiful derailment tactic.

"Derailment" was not my intention... like I said; I'm basically on board with the sentiment - the "vision". But since you bring it up, I'm not sure I can share this sentiment though... "We don’t necessarily even have to think about, let alone offer, exact specifics."
Hmmm no, that is an approach I couldn't get on board with no matter the topic or situation... I guess I've seen/heard a lot of similar in american evangelical christianity (including the menno varieties, maybe especially the charismaticy or fundamentalist variety...) Lots of talking-noise, lots of wishing, lots of politician promises, lots of exaggerated visions of sweeping cultural, political instant! change, lots of bumper sticker sloganeering... (Revival!) - Especially in the areas of culture war issues (like the one raised by the op!). And guess what, very little to nothing to show for all that... at least not much positive change to show for it. I'm similarly skeptical of the Other political party or activist base as well.. so much noise, so many simple 'visions' with no thinking through or contextualizing the 'visions'.

And so I guess I'm a bit knee-jerk tired of it... Recent big example - overturning Roe v Wade... years seemingly spent "not thinking about' or 'offering...specifics"... What's been the fruit of that my friend? What has been the fruit of that?
I'm sure you don't intend the line I quote, to sound like it did; but to me it looks like our american religious community's tendency towards anti-intellectualism (or maybe better termed, anti-wisdom-seeking...)

So, I'm sorry, but I will generally side towards this: I, we, and the church should actually start with the questions, the hurdles and the specifics and add some wisdom, some contextualization, some practicality to the germs of our 'visions' from the start... So, I'm probably going to keep asking hard questions... especially in a Discussion forum... where I thought the point is - to discuss, ie wrestle with things! Looks like most of us are doing that already with the back and forth on ID's, tokens, databases, etc... Carry on with that!

My point is not that nobody needs or should talk and think about the details. Someone must at some point. But that someone does not need to be me. Does not need to be me to initiate a vision, and still does not need to be me to support the vision. Others more capable than me are sufficient.

Show me a project that was well thought out before a vision was developed. We don’t start building a physical structure and then decide what it is going to be - a skyscraper, a dam, a school. And if there is a need for a school, we don’t have to know everything to get started. I don’t have to know what color of counters or even know the first thing about construction or running a school to support the vision, and help where I can.

The fruit of Roe v Wade being overturned? A little chaotic maybe. But you know what, I’m fine with that. Because life doesn’t always move in nice straight lines; you gotta take what you can, when and where you can.

[ohio jones]

My point is not that nobody needs or should talk and think about the details. Someone must at some point. But that someone does not need to be me. Does not need to be me to initiate a vision, and still does not need to be me to support the vision. Others more capable than me are sufficient.

Show me a project that was well thought out before a vision was developed. We don’t start building a physical structure and then decide what it is going to be - a skyscraper, a dam, a school. And if there is a need for a school, we don’t have to know everything to get started. I don’t have to know what color of counters or even know the first thing about construction or running a school to support the vision, and help where I can.

But there do need to be implementers, people who can translate the vision into concrete reality. They may not be the people who initiate the vision or the people who pour the concrete, but they are just as essential.

[Ken]

Here's how the most popular cigarette brand in America restricts its website. You have to sign up first before you can even get past the front page, let alone request coupons.

I don't see why porn sites can't do what Marlboro does. Buying Marlboro cigarettes in a store requires showing ID. Using their website requires entering identifying info. The end.

They are asking you to submit a scan of your driver's license. Which doesn't actually do anything to verify the age or identity of the person sitting behind the screen. It just means you are giving them personal identifying information that can then be used for identity theft purposes.

For example, any 15 year old who wants to get tobacco coupons or get on pornhub just needs to steal a peek at a parent's driver's license and take a quick cell phone picture of it and they are off and running. The company at the other end can verify that the ID is valid. But they can't verify that the person behind the screen is the same person as is on the ID.

That is why online tobacco sales were banned in Washington. There was no good way to ensure that the person making the order was who they say they were.

I frankly don't care if you want to require that people upload scans of their driver's licenses to pornhub. It won't accomplish much, but go for it. What I object to is requiring the same of every single social media site, including, for example, Mennonet. And trying to erase the ability of children under 18 or 21 from having an online presence. I think that would be an unworkable disaster.

[RZehr]

My point is not that nobody needs or should talk and think about the details. Someone must at some point. But that someone does not need to be me. Does not need to be me to initiate a vision, and still does not need to be me to support the vision. Others more capable than me are sufficient.

Show me a project that was well thought out before a vision was developed. We don’t start building a physical structure and then decide what it is going to be - a skyscraper, a dam, a school. And if there is a need for a school, we don’t have to know everything to get started. I don’t have to know what color of counters or even know the first thing about construction or running a school to support the vision, and help where I can.

But there do need to be implementers, people who can translate the vision into concrete reality. They may not be the people who initiate the vision or the people who pour the concrete, but they are just as essential.

Of course.