Agree with the other commenters - it's not sad to admit to designing your environment in a way that is conducive to good habits. I use something similar to the timer container method as well. Our brains are plastic, and there will only be more evidence showing how phones have significantly altered them.
Not sure if you were saying this ironically, but I firmly believe limiting the consumption of porn would be a net positive. The negative effects are at best overlooked, but normally twisted, and the average age of first experience with porn keeps dropping.
The constant struggle to control what other people can consume. Outside of things like CSAM (which I have zero desire to view) I don’t need a nanny telling me what I can view
Also, anyone who feels entitled to impose on others for a cause this mild clearly has an underdeveloped respect for personal liberty and isn't going to stop there.
Let's lift it out of insinuation territory, then: I think you have an underdeveloped sense of respect for personal liberty and I think that if you won a victory on this front it would embolden you to continue chipping away at other liberties to further your circle of control. People love crusading against vices because the feeling of moral authority is heady and addictive. One hit is never enough.
The concept of liberty is how we rein in this dark tendency.
I don't disagree. I won't pretend to know how I would act if limiting porn consumption was actually implemented. But ignoring the thousands of people who self-report an ironically similar addictive experience you just described, but for porn, is dismissive and self-centered.
Yes because limiting a vice based on what a few people “firmly believe” has always worked so smoothly and successfully in the past and has never caused any major societal issues. Worked so well in America for alcohol and drugs, why not give it a shot with porn too?
I am pretty sure the law does not deter any 9 years olds from drinking alcohol. I would even say that it is not because of the law that people do not give alcohol to their 9 years old kid. If it truly is because of the law, you have bigger issues I believe.
His analogy is perfectly consistent. There are laws prohibiting minors from purchasing alchoholic drinks. In the same way, porn can be restricted from minors. He is just saying that there needs to be strict enforcement of a law against porn to protect minors.
I guess your argument is that there is no need for a law against alchoholic drinks since there is common sense to not give alchohol to minors and for minors to not drink alchohol.
But the existence of laws regulating alchoholic drinks purchase suggests that common sense is not enough and laws need to be created for it.
I'm actually agreeing with you at this, but how should this regulation look?
Also, I believe there are a number of non-porn sexual education resources, which should stay available.
However, note that the current crackdown on porn isn't about underage consumers, it's about consumption in general. Apple isn't asking for age verification, they are banning adult content completely.
OP said Apple's stance is reasonable and Apple is pretty close to saying "ban all porn".
It still seems wild to me that, after discovering most of the judges who voted for Qatar to host the World Cup were bribed, everything proceeded as planned. Sepp Blatter was objectively corrupt, and Infantino is no better.
I often come back to this quote by Vivek Murthy, former and current Surgeon General of the United States: "During my years caring for patients, the most common pathology I saw was not heart disease or diabetes; it was loneliness."[0] Always strikes me that the issue was so noticeable even four years ago.
>people in ... Taiwan overwhelmingly consider themselves to be ... part of China
For those not familiar with the situation, Taiwan is the "Republic of China" as opposed to the "People's Republic of China". "China" in English is ambiguous as it could mean 中國, 中華民國, or 中華人民共和國 (usually meaning the last one nowadays). Both the ROC (中華民國) and PRC (中華人民共和國) claim to represent "China" (中國) according to their constitutions, but the PRC is the representative of "China" (中國) at the United Nations since 1971.
That wasn't the first Chinese invasion of Vietnam, though. The first time they stayed for a thousand years. (At least, that's how the Vietnamese tell it.)
Retreated immediately because they lost. It was even referred to as an embarrassment internally, and directly led to modernization of the PRC military.
Deng intended limited attack. And the incursion was limited.
>It was even referred to as an embarrassment internally
The theory was Deng, new in power intentionally wanted to embarrass powerful PLA brass to consolidate power. He was successful in that regard. It embarrassed the right people, by design.
>and directly led to modernization of the PRC military.
PLA modernization was in response to US stomping Iraq in Gulf War later. Anemic PLA was sufficient for Vietnam if they chose to press on with campaign. Poverty navy was enough for SCS against Vietnam (the other Sino-Vietnam war). Vietnam had very little influence on PLA modernization.
>because they lost
Categorical success in retrospect. PRC set back Vietnam development by 10+ years, forced CPV to dump resources into defense spending while wrecking enough of the country that Vietnam missed out on FDI that went straight to modernizing PRC. Current boom in Vietnam could have happened decade+ earlier during a period with greater potential to capitalize on offshoring before automation.
Common thread in these events is that PRC focused on / won political victories, i.e. war is merely the continuation of politics with other means. That said politics as alternative to war still realistically involves bullying.
> The Cryptographic Attestation of Personhood relies on Web Authentication (WebAuthn) Attestation. This is an API that has been standardized at the W3C and is already implemented in most modern web browsers and operating systems.
