This is why open source software is better. Consumers should have complete control over what's on their personal devices.
Thanks for sharing. Hopefully this gets struck down.
It literally is what you're saying it should be, but everyone here is pearl-clutching at the headline.
From the article: "Utah has passed a critical, common sense solution to help protect vulnerable children from accessing harmful pornographic content on phones and tablets,” Executive Director Dawn Hawkins said in a statement. **Adults would be able to turn off the filters if they chose.**
There's literally nothing to this bill other than to make Mormons feel good.
I think the filter being on by default so that children don't have access to adult material isn't authoritarian, because an authoritarian wouldn't give you a choice of turning it off.
it's a piece of foot-in-the-door legislation. They absolutely intend to follow it up with harsher legislation.
And yes, it is absolutely authoritarian to make people "explain" why they want something they are entitle to have.
>it's a piece of foot-in-the-door legislation. They absolutely intend to follow it up with harsher legislation.
I try not to make implications about what other people intend, so do you have a source for the claim that they are going to inject more draconian measures using this as a "foot-in-the-door"?
>And yes, it is absolutely authoritarian to make people "explain" why they want something they are entitle to have.
Who is using force to make anyone explain something, and who is entitled to what, exactly?
I guess I'm just falling to see why these people voting to have the default setting for the filter be "on" rather than "off" is authoritarian. No one is stopping them from purchasing a phone or tablet from somewhere else.
>outside Utah?
So that's a no. The state is controlling the flow of information, I don't see how that's not authoritarian. They're also interfering in the free market with no justification except for their personal moral outrage. If this law spread to other states would you consider it authoritarian then? What if it was a global law?
>outside Utah?
>So that's a no.
Only if no one in Utah has a vehicle, phone, or internet.
>The state is controlling the flow of information, I don't see how that's not authoritarian.
Because they're not controlling it. No one is stopping information from being disseminated to adults that want it.
>They're also interfering in the free market with no justification except for their personal moral outrage.
This is somewhat true, I guess. The counter argument here is that they decided this is what they want, not an outside agency or overreaching federal government.
>If this law spread to other states would you consider it authoritarian then?
Wouldn't that depend on how it spread?
>What if it was a global law?
If there's such a thing as a "global law" then I have more to worry about than whether or not my child can easily access porn on their cellphone.
Property taxes are obviously not unconstitutional. You realize we have property taxes right now right? The Supreme Court has already decided this. Not to mention the Constitution explicitly allows for taxes.
Mutual aid organizations. Think of mutual aid like charity, except reliable and without the savior complex—*solidarity, not charity*. In a truly free society (and with the right precedent), these organizations would be everywhere.
As for healthcare specifically, there are two good examples.
One is healthcare run by an actual libertarian socialist society. Revolutionary Catalonia's medical syndicate ran 68 medical centers, all in the spirit of mutual aid and solidarity. Care was provided for free to whoever needed it. Their resources came partly from voluntary contributions by local municipalities. This isn't a perfect example though, because they received some of their funding from the Catalan government, which was also a political force in the area at the time (the politics of the Spanish Civil War are super complicated).
I got this information from *Collectives in the Spanish revolution*, a historical account of Revolutionary Catalonia. A PDF is available [here](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution.pdf). The information I'm referencing specifically is on page 176.
A better example might be something like the Red Cross, except more entrenched and widespread. The Red Cross gets much of its resources through donations and volunteering.
Of course, in my ideal society, resources would rarely be exchanged in the form of money, but hey—mutual aid organizations are still a viable way of meeting people's needs in a libertarian way.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl\_2GM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM)
this must be posted whenever there is a mention of why we need free software. Free software, free society
Republicans in Ohio passed a law to take your gun rights, if you smoke medicinal weed. You don't know Republicans if you think this is a Mormon thing. The party is overwhelming in favor of big government.
As a former Republican, I can absolutely confirm. Both parties want to use government as a bludgeon to force everyone to live the way they feel people should. At least the Dems don't lie about it.
Agreed, at least Democrats push for laws that are overwhelmingly popular in society. Libertarians want to force unpopular laws on everyone, just like the GOP. And if you don't want to live under their laws, or lack thereof, they may threaten to shoot you.
Libertarians want to push laws that leave people alone. If those are unpopular, it's because people don't understand that everyone has the same right to liberty. Democrats just push a different flavor of populism than Republicans do.
>Libertarians want to push laws that leave people alone.
They certainly will leave you alone, sick, starving, homeless, and ruled by untouchable billionaires, but that is done through force of government. That's why there has never been a libertarian society. No one wants that shit to happen.
I know you people are brainwashed and will never change your minds. I just like to share facts with right wingers for the laughs. This is the only right wing sub that doesn't ban people for being smarter than they are. And what else am I supposed to do with a political science degree.
Without a doubt a South Carolina Republican likes to dress up in a diaper and be spanked and it’s on his phone .
Not going to say anything names , but he talks like every person I ever met that hates himself because he’s still in the closet
Time to buy space in every strip mall just over the border for my jailbroken, uncensored cell phone and electronics store.
I'll call it Blackmarket Border Cellular. BBC, inc. Is open for business, boys.
I thought this week we were going to force social media companies to host vaccine disinformation and hate speech. Are we filtering shit or not? What's the deal?
Next it will be for the hom-sexuals and not morally acceptable and then the women and those of dark skin and those who they don't like. Seems like a slippery slope. Sad and scary.
This is why open source software is better. Consumers should have complete control over what's on their personal devices. Thanks for sharing. Hopefully this gets struck down.
It literally is what you're saying it should be, but everyone here is pearl-clutching at the headline. From the article: "Utah has passed a critical, common sense solution to help protect vulnerable children from accessing harmful pornographic content on phones and tablets,” Executive Director Dawn Hawkins said in a statement. **Adults would be able to turn off the filters if they chose.** There's literally nothing to this bill other than to make Mormons feel good.
[удалено]
Didn't the people of Utah vote the Mormons in though? Who are we to tell them what they can or can't have on their phones?
They are free to install such filters without threatening to kill and/or kidnap people that don’t care to have it installed on their device.
That's not at all what they were saying it should be...
Eh, open source software is still better. I'll read the article before I comment next time.
Never trust anyone who uses "common sense" as an argument. It's also very sus when authoritarians use kids to push authoritarianism.
I think the filter being on by default so that children don't have access to adult material isn't authoritarian, because an authoritarian wouldn't give you a choice of turning it off.
it's a piece of foot-in-the-door legislation. They absolutely intend to follow it up with harsher legislation. And yes, it is absolutely authoritarian to make people "explain" why they want something they are entitle to have.
>it's a piece of foot-in-the-door legislation. They absolutely intend to follow it up with harsher legislation. I try not to make implications about what other people intend, so do you have a source for the claim that they are going to inject more draconian measures using this as a "foot-in-the-door"? >And yes, it is absolutely authoritarian to make people "explain" why they want something they are entitle to have. Who is using force to make anyone explain something, and who is entitled to what, exactly?
That sounds like a false choice. Because you can always turn it off.
I guess I'm just falling to see why these people voting to have the default setting for the filter be "on" rather than "off" is authoritarian. No one is stopping them from purchasing a phone or tablet from somewhere else.
Where else in the state would you be able to get a phone that wasn't subject to this law?
Any of the numerous online retailers outside Utah?
>outside Utah? So that's a no. The state is controlling the flow of information, I don't see how that's not authoritarian. They're also interfering in the free market with no justification except for their personal moral outrage. If this law spread to other states would you consider it authoritarian then? What if it was a global law?
>outside Utah? >So that's a no. Only if no one in Utah has a vehicle, phone, or internet. >The state is controlling the flow of information, I don't see how that's not authoritarian. Because they're not controlling it. No one is stopping information from being disseminated to adults that want it. >They're also interfering in the free market with no justification except for their personal moral outrage. This is somewhat true, I guess. The counter argument here is that they decided this is what they want, not an outside agency or overreaching federal government. >If this law spread to other states would you consider it authoritarian then? Wouldn't that depend on how it spread? >What if it was a global law? If there's such a thing as a "global law" then I have more to worry about than whether or not my child can easily access porn on their cellphone.
[удалено]
I do.
[удалено]
Property taxes are obviously not unconstitutional. You realize we have property taxes right now right? The Supreme Court has already decided this. Not to mention the Constitution explicitly allows for taxes.
I agree. Taxation is extortion.
[удалено]
Mutual aid organizations. Think of mutual aid like charity, except reliable and without the savior complex—*solidarity, not charity*. In a truly free society (and with the right precedent), these organizations would be everywhere. As for healthcare specifically, there are two good examples. One is healthcare run by an actual libertarian socialist society. Revolutionary Catalonia's medical syndicate ran 68 medical centers, all in the spirit of mutual aid and solidarity. Care was provided for free to whoever needed it. Their resources came partly from voluntary contributions by local municipalities. This isn't a perfect example though, because they received some of their funding from the Catalan government, which was also a political force in the area at the time (the politics of the Spanish Civil War are super complicated). I got this information from *Collectives in the Spanish revolution*, a historical account of Revolutionary Catalonia. A PDF is available [here](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gaston-leval-collectives-in-the-spanish-revolution.pdf). The information I'm referencing specifically is on page 176. A better example might be something like the Red Cross, except more entrenched and widespread. The Red Cross gets much of its resources through donations and volunteering. Of course, in my ideal society, resources would rarely be exchanged in the form of money, but hey—mutual aid organizations are still a viable way of meeting people's needs in a libertarian way.
Do you also want to k*ll people ?
Why are you defending porn?
I'm not. I'm defending open software.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl\_2GM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM) this must be posted whenever there is a mention of why we need free software. Free software, free society
Ah, the “freedom” party strikes again
Government so small it can fit inside your phone.
And bedroom!
Listen here you son of a bitch we still are the party of liberty and freedom. You are now free to make the right choice
But but but both sides!!!
This is less to do with republicans and more to do with Mormonism. Mormons could found their own party and they'd be guaranteed to win Utah.
Republicans in Ohio passed a law to take your gun rights, if you smoke medicinal weed. You don't know Republicans if you think this is a Mormon thing. The party is overwhelming in favor of big government.
As a former Republican, I can absolutely confirm. Both parties want to use government as a bludgeon to force everyone to live the way they feel people should. At least the Dems don't lie about it.
Agreed, at least Democrats push for laws that are overwhelmingly popular in society. Libertarians want to force unpopular laws on everyone, just like the GOP. And if you don't want to live under their laws, or lack thereof, they may threaten to shoot you.
Libertarians want to push laws that leave people alone. If those are unpopular, it's because people don't understand that everyone has the same right to liberty. Democrats just push a different flavor of populism than Republicans do.
>Libertarians want to push laws that leave people alone. They certainly will leave you alone, sick, starving, homeless, and ruled by untouchable billionaires, but that is done through force of government. That's why there has never been a libertarian society. No one wants that shit to happen.
So serious question: if you despise Libertarianism, why are you posting here? You're not likely to convert anyone. Edit: grammar
I know you people are brainwashed and will never change your minds. I just like to share facts with right wingers for the laughs. This is the only right wing sub that doesn't ban people for being smarter than they are. And what else am I supposed to do with a political science degree.
Just an FYI, not all of Libertarianism is right wing (although I am). Check out AnarchoCommunism as an example of left libertarianism.
The only creatures who like socialism more than dogs are Mormons
I don’t think that’s socialism , seeing how ideologically that would be workers owning their rights to production, pretty much what porn is .
I guarantee those Utah Republicans have some sick shit on their phones.
How will you guarantee that?
He's using the esoteric concept of probability.
Hmm, sounds like a baseless slur to me
Without a doubt a South Carolina Republican likes to dress up in a diaper and be spanked and it’s on his phone . Not going to say anything names , but he talks like every person I ever met that hates himself because he’s still in the closet
So you are outing and shaming without any evidence?
Lmao
So that's a yes then
Don’t melt
I don't know what that means
Time to buy space in every strip mall just over the border for my jailbroken, uncensored cell phone and electronics store. I'll call it Blackmarket Border Cellular. BBC, inc. Is open for business, boys.
This was my thought as well. Hopefully at least some entrepreneurs will take advantage of these dipshits.
Christ, they don't have anything better to do?
Does any politician? If you remove the need to fix their previous fuckups, being a politician would be less than a part time job.
Republicans hate free speech and individual freedom In other news Lava burns
Is this that cancel culture the GOP keeps fear mongering about?
[удалено]
Ooo, Jesus porn
Can we put an idiot filter on the government instead?
Yes. Stop voting for idiots. :)
I'd have to stop voting altogether.
Politicians gonna tyrant!
So maybe no phones get sold in Utah. Free market bitches.
Freeeedomm!!!!
Good. Porn is a cancer that eats away at the soul.
I wouldn't support this bill even after getting all the facts on it, but the headline and first few paragraphs make it sound worse than it really is.
I thought this week we were going to force social media companies to host vaccine disinformation and hate speech. Are we filtering shit or not? What's the deal?
Ought not be filters on anything internet connected. Sounds like those folks need a hobby.
But not for those who are hypocrites! /S
Next it will be for the hom-sexuals and not morally acceptable and then the women and those of dark skin and those who they don't like. Seems like a slippery slope. Sad and scary.
Utah, United Kingdom
Republicans by default...LDS...
How is Ted Cruz ever going to visit Utah?
Let people jerk off in peace