Mandatory age verification adds barriers to adult users and does not effectively prevent children from access, which is the reason that the Third Circuit, in a decision that the Supreme Court declined to hear a government appeal, struck it down as a First Amendment violation the last time the federal government tried it, after the Supreme Court had done so the prior time, and nothing substantial has changed about those facts, and the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth, so there is no reason for a different result when Texas tries to do it now.
This rule affects 100% of the visitors to the site from that state, not just minors. Many adults will not want to give their ID and personal information to a site that could get hacked and then be blackmailed. If you want an internet where you need to show your ID at every door you enter, then we want drastically different things.
I find it completely implausible that the current court will find this to be an undue burden. Sure, if they banned porn, you could probably cobble together a coalition to save it. But the court that doesn’t care about SESTA/FOSTA will not plausibly care about an ID requirement.
It is illegal to create or possess a fake ID in my state, which can result in 6 months in prison, a fine, and suspension of your driver's license.
Its also safe to assume such ID would be directly associated with my account, which of course would also require an email address. This effectively kills anonymous viewing of adult content on the internet, while also letting companies build and sell profiles about you.
We give up so much to solve what? A problem that hasn't been quantified in either scope or harm?
I guess that wouldn't be illegal. Nice catch. But I don't know if Pornhub would accept a Hungarian ID when they are doing a Texas filter block. It would just be easier to VPN at that point. I don't think citizens should have to be crafty to live their lives (especially in their own home). Also consider minors are capable of doing these very same workarounds, so once again we get security theater at the cost of great personal privacy.
It’s interesting how people grow up and pretend they did not watch some sort of pornography in their teens. Most of people in their current 20s/30s, especially the ones with unrestricted internet access has been through it. There’s probably some sort of addiction problem, but I don’t think this will anyhow fix it.
I think the Youtube comparison is a good one up to a point. It's a niche product. Everyone wants to be part of it, competing for a very very limited resource which is our attention. While with technologies like GPT or whatever comes next we empower anyone to excel in any area and create whatever (for now non-material things).
Most of our ancestors actually had less stressful jobs and worked less than we do today. The average agricultural worker 100 years ago was not even doing a part-time in terms of time spent doing actual work. More like 2h/day on average.
is not accounting differences at all:
- Europeans (and I am one) live in tiny housing even compared to people in NYC.
- we have less cars (you can claim it's due to public transport but if public transport is not available most people would not afford cars regardless.
- overall less leisure expenditures and less disposable income.
That 10k doctor is a myth and certainly not something the 100k developer will have to pay. That's covered by his company. Healthcare is an issue in US when you're at the bottom of the food chain.
last time I checked countries like Romania (E Europe) had the smallest pay gap in Europe. the issue is usually in countries like Germany, Switzerland or Netherlands.
It's also important to consider what people mean exactly when they talk about the "pay gap".
Here in Germany, the SPD (social democrats) candidate for chancellor in 2018, Schulz, tried to make the gender pay gap into one of the core issues of his campaign with posters saying women "make 21% less while working 100%"[0].
While this wasn't outright wrong, it used what the Statisches Bundesamt (official state office of statistics) called the "unadjusted" gender gap value (which I saw some people refer to as the "earnings gap"), meaning it calculated the average pay per hour for all women and compared that to the average for men (per sector, region, age group), but it specifically did not try to consider professions, different contracts (e.g. full time vs part time), but does include overtime pay (but not bonuses). It comes with a note that this number cannot be used to compare earnings for women and men in the same or equivalent profession[1].
While this of courses raises questions about why women apparently work more in professions that get paid less on average, and what to do about that (like getting more women in higher paying professions, or adjusting the pay in low paying, undervalued professions that are "typical female" such as child- and elder care or retail), Schulz however ran around suggesting that number shows women get paid a lot less for the same job.
There also is an "adjusted" number (which I think people often mean to refer to when they talk about the "pay gap") that tries to consider things like (equivalent) professions as well, making it a lot closer to "same pay for the same job" metric. That value is then given as the "upper bound" as it still cannot consider some factors such as employment/career breaks[2]. That value was about 6% in Germany in 2018. However, only looking at value alone is misleading as well, as it hides that women on average get paid less for their time (which the unadjusted value points out), among other things. Both numbers furthermore do not consider at all any unpaid work a person may perform (such as raising children), and differences between genders when it comes to participation in the paid labor market.
To bring it back to your post specifically, I found this dw infographic[3] showing that in Romania the gap was a mere 1% to Germany's 21% when using the unadjusted value (2014), but both were around 6% when using the adjusted value.
As far as I know the way to calculate the unadjusted and adjusted numbers is mandated by the EU, so these numbers should be calculated the same and comparable. So Germany and Romania seem to be doing about the same in the "same pay for the same job" metric. But I wonder why there is such a large difference in the unadjusted value? Is it because Romania did away with connotations of typically "female" and "male" professions early (maybe even as a result of past communism), are there huge differences in labor participation rates between both countries, is there less difference in what different professions get paid in Romania, etc, or a combination in some form of all of that?
[1] "Aussagen zum Unterschied in den Verdiensten von weiblichen und männlichen Beschäftigten mit gleichem Beruf, vergleichbarer Tätigkeit und äquivalentem Bildungsabschluss sind damit nicht möglich." https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Arbeitsmarkt/Qualit...
[2] "Es muss berücksichtigt werden, dass der ermittelte Wert eine Obergrenze ist. Er wäre geringer ausgefallen, wenn weitere Informationen über lohnrelevante Einflussfaktoren für die Analysen zur Verfügung gestanden hätten, wie vor allem Angaben zu Erwerbsunterbrechungen. " https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Verdienste/FAQ/gend...
Instead of trying to reason badly via analogy I invite you to consider to consider the plain facts of the case. In terms of strategy especially near term the overall health of the American people is what it is. A multitude of factors like aging and many health conditions are immovable rocks beyond our power to affect while others like weight are diet may be individually tractable but in aggregate we cannot expect at a stroke to make massive change whereas we absolutely can vaccinate everyone.
Even the best of choices at this juncture will leave you at some risk even if you are young healthy and hale and far less risk if you choose to vaccinate. Describing it as a weak patch to bad health just belies reality.
For many who make up much of the dead the best route to safety lies in both they and people like you choosing to vaccinate so you don't infect and kill them. I have bad asthma. I cannot just "do some sports" and eat some leafy greens to ameliorate that risk. Worse my wife has an autoimmune disorder that requires her to take immuno suppressive medication. The best data so far suggests that if she were to get infected despite vaccination her chance of mortality would be on the order of 1 in 8 with some cardiovascular or lung damage being likely inevitable because she wont know to stop taking the weekly meds that stomp on her immune system until the virus already has a foothold.
She is hardly alone. There are millions of people like her in addition to 54 million 65+. People who by and large can't afford to live in a bubble. It just impossible for a large portion of the population to isolate. I have little choice but to do an in person job that might expose me to someone who thinks like yourself and have their sniffles scar my lungs that don't work that great to start with or end my wife's life whereas if we could get people like yourself to understand the unmitigatable risk others face we could drastically reduce that risk by taking a risk that in the scheme of things is no riskier than driving to work this morning and just getting a shot.
Haha, not sure about below 30, but below 18 both covid and vaccines have minuscule negative impact. Instead of arguing whether the impact is 1:100,000 or 1:90,000 (AHA, vaccine mandates for children are a moral imperative because after adjusting for adverse effects short term numbers lean oh so slightly in favor of vaccines), perhaps drop the conversation as irrelevant altogether? There are other concerns in life...
