To be fair… IMO I think that idea is mislabeled and misunderstood.
Now the idea of opposing porn is just plain stupid. I’d expect any teenager to get their hands on porn and going against that is nonsense. But I’d say the labeling saying that it’s watching porn with your son, is very misleading.
The point of it is, it’s just a porn blocker with a detection switch, it’s not so you and your son can brag to each-other over what porn you are into. It’s made basically a switch to rat you out if you tried to bypass it.
IE that would be like if an alcoholic had a device that sends his wife an alert any time he tries to get an alcoholic drink. It’s made to discourage you from trying because you’d be caught.
Again I fully disagree with that software because, I don’t see porn itself as inherently harmful, but if you accept the idea that porn is harmful, I see it as a reasonable method to try and discourage yourself from accessing it.
It’s funny that you are saying all of this considering we are both discussing facts about the current leader of the house of representatives in the USA
I still have to say what it is, is meant to be a very strong deterant rather than sharing. Now again I do think it’s stupid and bullshit to consider porn use a problem unless it’s actually causing an impact in life. The point is in theory he’d be mortified if his son were to catch him looking at porn, therefore he won’t look at porn because he knows his son would find out. The idea of it is to show his son he’s not looking at porn, and to keep his son from looking at porn. The software blocks most porn, and sends out a notification to the other person when it has to block something, and then gives a list of everything that he did visit, which would make it apparent if say he were to happen to find something that slipped through.
The point is still that it isn’t sharing porn with his son… because the intention, and most likely the results are, none of the reports will have porn because it’s a deterant. Realistically if Mike Johnson is going to look at porn, He’s going to use it on a device that he didn’t install the software on that his son doesn’t know he has. The power portion of it is kind of irrelevant, yes it’s true his son can’t ground him… but his son would call him a hypocrite.
Again the bigger key is, these morons think looking at porn is a serious problem to worry about, and they are willing to go through and waste so much time and effort, in ways that’s likely to constantly interupt regular internet use. The idea that it would be used in a “ooh I see you were watching X, that’s my favorite fetish too!”, I find misrepresentative of how these things actually work.
Kind of like the old joke. Never invite a baptist to your party, he will drink all of your beer. Instead invite 2 baptists to your party, and they won’t touch a drop.
To be fair… IMO I think that idea is mislabeled and misunderstood.
Now the idea of opposing porn is just plain stupid. I’d expect any teenager to get their hands on porn and going against that is nonsense. But I’d say the labeling saying that it’s watching porn with your son, is very misleading.
The point of it is, it’s just a porn blocker with a detection switch, it’s not so you and your son can brag to each-other over what porn you are into. It’s made basically a switch to rat you out if you tried to bypass it.
IE that would be like if an alcoholic had a device that sends his wife an alert any time he tries to get an alcoholic drink. It’s made to discourage you from trying because you’d be caught.
Again I fully disagree with that software because, I don’t see porn itself as inherently harmful, but if you accept the idea that porn is harmful, I see it as a reasonable method to try and discourage yourself from accessing it.
It’s funny that you are saying all of this considering we are both discussing facts about the current leader of the house of representatives in the USA
The ‘don’t go fishing with just one mormon/evangelical/etc.’ argument.
The accountability partner being his son (over whom he has some power) kinda nullifies the concept.
I still have to say what it is, is meant to be a very strong deterant rather than sharing. Now again I do think it’s stupid and bullshit to consider porn use a problem unless it’s actually causing an impact in life. The point is in theory he’d be mortified if his son were to catch him looking at porn, therefore he won’t look at porn because he knows his son would find out. The idea of it is to show his son he’s not looking at porn, and to keep his son from looking at porn. The software blocks most porn, and sends out a notification to the other person when it has to block something, and then gives a list of everything that he did visit, which would make it apparent if say he were to happen to find something that slipped through.
The point is still that it isn’t sharing porn with his son… because the intention, and most likely the results are, none of the reports will have porn because it’s a deterant. Realistically if Mike Johnson is going to look at porn, He’s going to use it on a device that he didn’t install the software on that his son doesn’t know he has. The power portion of it is kind of irrelevant, yes it’s true his son can’t ground him… but his son would call him a hypocrite.
Again the bigger key is, these morons think looking at porn is a serious problem to worry about, and they are willing to go through and waste so much time and effort, in ways that’s likely to constantly interupt regular internet use. The idea that it would be used in a “ooh I see you were watching X, that’s my favorite fetish too!”, I find misrepresentative of how these things actually work.
Kind of like the old joke. Never invite a baptist to your party, he will drink all of your beer. Instead invite 2 baptists to your party, and they won’t touch a drop.