this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
243 points (98.4% liked)
Showerthoughts
41272 readers
1269 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The law does nothing but push adults and underage users to unregulated platforms. They (the general public and the politicians) don't understand the internet. You don't understand the internet if you think this accomplishes anything. The only way for children to be safe on the internet is by educating their parents.
This is binary thinking and is false. The law does do something by putting up an obstacle to seeing porn. Hundreds of thousands of children are seeing porn by accident, way before they are ready, not because they're horny little teenagers. Yes, those who are highly motivated will find it, but you should not be this absolute.
The cost of this law in privacy violation is not worth the benefit it brings to children. But it still does bring a benefit, and you're unlikely to convince anyone if you can't see where they're coming from on that.
If you think it's a benefit, pushing everyone to use less moderated platforms then sure. You clearly don't understand the internet. If you click a link and are exprected to show a video with your ID and face visible, what do you do? I say it is extremely dangerous and criminal for a government to demand this from their citizens. So many people will have their identity stolen, I guarantee it, it's already happening and will get much worse. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/25-percent-of-kids-will-face-identity-theft-before-turning-18-age-verification-laws-will-make-this-worse/
This isn't really about the internet; it's about human psychology. If you make something more difficult, fewer people will do it. Especially people who are doing it by accident. Kids aren't going out and accidentally downloading a VPN client.
I made it clear that I don't think it's a benefit overall
Ever applied for a bank account online? I am certainly used to handing over identifiable information. I do it carefully.
Yes, this is the Chilling effect, and it's not a good thing. You don't need a VPN to watch porn online without ID verification, not even in the UK. I'm sure the great UK firewall will come eventually tho.
Yes, I went to my local post office and showed them my ID, I'd never send my ID and face over video. This applies only to banks, what if a porn site asks you (and you want to visit it)? If you don't want to do it, your freedom is taken away from you.
Chilling effect has a different connotation. This is a directly desired effect.
Do you disagree that it's harmful for young children to see pornography and the distorted view it presents of sex and especially of women? If it were just a question of chilling adults who want to look at porn, rather than of privacy violation, it'd be an acceptable price to pay. For example, if they used zero-knowledge proofs, that'd be completely fine.
I, as an adult who wants to visit a site, circumvent such a requirement. As a child who does not, I obviously would not.