[cmilton]

While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.

[afavour]

The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.

[lelanthran]

You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.

[bobbruno]

> society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography

Once a significant part of said society can't (or won't) differentiate sexual education and intimacy from pornography, I don't think your statement holds true anymore.

[rocqua]

Those bans are leaky, and physical. They aren't censorship, and (almost?) Exclusively ban services or sale of goods to underage people. They are also costly to implement, and require a lot of state effort to enforce.

These digital checks, if done "right". Are cheap to implement, and hard to get around. They don't easily let adults allow a kid to do it anyway. And a government can trivially check if a whole swath of businesses is implementating it.

That last point makes it very easy for governments to use this for widespread ideological interventions. With very little option for others to push back, because few people are involved in enforcement.

[eqvinox]

> we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. […] a society decide […]

Which society though? It used to be that political decisionmaking understood and accepted the existence of people not like the voting majority, and work to a common consensus… that's rather eroded now, and not just in the USA.

> Obviously, there should be limits.

Obviously? The only thing I'd accept as "obvious" in terms of speech limits is that which is actively violating people, e.g. CSAM, revenge porn and doxxing.

Raunchy stories? Porn with consenting participants? Fictional horror & gore? Those are not "obvious" limits…

…and then consider nude selfies exchanged consensually between 15yo teens. Is that CSAM?

[sophrosyne42]

A society doesn't decide and can't decide, society is an abstraction. People have different morals, and they decide. The only thing that "putting it in the hands of society" is to put it in the hands of a small group of people who will force others to comply.

[tayo42]

What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.

[cls59]

Many businesses in the US check ID at the door. If you are underage, they don't let you in.

On the surface it seems reasonable to ask for an equivalent ID check online.

But. The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it in a poorly secured back room that is regularly raided by criminal enterprises or outright sold by unscrupulous owners of the establishment. Similarly, they don't check in with the government in a manner that leaves a record.

I'm fine with an ID check, but I think it is also reasonable to demand the same level of privacy that one gets when visiting a bar, casino, burlesque club, or similar establishment.

[627467]

I take you never been to alcohol/tobacco websites

[DangitBobby]

R rated movies for one.