In the stats, Windows is UP by 4-5%. Linux is up by 1%. OSX is down by around 6. So per the data this is not a shift from Windows...it's a shift from OSX to others and Microsoft is benefitting most (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective).

It's a pretty extreme and unusual position to say that you can't use expert testimony regarding their experience in the field and formulate a policy based in part on that testimony. As before--makes absolutely no sense.

I didn't expect citations, because a)that wasn't my intent and b)the work that's out there is pretty consistent. It's just interesting that there is no evidence cited in opposition, whereas scientific evidence is held as the gold standard across these comments.

It's time consuming but not particularly hard to study this. Porn is so widely accessible to young people that it's a matter of finding those who were exposed, those who weren't, and seeing what the effects are. This has been done by both partisan and independent orgs, and it's really easy to find if you have the courage to look. My district has a large number of professionals in the field who know these things as well. There are also the experiences of the people I represent (parents of kids and the now adults who had issues with this while growing up), and I need to represent those people as is the function of representative democracy. If this weren't an issue I wouldn't waste time on it.

You've drawn a lot of pretty extreme baseless conclusions yourself, here. Manipulated shamelessly, etc. Attack on integrity, etc. There's always a certain percentage of emails/feedback that have this kind of stuff. It's not a great way to change a policymaker's mind although I completely get the cynicism and cathartic effect.

Of course I do. Studies and research are an important part of that. Input from constituents and people with experience is another part. I spend a large amount of time on all that. It could be that when the bill finally makes it's way through the process I can no longer support it due to changes.

As I've mentioned, the point of this isn't to convince you or anyone here that I'm right. I'm explaining that this will probably be proposed here and this is why I'd consider supporting it. You may not agree with me. Disagreeing is just fine. I thought it might be interesting to hear from someone who will likely face a vote on the matter in a legislative body and who will participate directly in the legislative process.

But what's turned out to be interesting is that with multiple people asking for evidence for my position, nobody is bringing up evidence to that would refute it.

This makes absolutely no sense. To say that you need scientific evidence that extreme porn hurts kids, then make an assertion like this about professionals with direct experience is just bizarre. Where do you think citable evidence comes from?

You're free to think that, of course. My point isn't to convince you. My point was to say "this is why" I would consider supporting something like this even if I'm not really ecstatic about the approach. I've seen enough evidence that there are very high amounts exposure to this content at a young age and it is damaging to kids and causes all sorts of problems for the public.

As above, if you have a study or evidence that kids who are exposed to very explicit porn turn out just fine as a whole, then maybe you'll change my mind. But maybe that's not your goal either. That's fine too.

Again, I don't need to. Generally the studies point to 10% of kids before 9-10. It goes to roughly 50% by 13. And ~70% by 17 years old. There's really no burden of proof. My point was to say "we're going to be evaluating a similar law here, and here's why." If you don't agree with the reasons then that's fine. People don't have to agree on everything.

Not really. I've seen the studies and talked with enough professionals and parents to know what's happening and proceed with a decision on what I will support. If you'd like to change my mind with your own citation, fire away.

I have 30+ years in hands-on technology experience so this isn't just wishful thinking. There are lots of technical directions in which to to go. In the early days of the internet some of these were being implemented (SSO adult passes etc). These are solvable problems that are already being solved in other industries. Ironically, VPN companies are already solving some of the same issues (logging and anonymity, for example). The key is to make the law open ended enough that these solutions can be thoughtfully, considered and implemented. I don't think you want to have a serious discussion about that though given what you've written.

This is not a straw man--which would be a fake, weak argument that's an easy target. Very young access to porn is actually happening. It's not just "seeing a titty" (which is an actual straw man), young kids are being exposed to the most extreme porn out there. We talk to people who work directly with kids and see first hand the impact it's having on their development. You may be able to brush off these legitimate concerns with name-calling but we're tasked with finding real solutions to problems if possible.

Yes, I understand. But I think the negative impact of porn on very young kids is really becoming apparent now. There have been proposals (mandatory filtering, etc) that have been around for years. I voted no on those proposals. However, I think these other approaches are workable because they are expressly not technical, and give the industry plenty of room to come up with a viable solution.

Yes, I'm very familiar with VPNs. It's much easier for parents to block VPNs than a wide open internet. These bills are not a perfect solution by any means, but considering what we're seeing with kids and porn they are a way to promote innovation in limiting--if not eliminating--underage access. There is plenty of legislative bandwidth to work on the other things you mentioned as well. These are all important topics.

Do you think it's ok that an 8 year old has wide open access to these sites? If not what do you propose?

Sorry for the flubbed grammar. Typing too fast and didn't proofread. :/

We will likely be introducing something like this here. I'm not a huge fan of it, but it's probably the only way get companies to work on a solution to stop (read: make it more difficult) for kids 8,9,10 etc from getting unfettered access to these adult materials. There's no motivation otherwise.

The iphone interface has become pretty hodgepodge and unintuitive. Once they start burying the mute functionality in menus and swipes, you can pretty much guarantee there will be more inadvertent embarrassing situations. It may even get to the point where people just give up and let it do whatever it's going to do. I can see this happening with older users in particular. "Whatever. I'd rather just let it ring that fiddle with it for 30 seconds."

A couple months ago I was experimenting with this and tried to have it secure PHP form input. When I started telling it what to do to secure the code, it started to fix it...then bailed saying it couldn't do that kind of coding. It was interpreting my attempts to secure things as an attempt to exploit things. So it knows how to write secure code. The problem is that this will take it in directions that we don't seem to want it to go. Ironically, you can't write secure code if you're trying to protect the world from exploits. Secure code will often illustrate the way to exploit insecure code. It really highlights the issues we're going to have with AI and our legacy understanding of how computers work. The "garbage in" with AI is not the vast volume of insecure example input out there. It will be our ham-fisted attempts to control the output.

Employment is a market, and eventually things will shake out. Personally, I think the opportunities for advancement in in-person environments will ultimately make it more beneficial. (Back in the day we used to notice that smokers were more likely to be promoted since the head of the dept smoked).

The market will speak in other ways too...right now it is a royal pain to try and get things done with companies that are remote. If they're clients, that's one thing. But I will gladly pay more to a company where everyone isn't working from home when I am the client.

Some companies get remote work right, but it doesn't come naturally and it takes constant effort. Many companies fail at this and I can't afford to inherit their failure.