Wow, that sounds intensely creepy.
everything about mike Johnson is intensely creepy
E.g. You'd definitely wouldn't want other people to know you're into fart-stuff.
Know what I like the most?
Cake farts.
Kids today don't understand what it means to be cultured
Yeah, this is even creepier than that Indiana coach who kissed his son open mouthed.
Or that whole Gym Jordan buttsex thing with undergraduates.
That headline is... incredibly inaccurate. They've pledged to each other to avoid porn, and have software that throws an alarm (visible to each other) if they view it.
"Monitor Each Other's Porn Intake" implies that they are seeking out porn and sharing it with each other, which is not what is happening here.
I think there are plenty of legitimate concerns here, but father and son sharing porn links is not one of them.
Also, I imagine young Mr. Johnson has at least 1 Android tablet or other burner device that is unknown to Dad.
I mean when I read "monitoring each other's porn intake" I assumed it meant "monitoring how much porn each other watches". And considering who it was, I assumed that was for the sake of making sure that they didn't watch any porn. I did not at any point think that they were sharing porn links with each other, because that's generally not what monitoring someone's intake means.
I assumed it meant they each keep tabs to make sure the other gets just enough porn each day but not too much.
Daaaaaaaaad you've exceeded your porn allowance for the day and it's not even elevensies yet! 😠
Right, because making your son your porn accountability buddy is an extremely normal and healthy thing to do.
How dare this article make it sound like such a healthy and normal thing is somehow extremely weird and creepy!?!
It's not like he had his wife holding him accountable for not looking at naked bodies online. That would be disgusting. No, like any upstanding citizen he wisely decided that he'd have it alert his son if temptation ever became too much and he looked at porn.
If only he had a parenting guide so that we could all learn to run a household in ways that will definitely not result in all the kids needing therapy down the road.
No, what monitoring in this context means is to be made aware of each other's porn INTAKE, or how much is being consumed and when, which the software is said to do. Nothing is suggesting they seek porn out to share content with each other, just that they are alerted when the other accesses porn.
I'd bet youre right about the alternative devices though.
Nah, I didn't read the headline thinking that they were sharing links with each other. It read to me like he and his son are holding each other accountable for how often they pleasure themselves with porn, and that's incredibly fucking weird and inappropriate. While I think it's generally a positive thing to be open and honest with your children, there is definitely a line. And this totally crosses that.
I feel like the reason they’d have to make a pledge like this in the first place is because one or both of them already got caught watching porn.
The son is 17. If he's not beating his meat regularly, something is wrong with him.
I think there are plenty of legitimate concerns here
Absolutely, Covenant Eyes is malware. Even worse, courts sometimes mandate it, eg in child custody cases. It's commercialised spying from a business that has proven itselt not trustworthy.
Also, everyone is reading this as some kind of creepy weird sharing kinks thing. Guaranteed this is just overbearing parenting 101. Anyone raised in or around extreme Christian groups reads this for what it is: child monitoring software and forcing your values on your kid.
I am sure your 17 year old signed up, wholly voluntarily, to not look at porn. I'm sure this wasn't pitched as, "I'll even do it too, and set it up so you get alerts for me!" Right as they took away a near adult's ability to explore his sexuality.
“It sends a report to your accountability partner. My accountability partner right now is Jack, my son. He’s 17.
So he's sharing what kind of porn he looks at with a minor.
I'm sure the republicans will be very upset about that. Right?...
I have a gut feeling that something really nasty is going to come out about this guy. I mean worse than we all think he already is.
I have the same gut feeling. People that behave so righteous usually are hiding something.
Every politician that does shit like this gets caught taking it up the ass eventually. And, like, you go girl, but did you really need to be such a dick about everything along the way?
While having weekly reports sent to your son on your internet viewing and getting the same on your son is creepy as hell I think the article raises a better concern of : who else at this company can see this info and is this on his phone used for government work?
The fuck
Guarantee you this isn't optional for his son.
This sounds like he and his son have a porn addiction and they work together to act as a deterrent. But I'm sure they just get around the "parental controls" they installed on each other's devices.
No they just jerk off together and mom brings them milk after
What the shit?!?
The Republican Party picked someone without any previous national coverage to get someone who was acceptable.
Not we are seeing who was "vetted".
I don't know what's worse. The fact that he has a buddy system to monitor porn intake or that its his son that looks at his porn history. Guys like this only get weirder as you get to hear more of their story.
“It sends a report to your accountability partner. My accountability partner right now is Jack, my son. He’s 17. So he and I get a report about all the things that are on our phones, all of our devices, once a week. If anything objectionable comes up, your accountability partner gets an immediate notice. I’m proud to tell ya, my son has got a clean slate.”
Am I just cynical that this sounds more like intentionally training your son to avoid a paper trail from "official" devices? He's a 17 year old boy, he is almost definitely looking at porn.
What the actual fuck, and why would you say this publicly? People who morally abstain from porn are always the weirdest motherfuckers.
Um, this is strange behavior acting as righteousness...WTF. Imagine if you were his son and got pinged that your dad is watching porn. I would be totally grossed the hell out if that happened between me and my dad. I'm grimacing as I type this. Or, imagine being the dad watching porn and knowing your son is actively aware that you are doing that. What the hell would be going through your mind to make that okay?
Or, think about what the son is really learning from this relationship. Sex is bad and people should be monitored for sexual activity. Also, he's learning that controlling others to that level is acceptable and celebrated. This kid might turn out to be a highly abusive partner that thinks it's okay to monitor their partner's phone at all times.
It also tells us that Mike Johnson is probably interested in monitoring people's internet habits, especially when it comes to accessing porn. Personally, that is not what I would like for a congressman.
The whole thing is uncomfortably odd and seems like a major red flag.
This title is horrible. People complain that parental software is a huge privacy concern and not fair in a parent-child dynamic as the "spying" only works one way. Yet, here we have a Republican saying "rules for thee AND ME" and people are mad that a parent is risking embarrassment to teach his offspring something he actually believes instead of the usual Republican just pick an issue off **the list ** and force it on random adults.
Why would you- why??
Funny thing… that’s the same software that Josh Duggar used…
Huh…
How come we find out this about Mike Johnson before his finances/bank account?
🤮🤮🤮
"But you see, the real problem is drag shows and trans people!"
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.