Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 232 posts

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#161

Post by MisterBastahrd »

mobiuscog wrote: post #2

Something has to be done. It's not just about porn or violence of NSFL etc... but there is a serious problem on the internet, that is always lambasted with the "Won't somebody think of the children" memes. When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, wit…

Sure, sure. This is clearly why we need ID cards to use televisions and listen to radio. Because someone with a radio could accidentally tune into Rush Limbaugh, and someone with a TV could accidentally tune into an episode of Jackass. Clearly we need a government solution for a private problem because we wouldn't want all of these non-well-adjusted people roaming the streets, free to enjoy the banality of their existences.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#162

Post by Zenst »

abdias wrote: post #156

Why don't UK government leave that responsibility to the parents which are to decide what their children are allowed to watch or not. In the old Soviet the communists very much wanted government to replace both parents and God - seems like that idea has gotten new fuel in the UK.

Indeed the move to remove accountability from parents and burden everybody else is lamentable. Be that the sugar tax on soft drinks coming about just as a way to cut obese children as well as many other measures. Perish the thought they made the parents accountable.

But certainly a trend and perhaps an excuse to tax and track people more. Still without such laws we would not of got a beer like this: https://www.brewdog.com/item/61/BrewDog/Nanny-State.html

Which sums things up about as well as any.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#163

Post by Zenst »

amelius wrote: post #57

Shouldn't we restrict/control the consumption of violent movies and video games first?

Well Religious books have yielded more violent actions than all the movies and video games ever, if you want to take that approach.

Certainly puts things into context don't you think.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#164

Post by antjanus »

mobiuscog wrote: post #2

Something has to be done. It's not just about porn or violence of NSFL etc... but there is a serious problem on the internet, that is always lambasted with the "Won't somebody think of the children" memes. When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, wit…

I think the blocking should be on your side. The Internet is meant to be free. Want to keep porn away from yourself or kids? Install an extension, or get one of those services that automatically blocks it.

The same way, we should block on device/user level. Afraid your kids will watch it on their phones? Okay, cool, let's provide that kind of blocking at a cellular provider level or even at a phone level (I'm sure Safari or Chrome could implement blockers). We should blacklist rather than whitelist.

I think the best way to deal with "accidentally" viewing something is require a "popup" (think modal rather than traditional popup) that asks you if you are 18 or above and warn you of the content which a ton of sites already do. Or implement a simple HTTP header that tells your browser that you're accessing a site that's not safe for minors.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#165

Post by vertex-four »

Unbeliever69 wrote: post #153
vertex-four wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very practical - don't give your <12yo child a tablet or smartphone. They're not necessary parts of human existence, and certainly not of a child's existence.

There will always be that kid at school or at a friend's house that DOES have access to these devices. We are already a paranoid, helicopter parent society as it is. Next step, strap kids into their beds and chairs and spoon feed them only what you want them to consume. Never let them leave home. Problem solved.

Cool. The idea is that theoretically, you're opening your kid's mind to more and more things under some degree of supervision. By the time they're looking up horrific or immoral stuff on their own or with friends, hopefully you've given them the tools to handle it. The idea isn't to stick a filter on their computer until they turn 18 and assume that there's no further parenting needed.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#166

Post by toyg »

EvilTerran wrote: post #144
Bartweiss wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, every site they can identify. Broadly, UK law is restricted to UK companies for material which is illegal to post . So libelous sites hosted outside the country aren't censored, because the libel isn't 'located' in the UK (yes, this is a tortured analysis). But the UK has more recently established a China-style firewall that restricts access to sites hosted anywhere, based on where you view from. Origin…

Point of fact: the UK's internet filter was originally implemented about a decade ago, to block child pornography. And (to borrow your turn of phrase) at the time, everyone swore "it's just the child pornography, there will never be a slippery slope!" ... then, as of a couple of years ago, they started using it to block torrent sites. So it goes.

It's really sad to see a country famous for its liberal traditions, sleepwalk back into the sort of draconian censorship that we thought was a relic from darker times.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#167

Post by lostforest »

I have long thought it would be a great idea to force all pornographic material into a porn TLD, say .xxx

To access .xxx, you would submit your name, address, proof of age to whomever runs the regime and be given access. Sharing pornography should be a crime, especially if shared with minors. In a perfect world... Since we don't live in a perf3ct world, I'd be happy to see a forced TLD. Violators lose rights to any and all domains in perpetuity and are forbidden to start new ones. A 1M fine should suffice.

It's a proven fact pornography harms everyone involved. Men who are chronic users suffer impotence issues with real women. Pornography demeans women and lowers them to the status of sex machines, there only for the enjoyment of men. Women that are lured into the industry suffer horrendous self-esteem issues, die young, suffer from diseases, some fatal, and are reviled if/when they escape the industry. Not a good scene no matter how you slice it.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#168

Post by NLips »

mobiuscog wrote: post #72
NLips wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the concept that it would be nice to do something, but that the current proposed solutions aren't good. I'd just like to point out that 'something has to be done' is a dangerous phrase which can easily lead to bad law. 'Something has to be done' leads to 'this is something', which leads to 'we have to do this'. Whenever someone proposes one or more 'solutions' to a problem, they must not only be compared…

But the status quo of today is different to the status quo of ten years ago - should they be compared, or do we just accept society wherever it goes ? (Genuine question, not rhetorical) It used to be (and still is in many countries) that religion directed the people. These days it is more often corporations (through advertising). How should society be directed ?

I don't mean nothing should ever change, just that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something, and should at least be considered.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#169

Post by chronolitus »

lostforest wrote: post #167

I have long thought it would be a great idea to force all pornographic material into a porn TLD, say .xxx To access .xxx, you would submit your name, address, proof of age to whomever runs the regime and be given access. Sharing pornography should be a crime, especially if shared with minors. In a perfect world... Since we don't live in a perf3ct world, I'd be happy to see a forced TLD. Violators lose rights to any a…

Or maybe people could get off their high horse and not impose their moral values on everyone else?

I'm all for regulating the industry if and when practices get distorted, same as any other industry dealing with humans. But if we ban porn for being generally harmful to its actors we should also ban:

-American football

-Boxing

-Extreme Sports

-..

And feel free to eventually add in everything someone doesn't like, as anything can be shown to be harmful in some extent.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#170

Post by belorn »

zimpenfish wrote: post #128
Freak_NL wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Frankly, if people are going to be exposed to said imagery at some point, they probably need to be educated about it. That's what this is all about isn't it? There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development, and I honestly doubt porn is one of the bigger bad influences. Kids are growing up watching popular peers give them beauty and fashion tips or perform dangerous stunts and pranks on ex…

> That's what this is all about isn't it? There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development, and I honestly doubt porn is one of the bigger bad influences. Indeed, I'd list the MRA/PUA/GamerGaters as a much greater risk to young males (directly; young females as a consequence). I'd probably have the alt-right/conspiracy loons above porn as well.

I would add watching news and using social media to that list, as there plenty of research that show how those destroys a persons ability to assess risk. Each year we get studies that show how people are factually more safer today than last year, and yet perceive the world as less safe.
Post reply on HN