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

181–190 of 232 posts

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#181

Post by nightspirit »

rrobukef wrote: post #160
rayiner wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes. I search for children's content on Youtube. Youtube returns children's content. We click to play, and I get a pre-roll ad for a horror film, or alcohol, or gambling. Out in the real world, people will think you're weird and/or a religious nut if you don't drink at a business function. So why should I worry about my daughter seeing an advertisement for alcohol before her episode of Paw Patrol starts playing?

Because I don't want my son to think that drinking is considered something he should do without knowing limits (although there are warnings, he can't read). Because gambling is a designer addiction and I don't want him to install such an app before he can know the consequences of his actions. But mostly because I don't want him waking up at night screaming from nightmares. I like my dearly won sleep.

The less you talk about drinking the more he'll hide it from you. Ditto with gambling and sex. My parents talked about everything besides sex and I never drank or gambled in excess. And I'll leave this post at that.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#182

Post by fweespeech »

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…

> 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, without any safeguards in place, there is something wrong.

How accidental is it really?

All the major search engines and social networks have some sort of "safe search" filter system. The porn sites submit themselves and are listed in parental blocking tools to limit Internet access.

The answer is, honestly, it isn't accidental. People have tools already to handle this situation in a variety of ways and simply choose not to exercise their free will to utilize them.

It is as "accidental" as being offended by walking into an adult toy shop.

> Whilst there are privacy concerns regarding any ID situation, nobody seems to be trying to solve the problem in other ways, short of limiting internet access (which causes other outcries).

Private, cheap solutions exist already. Why is its the government's job to force you to use them? Why don't you use them willingly?

> (For the moment, as a parent, my young daughter doesn't get any unaccompanied internet access - I am thinking of my child)

https://blog.opendns.com/2010/06/23/introducing-familyshield...

https://www.netnanny.com/features/porn-blocking/

https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.php?threads/care-to-recomm...

http://pornblocker-app.com/

https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.php?threads/good-porn-bloc...

Use a parent control app + family shield DNS.

I'm uncertain why you believe the government would do a better job and honestly, I'm concerned you think that would be the case given the financial incentive in this case clearly works correctly in favor of the porn blocking companies. (i.e. There is no money to be made circumventing them to show porn to people who can't buy adult products. Even the ad revenue is worthless because your advertisers can't sell them anything.)

> Edit: It's interesting to note diminishing points for a post that asks how to solve a problem. Obviously some people feel very strongly that even questioning the situation is wrong.

Honestly, if you are not willing to exercise your own free will to provide safeguards against accidents, why should the government do so?

It isn't like these people are posting public billboards at the side of the road that are impossible to avoid.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#183

Post by cloakandswagger »

rrobukef wrote: post #160
rayiner wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes. I search for children's content on Youtube. Youtube returns children's content. We click to play, and I get a pre-roll ad for a horror film, or alcohol, or gambling. Out in the real world, people will think you're weird and/or a religious nut if you don't drink at a business function. So why should I worry about my daughter seeing an advertisement for alcohol before her episode of Paw Patrol starts playing?

Because I don't want my son to think that drinking is considered something he should do without knowing limits (although there are warnings, he can't read). Because gambling is a designer addiction and I don't want him to install such an app before he can know the consequences of his actions. But mostly because I don't want him waking up at night screaming from nightmares. I like my dearly won sleep.

Do you understand how selfish you sound, or has the magic of parenthood vaporized all of your self-awareness?

You made the choice to have a child. You made the choice to entertain them with YouTube. The possibility of them seeing an advertisement for alcohol (my goodness! Your son will turn into a tattooed hooligan in a week!) is not sufficient reason for handing the internet over to state censorship.

In short, stop trying to make society raise your kid for you. Give independence and self-responsibility a try, you might like it.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#184

Post by nightspirit »

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.

As much as MRA/PUA types are nuts, they are also getting many things right that the mainstream has no clue about.

Let's say that it takes some knowledge and skills to bed new woman every week, for five years straight.

Few men would pull it off even if they didn't have moral objections.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#185

Post by tombo2008 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #176
marketanarchist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to shelter your child from certain sites or content, that is your problem. Take responsibility for your own family, don't ask the entire world to change and give away our freedoms because of your laziness/ineptitude.

Do you realise that children become adults and that ignoring problems faced by other people's children means your ignoring what will become the whole world's problems. If the internet fucks up everyone's kids except your own then your own kids still have to live in that world. The idea that future generations are individual families private problems is an insidious wrong. We're in the world together and where possess…

10/10 Well said.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#186

Post by topspin »

mobiuscog wrote: post #97
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #20

I find it impressive that the UK people trust their government so much even to the point where they are happy to leave the EU to give it more power. That seems questionable.

That's more about mistrust of the EU 'government'.

It's not about 'trust' at all. The typical brexit supporter doesn't 'trust' any of these people any farther than they can throw some ministry building. The brexit supporters are convinced they'll have more influence over a sovereign UK government that answers to UK votes, whereas they have learned through long experience that they have next to no influence over Brussels, by design.

This straw man the_mitsuhiko setup with brexit dunderheads that "trust their [UK] government so much" is a fiction that exists inside his/her head; a sad self-delusion people indulge to demean things they don't like.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#187

Post by SCdF »

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…

There is a solution: it's installing netnanny (or whatever it's called these days) on your children's devices, and being a responsible parent to the best of your abilities.

Please don't let your squeamishness for your children's sake crap over everyone else's freedom to not be put on a leakable list that can be used to further erode our privacy for decades to come.

Now you might say "but buying booze has an id check: surely this is the same!". To that I say:

- Buying booze is not something you can be blackmailed or shamed about, except in very specific circumstances

- When I buy booze I flash an ID that the human can look at and trust, and then they promptly forget who I am when they serve the next person. I'm not sure if that's either implementable on the internet, or even desired.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#188

Post by SCdF »

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…

> It's a proven fact pornography harms everyone involved.

No it's not.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#189

Post by cloakandswagger »

tachion wrote: post #9
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…

Do you seriously think this is a viable solution that doesn't compromise society freedoms and scales well really securing children at the same time? I am really, really sceptical about that. Are we guarding our kids when they play with their friends, who can expose them to all kind of nasty content/ideas/materials/behaviours? Are we censoring ads that are everywhere and are filled with sexual/erotic conotations? Are…

The older I get, the more convinced I become that parenthood effectively cauterizes a large part of your rational mind, supplanting it with emotional, fear-driven responses.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the internet knows that the UK's censorship proposals won't work, and the only thing that really could work is complete government control over all internet content. Disturbingly, even that isn't too high of a price for the people that get the warm and fuzzies from knowing that their special little guy is protected from mean, nasty reality.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#190

Post by tombo2008 »

bobwaycott wrote: post #24
FordPrefectAO wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define the problem more pointedly? It sounds like the problem is 'information (and ergo imagery) is accessible ", which I do not see as a probely

Not the op, but it doesn't sound like you're trying very hard to understand. Simply put—and speaking as a person who doesn't care about what adults do and see on the internet involving other adults—there is simply no bulletproof way of reliably ensuring children do not see or experience something online that is inappropriate for their age (or against a parent's personal sensitivities), while preserving a parent's fre…

Very well said, 10/10.
Post reply on HN