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

141–150 of 232 posts

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#141

Post by rayiner »

vertex-four wrote: post #85
joosters wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combine that with ensuring that your child's computer is in a public place, not their bedroom. Not really practical advice in an era of tablets and mobiles.

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.

My 4 year old has a tablet, and I'm getting her a smart phone as soon as she can figure out how to text. She uses it to watch shows, draw, play games, facetime with her grandparents, look at family photos, etc.

Most of the "harms" of screen time disappear when adjusted for things like socio-economic status: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/screen-time-for-kids-is-...; http://daily.jstor.org/screentime-feminist-issue. Basically, like most parenting advice, exhortations to limit kids' access to screens is based on pseudo-science and old wives' tales. It should not be taken seriously.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#142

Post by Senji »

DanBC wrote: post #131
viraptor wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery Is that a real problem though? You did quote the accidentally after all. Both kids and adults have access to things they seek - whether that's going to be internet, magazine brought to school, or some other means. If they don't seek such content, they won't see much more than what's already available to everyone in the daily mail. I think th…

> Is that a real problem though? 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. An iOS app advertises itself as suitable for ages 4+. It contains ads. Those ads are sometimes for gambling, or alcohol services. I'd say that app isn't suitable for children, and the uk regulator is looking at that.

Adblock

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#143

Post by mobiuscog »

darklajid wrote: post #136
DanBC wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that a real problem though? 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. An iOS app advertises itself as suitable for ages 4+. It contains ads. Those ads are sometimes for gambling, or alcohol services. I'd say that app isn't suitable for children, and the uk regulator is looking at that.

Wait, but is that related to the proposal? Not my native language and all, but I thought this is basically age-gating .. porn sites. If you have a random app (unrelated, not a porn site) showing ads (unrelated unless a porn site) of alcohol services (not sure what that is, but .. unrelated/not porn), how does this apply? How would you age-gate ads? Wouldn't that require a new X-KID-PRESENT: 1 http header so that each…

Age gate all adverts ;)

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#144

Post by EvilTerran »

Bartweiss wrote: post #116
pmlnr wrote: post #42

> "all the porn sites operating in Britain" So... only .co.uk, or full 3/4 of the internet, including Tumblr? This is, of course, is a question for what counts as "operating in Britain". A site that is running on servers in Britain? A site that is owned by a British company? A site that happens to be available on the greater internet? Gosh, countries and borders became relics when the internet got spread wide enough.

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.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#145

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#146

Post by Freak_NL »

rayiner wrote: post #138
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…

> There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development [Citation needed.]

Are you seriously doubting that there are peer reviewed articles that assert that there are things on the internet that can harm a child's development and well-being?

Have a look at Google Scholar for a plethora of papers about cyber-bullying, grooming, self-esteem issues (mental and physical), pro-anorexia blogs, etcetera. You can combine the keywords "internet" and "children" with any of the above to get an extensive list of papers on each topic.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#147

Post by rayiner »

Freak_NL wrote: post #146
rayiner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development [Citation needed.]

Are you seriously doubting that there are peer reviewed articles that assert that there are things on the internet that can harm a child's development and well-being? Have a look at Google Scholar for a plethora of papers about cyber-bullying, grooming, self-esteem issues (mental and physical), pro-anorexia blogs, etcetera. You can combine the keywords "internet" and "children" with any of the above to get an extensi…

And yet, the vast majority of bullying takes place in meat-space, not cyber-space. Most sexual abuse of children happens at the hands of family members. Most self-esteem issues are caused by interactions kids have with other kids, or experiences they have in group activities, sports, etc.

I've never seen a peer-reviewed meta-study that suggests that the Internet is any more dangerous for kids than ordinary life.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#148

Post by mobiuscog »

wildmusings wrote: post #124
dajohnson89 wrote: post #120

Does anyone have any ideas how likely this will actually become law? Crazy laws get proposed here in America all the time. From what I've seen by watching the Prime Minister's questions every now and then, lots of far-fetched proposals are made across the pond as well. But they never get far, and not worth getting bothered about.

"The government" in a parliamentary system, in this context, refers to what we would call "the administration" in the US, i.e. the Prime Minister and his ministers. And almost by definition, the government controls a majority in parliament ("almost" because it is possible to have a minority government) and has a high likelihood of passing its agenda. But the proposed laws do change a lot as they go through consultati…

And we have the House of Lords, which ... well, let's just say it's not really like anything else.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#149

Post by sorokod »

hiisukun wrote: post #22
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…

Respectfully, I don't think that something has to be done. While your definition of said problem is fair and reasonable, and I share some of your concerns for children going online, overall I don't agree. I don't think the internet reflects more than the real world offers. It is challenging as a parent (and a school, employer, etc) to govern (!) or monitor how people use your internet access. Certainly much harder th…

> I don't think the internet reflects more than the real world offers

I think that at this point in time the internet is an integral part of "the real world".

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#150

Post by tw04 »

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.

And what's to prevent the same sort of "mentally broken" person who would host a website with NSFL images, from simply printing them off and dropping pages on the street? How were you planning on preventing your child from picking up a piece of paper on a street corner with NSFL images?

We all want to protect our children from the "real world" for as long as possible. But at some point they need to learn to cope with the fact that this world is full of disgusting people and actions.

Post reply on HN