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

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#171

Post by random1temp2 »

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…

>that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life

This is the crux of your argument and is vaguely worded. Saying 'not going to help' is not mutually exclusive with 'not going to hinder'. I'd like to see a proof of a stronger condition than 'not helping', for example 'actively harming' before you are justified in calling for action. Your have not provided any sources to back up your claims.

This argument frustrates me because even if uncensored internet access is mentally harmful for a child, the assumption that the correct way to address this is censorship, to me, smacks of denial. Censorship only works on the naive.

> How do we solve the problem?

Accept that uncensored internet access in a 21st century western society is unconditional, and display appropriate parenting skills to teach your children to mentally cope with anything they might encounter. 'Worked on my machine'.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#172

Post by marketanarchist »

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…

Nah, some of actually want to be free.

You and people like you are free to avoid pornography if you so choose, but don't try to impose your idiocy on everyone else.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#173

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tw04 wrote: post #150
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…

> How were you planning on preventing your child from picking up a piece of paper on a street corner with NSFL images? //

Picking it up first and putting it in the bin? I've done this with porn and with images on cigarette cartons.

Not always possible, but just because there are problems with "real" life doesn't mean we shouldn't remove problems from online life.

Online life magnifies niches that in the offline world would be hidden away - that can be good but also means exposure to things that one is unlikely to ever be exposed to in the real world.

One can go on the web property of respected international media companies and be exposed to content that a person IRL would never share with you for fear of it ending in arrest or destruction of their public character.

I've seen far worse things online (mostly by "choice", curiosity can be a bad thing) than would ever be printed by a locally identifiable company.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#174

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

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'.

I trust my own government less than the EU. Ibfind it surprising it's different in the UK.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#175

Post by nightspirit »

cyberpunk wrote: post #21
tachion wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Proper advice/education is really the only solution. We all know how ridiculous any attempts to censor the internet is to people with even a minimal amount of tech savvy, especially if gov.uk are involved... I mean, take the UK's attempt to block e.g thepiratebay.org which is defeated by simply putting https:// infront of it (at least, currently, on virgin media).. The actual issue here though is the progression that…

> initially looking to find some "HOTCHIX" to... solve an urge.. to 6 months later only getting off to really extreme stuff

Been there, done that. Went away once I realized how fake and asexual porn actually is and that 90% of stuff out there (both vanilla and extreme, pro and amateur) really has no fucking reason to turn anyone on once the initial novelty wears off. I don't believe that wanking to people who are not aroused/shy/insecure/bored/desperate/trying hard to make a show ought to feel any good. It really is hard to find good porn.

> being unable to really form relationships

Had that before the internet, heck, even before the collection of printed lingerie ads cut from newspapers (good fucking luck "protecting" your kids from that, losers). Anyway, I tend to blame my parents' own shitty relationship for this thing.

> an epidemic of erectile dysfunction in really young people

Correlates with relationship problems, one could wonder which way the causation goes. Why should anyone get hard for someone he is with only for social acceptance or, worse yet, self-acceptance?

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#176

Post by pbhjpbhj »

marketanarchist wrote: post #11
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…

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 possessible should share that responsibility.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#177

Post by tw04 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #173
tw04 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> How were you planning on preventing your child from picking up a piece of paper on a street corner with NSFL images? // Picking it up first and putting it in the bin? I've done this with porn and with images on cigarette cartons. Not always possible, but just because there are problems with "real" life doesn't mean we shouldn't remove problems from online life. Online life magnifies niches that in the offline world…

I stumbled upon porn when walking to the park as a 7 year old. I guess if I had a helicopter parent it's POSSIBLE they would've run to grab it from me before I could see it. Of course I would've hated my parents if they had been helicopter parents, and I'd probably be a worse adult as a result.

Are you planning on hovering over your children 24/7 for the rest of their lives? Because you can't protect them. And ruining all of society in order to delay exposing your child to difficult things for, at best, a couple of years, is ridiculous. If you don't want your children seeing NSFL things on a computer, don't let them use a computer.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#178

Post by NLips »

belorn wrote: post #64
NLips wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the UK hasn't discarded it's system, but you've possibly misunderstood what the system is. Monty Python was rated as suitable for ages 14+ by the BBFC. Some local authorities (which have power over what may be shown in cinemas) banned cinemas from playing it, but buying a physical copy was never banned. Nowadays there are only a small number of films outright 'banned' by the BBFC, almost always due to rape o…

Well, reading about "Monty Python's Life of Brian" gives a rather strong message that censoring played a significant role in the UK for that movie. But you make a good point that rather than it being national censors, it was town councils. Not sure if the general public or artistic creator feel that its much of a difference. Looking at history of censoring in uk, or looking at examples in other countries, is it a pro…

If the films that have been censored hadn't been, I don't think anyone would be directly be suffering other than the politicians who have some of the public screaming at them. However, if there were no censorship, producers would know they could put anything up and perhaps we would get steadily more and more filth on the screen. Obviously that's hard to be sure about either way.

I think the minimal complete censorship they do now (which seems to be entirely sex/violence related) is probably in about the right place - if people and papers on both side are complaining, that's a good sign you might have found the right balance!

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#179

Post by forgottenpass »

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…

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.

The worst of the worst content perverting a well-adjusted life come from popular, generally SFW, mass-media outlets. If the goal of web filtering is for a well-adjusted life, put the firewall in front of sensationalism, fear-mongering, outrage-bait and hate-mongering.

Or, in other words, block all blogs, news, and clickbait sites. Porn can get through though. Sure it's taboo, but society as a whole is much better at understanding it does not represent reality.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#180

Post by nightspirit »

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…

> That's a great thought experiment: Is a site that serves ads that might contain 'adult' ads at times a porn site according to the British government and would need to verify that the visitor is of age?

The simplest solution is to just require ID from everyone everywhere. They'll figure it out sooner or later if you let them build the infrastructure now.

Post reply on HN