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

41–50 of 232 posts

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#41

Post by mobiuscog »

Kenji wrote: post #33
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 no problem. I grew up with the internet. Had full access as a kid. Many people did too. The only problem is that fascists want to control the internet, that's the real problem.

I appreciate this comment, as I know a lot of people who grew up with the internet.

I would therefore ask another question: Is it really fascism trying to control the internet, or people afraid to accept responsibility for what they want to do ?

(I suspect both)

The modern way of entitlement means everybody should be free to do whatever they want without government interfering, which demonstrates that the meaning of the word 'goverment' is lost, especially when the people vote for the prevailing authority.

Do you feel reponsible as part of a society, or are you only responsible to yourself ?

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#42

Post by pmlnr »

> "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.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#43

Post by asadjb »

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. It is challenging as a parent (and a school, employer, etc) to govern (!) or monitor how people use your internet access. Certainly much harder than preventing your kids from going to a particular physical place."

A thought just popped up in my head about this. Yes, the internet is a reflection of the physical world, but it doesn't have any of the constraints that we have put in the real world. In the real world, you try and select a good neighborhood to raise your children in. This saves them from even coming close to physical spaces we'd like them to avoid.

Then in the real world you have signs all over the place that warn you from entering a dangerous situation. Then we regulate access to some of the more dangerous places (places that deal with hazardous materials, prisons, etc). You have things like the "Sex offender registry" which warns you of people to look out for. You have a lot of safeguards in the physical world that nobody bats an eye at because they all make sense.

And on top of all this evolution has given you an innate sense of danger. So you naturally stay away from people with knifes, guns, etc.

The internet has none of this. So while I'm all for freedom of information, I still think there is a need for some protection. On the internet, adults and kids are some of the time just 1 click away from a NSFL site, except of course that kids can't recognize that; which might be true for some adults as well.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#44

Post by Freak_NL »

witty_username wrote: post #25
s3arch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to what @cyberpunk pointed out, Check out this website: http://yourbrainonporn.com/ There is a pool of resources related to damage the porn has done for this generation from scientific studies, ex and recovering porn addicts and as well as from the partners of addicts.

Porn addiction is different from just viewing porn. Lots of people watch porn without becoming porn addicts.

Lots? Most I would wager.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#45

Post by erkkie »

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'm sorry but maybe, just maybe the thought of "be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place" is a tad protectionist. There are still people (including children) dying and fighting daily just to survive in this world, an "accidental" porn image won't strip your child her future. There's porn in this world, there's violence, if anything, exposure is necessary to actually become well-adjusted to reality.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#46

Post by darklajid »

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…

My kids are 2.5 and 4 and have no access to devices that connect to the internet. Yet. So remember the 'no battle plan survives the contact with the enemy' thing.

Honestly - while the internet makes it easier to get to questionable content and is a unified interface to both lots of good stuff all the way to the really ugly parts: I don't think that changes the responsibilites compared to my childhood.

Parents decide what kids are allowed to access. Parents have to enforce their rules and handle infractions. No. One. Else. (We're not talking criminal stuff here, we're talking about morality. If a kid is a cyber bully or sells illegal stuff online: Sure, let the police handle that. But looking at tits et al..?)

It might be harder for parents to enforce their prefered world view now - but that's still on them (or us, really. I'm one of them). In my world the only way to ~solve~ this problem - if you feel it is one - is to be open about it, tell your kids that they should be careful, to make them trust you so that they'll reach out to you when they find ... confusing content. There's no way to avoid these contacts. It's also kinda like the "Google has your mail anyway" problem: Protect your kids from things you don't endorse and some other kid, with parents of different standards, is going to share it with your daughter.

As a sidenote: Honestly, in my childhood (born '79) it was trivial to get hardcore porn (VHS) and magazines of all sorts and for every fetish were easily accessible. Yes, stumbling upon these things wasn't likely without expressing interest, but then again: Neither was it possible to stumble upon gazillion Wikipedia articles about animals or something positive like that.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#47

Post by cyberpunk »

tachion wrote: post #35
cyberpunk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem you're describing is exactly what we need to solve, instead of introducing another censorship/citizen tracking measure. Kids should be learning about their own sexuality, about these urges, how to handle them, how to not handle them. The main reason they're reaching out to that is the obvious, unescapable growth phase AND complete lack of support from parents, teachers and society in general. On one hand…

We're in kind of uncharted territory here though -- for anyone under, what, 25? There has been an almost unlimited amount of instant gratification/indulgence a click or a swipe away that's ALWAYS been there for them. We've never really had to think about what kind of problems this sort of thing produces before. We didn't have that option when we were in puberty or the following over-hormonal years following...

Hopefully things aren't quite so dire as we're making out. I've read several reports that generally say the next generation and entirely boring and barely even drink, fight, get high, smoke, blabla anymore... I'm not sure I totally believe it as a blanket statement, but it seems we're getting a bit less wild as a society... Maybe things will work out ok regardless, then. Or maybe this is a result of isolationism caused by over saturation. Who knows?

We got the pixies and nirvana, weed and wasted days trying to get PPP working..

They've got beiber and unlimited 1080p porn...

I think we lucked out in comparison.. :}

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#48

Post by fdgdasfadsf »

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…

> my young daughter doesn't get any unaccompanied internet access

Problem solved. Parents need to parent their children. They always have and they always will. Whatever surveillance state you install.

The bigger problem is that some parents don't have time or energy to do this - and that is part of a far wider socio-economic issue.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#49

Post by NLips »

belorn wrote: post #32
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 used to be a option here in Sweden and elsewhere in the world, and it was called the national censors. They would look at movies, tv, music, books, and decide if it posed a serous problem where someone could 'accidentally' be exposed and harm the efforts to be well-adjusted citizens. And, in most part, it was not that bad. Sure, Swedes could not watch the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the UK banned Monthy Pytho…

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 or torture scenes that don't have appropriate context, and the 'ban' only extends to screenings and to selling physical copies.

Post reply on HN