Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UK gov to ban porn sites that don't verify users' age

what porn would you be accessing while outside? why the need for carrying it around in a wallet? :D surely you'd leave it with yer spunk covered laptop :D


Spy would. As a responsible onanist I would not leave the card around the house where the kids may find it...
 
Didn't the govt try to ban whatsapp not long ago too. These things seem to come up from time to time and then nothing actually happens.
 
Didn't the govt try to ban whatsapp not long ago too. These things seem to come up from time to time and then nothing actually happens.


because they think they have powers to do shit then quickly realise they dont and the tech people they are getting advice from are probably just rinsing them to fuck with shit advice cus no one from the internet wants it locked down its not the internets spirit
 
I dunno, surely it's not beyond the wit of man to develop some sort of age verification device for the internet? Maybe something like those cards that youngsters need to get served in pubs. Users have to enter their details and a code to access certain content.

I genuinely don't think that it should be as easy as it is for kids to access violent porn, animal fucking, snuff shit, and all the other fucked-up crap that exists on the net. If we can't lock up the cunts that make it, I'm all for making it as difficult as possible to access.

The issue isn't age verifcation, it's person verification. With ID cards you have a photo and possibly some other details you can verify that the card belongs to the person who gave it to you. Online I don't see how you could make this work, as it's so easy to go through proxy/VPN/tor to pretend you are someone else (with details from another person's card) or from somewhere that doesn't require age verification. Restrictions that make you do something like this will stop some people but it's more likely to be older people and not teenagers (who may need protecting from it - any adult going looking for violent/animal/etc porn is more likely in need of help/jail than protection). Certainly when I worked in schools a few years ago all the kids in the 3 schools I worked in knew how to find/use proxies to get past the school's blockers and play games.
I certainly don't pretend to have the technical knowledge to discuss this properly but my understanding is that it's basically impossible to stop someone from viewing things on the internet if they want to - the Chinese firewall is probably the best attempt to do so and lots of people get past that all the time without problem.
As someone else said I think it's more important that we educate about porn, in primary school because as soon as they go to secondary school an older kid will show them some grim porn on a phone. I don't think we can stop or control this through restricting the internet and what people can see, not without it being illegal (which animal and snuff porn are I would think) and putting the same kind of effort into it as with child abuse images/video, which means it gets pushed onto the darknet, still accessible but you almost have to know where you are going, you can't just search for it. With drugs, there's directories on reddit to find the darkmarkets. I would guess there is similar things for child abuse stuff (somewhere, reddit has some grimness but I'd hope it doesn't have that on it) as well but I've no idea how easy/hard it would be to find if you wanted to (and obviously I'm not going looking).

As I typed the above, I wondered about a system that would tie a card to an IP address so you could only access a site if you had that card's details and your IP address matched. Would be an issue with dynamic IPs but could be a range of IPs rather than one?
Think this would mean that you would not be able to use proxies/vpn/tor to get round it as entering details wouldn't work because you wouldn't be on the IP address of the card - actually someone could setup a proxy tied to a card but the site would only let one person on at a time from the ID so this wouldn't really work.
You would still be able to access via a vpn/proxy in a country that doesn't require age verification though and that's where this idea fails I think, aside from not preventing people within a house sharing an ID, as long as one person is over 18 they can all use it.


Age restriction works reasonably well (pain in the arse aside) in terms of mobile data, so I suppose they just need to get fixed line ISPs to do the same.

VPNs and so on is missing the point by some margin.

How do you imagine this working in a family household? afaik you'd already have to have someone over 18 to get the line in (as requires a line of credit). The ISP would have no way of distinguishing who in the house is using their fixed line would they?
 
How do you imagine this working in a family household? afaik you'd already have to have someone over 18 to get the line in (as requires a line of credit). The ISP would have no way of distinguishing who in the house is using their fixed line would they?
Probably not - although not impossible - but now it's the bill payer's problem to figure out. Much like how they don't check that you have no children at home before selling you alcohol.
 
Probably not - although not impossible - but now it's the bill payer's problem to figure out. Much like how they don't check that you have no children at home before selling you alcohol.

sure, that's fine, but I think it's the situation we have now, as an under 18 wouldn't currently be able to get their own fixed line internet connection would they?
 
Don't they just say stuff like this, so they can sound like they are doing something, with no intention of really doing much of anything?
 
sure, that's fine, but I think it's the situation we have now, as an under 18 wouldn't currently be able to get their own fixed line internet connection would they?
Doubt it. Neither would a 30 year old at this rate though, as they won't have a house.

It's not the situation we have now AFAIK. Lots of ISPs have added opt-out content filtering but I'm not sure it's mandatory.
 
Doubt it. Neither would a 30 year old at this rate though, as they won't have a house.

It's not the situation we have now AFAIK. Lots of ISPs have added opt-out content filtering but I'm not sure it's mandatory.

At the moment, you would need someone over 18 in the house to get a line of credit for the internet connection, so the ISP already verifies that someone in the house is over 18, unless I've misunderstood something, that's all that is being said here (that porn sites would be required to verify age) and then you were saying it could be done by the ISP not the porn site, but the ISP already does that.

I'm with virgin which blocks torrent sites, which I get to via proxies. I remember something being said about forcing ISPs to place content filters that you'd have to opt out of but I don't know if it ever happened, I may have opted out at the time and forgotten of course, I'm not blocked from pornhub anyway, and I think if any ISPs were doing it (because of govt) then virgin would be.
 
I appreciate that porn hub doesn't have the really extreme stuff on there but try and cast your minds back to when you were just 12 or 13 and think about how extreme some of the content might feel to witness when you might not have even started your periods or your voice hasn't properly broken. I think age restrictions on these sites is missing the point somewhat given how savy kids are now and it's more important that we talk to young people about what messages the content they might see says to us about men and women, about what sex means, who it's for in terms of pleasure, what body types are desirable etc.
 
Nanny state crap (Labour often seems to get it in the neck for this kind of stuff, but the Tory vermin are just as guilty of it if not more so, they just get a free ride from the right-wing press) which is bullshit on so many levels. If this is about "protecting" children, then why is there no mention in the article of the role that parents/guardians play, whose job it is in the first place? Is it an example of that stereotypical British prudishness that the idea of parents talking to their kids about sex is literally unthinkable?

Yeah, I get that it can be an uncomfortable subject matter. But if kids don't learn anything from their parents, then that doesn't mean that they will remain forever "innocent", because at some point they will certainly learn about it from other sources. And thanks to the proliferation of shitty faith schools and shitty academies, there is no guarantee that kids will get some at least somewhat sensible guidance from sex education.
 
If there was a way to do this, it would be great...however, you would just create an industry to sell codes /etc to minors and all kinds of underhand stuff.

What would be really great is if people had to watch videos of how the porn industry has become so incredibly exploitative (especially of young actors), the effects of porn use on (especially) younger viewers, etc, and would have to agree that they're 100% ok with all of this before being able to enter a porn site.

I'm not anti-porn, but there are a huge amount of negatives to the industry and it's disheartening to realize there's really nothing anyone can do to stop it. It's a runaway train of sorts.
 
Nanny state crap (Labour often seems to get it in the neck for this kind of stuff, but the Tory vermin are just as guilty of it if not more so, they just get a free ride from the right-wing press) which is bullshit on so many levels. If this is about "protecting" children, then why is there no mention in the article of the role that parents/guardians play, whose job it is in the first place? Is it an example of that stereotypical British prudishness that the idea of parents talking to their kids about sex is literally unthinkable?

Yeah, I get that it can be an uncomfortable subject matter. But if kids don't learn anything from their parents, then that doesn't mean that they will remain forever "innocent", because at some point they will certainly learn about it from other sources. And thanks to the proliferation of shitty faith schools and shitty academies, there is no guarantee that kids will get some at least somewhat sensible guidance from sex education.

What do I do if it's not just my kids I care about?
 
I'm amazed the stuff gets made at all because no one seems to actually pay for it now.
its one way to clean up dirty money for people who have no reasonable and legal reason as to why they are sitting on such a large sum of money. In used notes.
 
What do I do if it's not just my kids I care about?

If you genuinely care, then the kind of useless token gestures done by the government in the OP just so they can be seen to be doing something aren't what you want either. Have you considered talking to other parents? They might want to be consulted before you make decisions about how their children are raised.

I'm amazed the stuff gets made at all because no one seems to actually pay for it now.

Plenty of amateurs willing to post stuff up, it seems. Then there are the niche tastes for which a market can be sustained, and apparently plenty of people in the southern US states pay for porn.
 
You can buy weapons and hard drugs on darknet sites like AlphaBay, stream live football on free to view websites and download films while they are still in the movie theatres.

There are two ways this makes sense.
1) They know its useless but its cheap headlines.
2) They want to use it as a back door to bring in much tighter control over the identities of who is logged in at an IP address.
 
If you genuinely care, then the kind of useless token gestures done by the government in the OP just so they can be seen to be doing something aren't what you want either. Have you considered talking to other parents? They might want to be consulted before you make decisions about how their children are raised.

I started talking to them, but there were too many to get round all of them.

Seriously, there might be some integrity to an argument based kids watching porn being nothing to worry about. But if that's not the case, how is insisting that my kids are my problem not fundamentally anti-socialist?
 
I started talking to them, but there were too many to get round all of them.

Seriously, there might be some integrity to an argument based kids watching porn being nothing to worry about. But if that's not the case, how is insisting that my kids are my problem not fundamentally anti-socialist?

So you think that you should have input on how other people raise their kids, but since actually involving yourself and talking to other parents is apparently too hard ("Oooh, there's too many of them!", even though I never specified that you had to talk to every parent in the UK or wherever - how about just the parents at your kids' school? You might be able to collectively do something about any shortcomings in sexual education), do you really instead want to involve an actively anti-socialist government which, let's face it, has not had a stellar track record on protecting kids, nor actually listening to the concerns of parents beyond what might get them re-elected? I'm guessing that you wouldn't.

I don't know whether kids watching porn is actually a big deal or not. Going off my own experience, it isn't - but I have no basis upon which I can easily generalise that experience. That's also why I think that the kind of ham-fisted one-size-fits-all solution proposed in the article are bollocks, and not just because they're technically unworkable. If kids watching porn is a problem, then this is not the solution. There's an overweening technocratic arrogance in the notion that social problems can be addressed with a single technological sticking plaster, applied without consulting those whom it affects.
 
Because prohibition works so fucking well doesn't it?

The crap about IDing anyone under 25 that's made it much harder for kids to get served in pubs was IMO a major reason for the increase in the use of legal highs, and drinking whatever they could get hold of on park benches etc by the teenagers who'd otherwise have been drinking safely in the pubs.

Same would happen here, kids who want to find porn would end up seeing it out on the dark web where they'll be exposed to far dodgier stuff than they'll find on the main porn sites being used today, and probably place themselves in far more danger of ending up in chatrooms being groomed etc.

Idiots.
 
The crap about IDing anyone under 25 that's made it much harder for kids to get served in pubs was IMO a major reason for the increase in the use of legal highs, and drinking whatever they could get hold of on park benches etc by the teenagers who'd otherwise have been drinking safely in the pubs.

That was all done to help make the case for ID cards, which were abandoned many years ago. But of course nobody told pubs and retailers to ease up on the challenge 21 bullshit because that would make it too obvious that the public were being fucked with.
 
As for porn, I agree with others that the most harmful thing about it is there's nothing and no-one in society presenting an alternative version of what sex is or should be. It's always going to be an uphill struggle when porn is so ubiquitous and so appealing to the hormone-addled teenage mind but other countries manage to provide education about relationships, consent, intimacy and basically all the stuff that should come before putting condoms on bananas.

When there are moves towards this sort of education the government seems to get it hiariously and deliberately wrong, like when they were going to start sex education with six year olds or whatever it was. Cue massive outcry from mumsnet and every religion with enough connections to get a spokesperson on the news, after which the policy is quietly abandoned and never spoken of again.

With older teenagers I think you could even use porn as a teaching material, but in the sense of look how ridiculous this is; this is why this bit doesn't reflect reality; this is not something you should do to anyone whose welfare you care about etc. The suburbs would be up in arms but frankly if parents were so great at teaching their kids about this stuff then that would be reflected by a decrease of teenage pregnancies, STI's, sexual assaults and mental health issues arising from a warped understanding of sex and sexuality. Learning about contraception from your parents is like asking people in prison for advice on not getting caught.
 
UK to censor online videos of 'non-conventional' sex acts
Looks like this is also going to outlaw a lot of consensual BDSM stuff e.g. spanking, whipping, caning, fisting etc

If this was being done in the interests of the welfare of the performers I actually wouldn't have a problem with it. It is already illegal to stage, film and distribute non-sexual acts of violence after all. Don't see why porn should be a special case.

'Consensual' is a pretty dubious concept where financial inducements are involved. Like other kinds of sex work, I would also expect that the porn industry has a lot of overlap with people trafficking and all the delightful things that go along with that.
 
a lot of porn sites are criminally run - does anyone think any of these sites will be able to introduce credit card / passport scan identification of people without massive hacking, fraud and blackmail?

who would trust these sites to be secure
 
they already do and they outsource the credit card side to businesses that do this for a living and have to meet fairly strict security requirements- like the mary jane industry, many mainstream processors will just not handle this kind of business, so a handful of dedicated grot and filth remittance processors corner the market and white label their service to the jazz vendors. The jiggle portals don't actually see the card details or save them and I think each transaction approval has a one off encryption to ensure is not used elsewhere. No reason why this setup could not be expanded to accommodate ID if required. Just saying like.

Home Page - Pollen Street Capital

this PE lot focus on adult site payment backing and are doing rather well out of it. its a niche market
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom