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

[phillm]

Spy would. As a responsible onanist I would not leave the card around the house where the kids may find it...

wanker

 

[snadge]

Turn it off, either get a kodi box or learn how to tame it for your kids if you are that concerned.

The internet is like the wild west in it's day.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Turn it off, either get a kodi box or learn how to tame it for your kids if you are that concerned.

The internet is like the wild west in it's day.

Sadly, the internet ain't half the fun it used to be already.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

If I have grandkids (unlikely), I'll be able to tell them about the days when you could buy pirate cheaply and legally online and have access to more free porn than you could shake yer fist at - literally.

 

[snadge]

Sadly, the internet ain't half the fun it used to be already.

So many people clamouring for more bandwidth, what for?


So they can stream Onision at a better resolution.

Onision

 

[UnderOpenSky]

If I have grandkids (unlikely), I'll be able to tell them about the days when you could buy pirate cheaply and legally online and have access to more free porn than you could shake yer fist at - literally.

They'll probably be able to plug a jack in to the side of their head and experience it for real.

 

[mather]

Society becoming ever harder?

I didn't mean harder to be a kid, I meant it is now harder to raise kids and parents have a lot more pressure to deal with. A lot of people (I speak from personal experience) cannot even have kids, despite wanting to as there are no longer the stable well paid jobs out there that you need to even raise a family. Those parents who do manage to get past that initial hurdle then have to work flat out in order to support their families and what with everything from house prices/rents becoming ever more expensive and the general cost of living going up, being able to even afford kids is in itself a challenge. Gone are the days when one parent could work to support his/her family, now both have to work which means it is becoming more common for a lot kids to grow up not seeing their parents as much as they should/would want to. Given all the pressures of modern life and the increasing encroachment of work into our free time there is a lot less time these days for family members to spend time together.

Do you expect to shield kids 100% from topics like sex and death? Yeah, you try and shield them as much as you can, but things are always going to slip through.

To be honest, that is sort of my point. I never said shield kids from all topics of sex and death, just be age appropriate about it. Something, somewhere along the line has gone terribly wrong if parents have to explain to a 6 yr old what fisting, watersports, or rape 'fantasy' porn is.

What about people who don't have kids? Do they not have the right to access adult content without having to hand credit card details to sites which could easily be hacked?

Well for me the welfare of kids and society takes precedent over someone's right to view porn. As I said before, this law doesn't even do that, just asks porn viewers to confirm their age so any talk of 'censorship' is bollocks anyway.

As for the issue of having your details hacked, well any database that has your details can be hacked, whether it is a banking app, Ebay, Amazon etc... I'm all for clamping down on hackers and cyber-theft but that is an issue that relates to the entirety of the internet.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

They'll probably be able to plug a jack in to the side of their head and experience it for real.

We'll be looking for another technological advancement a few steps ahead of the govt. Coz once the govt catch up, fun is ruined.

 

[mather]

think what you like, dont really know what yer point is.

The point being that if you had kids you know that what you wrote before is complete and total bollocks!

not really much effort to lock down yer kids phone and ring yer isp to block adult content.

Neither is it much to ask porn users to confirm their age.

 

[NoXion]

Exactly, as does the narrative that the internet cannot be regulated benefits the tech and porn industry.

So both narratives are wrong. The point is that taking (or not taking) action based on false narratives can lead to sub-optimal and harmful results. So is internet porn a problem that needs special action taken? I for one am not convinced. Even if it is a problem, requiring sites to ask for credit card details sounds like another "solution" that lazily attempts to patch over things without actually addressing the underlying issues.

I mean really, if parents can't take the time needed to have a frank discussion with their children concerning pornography and the often-distorted ways in which it portrays sexuality, then it doesn't matter if websites ask for CC details or not, because at best it just delays the problem until one is old enough, and at worst it does nothing while exposing more people to CC potential fraud. That's leaving aside all the various ways in which kids could circumvent it.

If parents can neither make the time needed for educating their children, nor have the time made for them, then pornography is exactly the sort of subject that I think should be added to the sex education curriculum. As far as I remember, this was never addressed when I went to school.

I never said that and was simply making the point that if you took this libertarian logic to it's logical conclusion then even the really nasty shit you get on the Darknet will end up becoming legal. The above are all (rightly) illegal in their own right but much of the stuff you see on hardcore porn (fisting, watersports etc...) are legal to do and since is not a crime to view this material if you are an adult, how else do you keep such things from children. Asking for porn site to confirm the age of their viewers is a sensible one even if I don't think it will be 100% effective, but then again just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. I don't see anyone calling for murder to be legalised on the basis that murders still happen despite the law.

Slippery slope is a fallacy for good reasons; I think I can say with certainty that certain darknet activities will never be legalised. As for parental control, the tools are available but the government doesn't encourage their use, instead preferring top-down, "one size fits nobody" pseudo-solutions that don't take into account the values and preferences of specific families.

I know all of that but it doesn't change my views on the matter, why should it? Isn't the solution then to get a better, less hypocritical, less cynical government in power rather than throw our hands up and say the internet cannot be regulated because the motives of those some of those who do are not pure?

Opposing this particular policy from this rotten government isn't the same as opposing all regulation of the internet, though. There's a lot of space between holding out for a better government and giving up trying entirely.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

To be honest, that is sort of my point. I never said shield kids from all topics of sex and death, just be age appropriate about it. Something, somewhere along the line has gone terribly wrong if parents have to explain to a 6 yr old what fisting, watersports, or rape 'fantasy' porn is.

6 year olds shouldn't be a near screen unsupervised for any great length of time, certainly not a screen that has unchecked internet access, in the same way a kid that age shouldn't be running around the street unsupervised for any length of time. Consider the general trend (for parents and kids) - life is much easier than it would have been 50.. 100 years ago. Or do you think existence would have been easier in previous decades?

 

[snadge]

6 year olds shouldn't be a near screen unsupervised for any great length of time, certainly not a screen that has unchecked internet access, in the same way a kid that age shouldn't be running around the street unsupervised for any length of time. Consider the general trend (for parents and kids) - life is much easier than it would have been 50.. 100 years ago. Or do you think existence would have been easier in previous decades?

This is the problem, parents expect that entertainment should pass certain standards, they are too lazy to implement their own standards and expect clueless fuckwits in government to implement those standards for them. There are plenty of tools available for free that parents could screen and censor internet usage, yet they think their MP should do it for them.

 

[pengaleng]

The point being that if you had kids you know that what you wrote before is complete and total bollocks!

Neither is it much to ask porn users to confirm their age.

a, yer still making no point. and it's gone from 'looking after kids' to 'having kids' which one do you actually mean?

b, it is much to ask people to input their financial details on insecure websites.

c, discuss porn with your kids.

 

[pengaleng]

This is the problem, parents expect that entertainment should pass certain standards, they are to lazy to implement their own standards and expect clueless fuckwits in government to implement those standards for them. There are plenty of tools available for free that parents could screen and censor internet usage, yet they think their MP should do it for them.

this basically.

 

[mather]

So both narratives are wrong.

But you and a whole lot of other people seem to fall for them. Of course regulating the internet is not easy thing and a big challenge, but I am instantly suspicious of any narrative that says it can't be done.

The point is that taking (or not taking) action based on false narratives can lead to sub-optimal and harmful results.

But the point that exposing kids to all the crap that is not age appropriate on the internet does harm is true.

So is internet porn a problem that needs special action taken? I for one am not convinced.

Well many child psychologists, clinical experts in addiction and mental health workers will disagree with you and I'll take their advice over yours anyday. Just because it conflicts with your free for all liberal dogma doesn't mean it is not true.

Even if it is a problem, requiring sites to ask for credit card details sounds like another "solution" that lazily attempts to patch over things without actually addressing the underlying issues.

I'll admit that any solution has it's problems and fallbacks, I said as much in my previous posts. But I can't help but feel that these fall back arguments are just cynical and disingenuous. If you are such a critic of this solution, I don't see you or anyone else coming up with something that is constructive and I can't but feel that any solution (no matter how effective it is) is going to get shot down by some because the very notion of having the internet regulated (like everything else is in society) is an anathema to them.

Besides throwing your hands up and saying 'this is the world we live in now, get used to it', what solutions do you have to stop kids from getting easy access to porn?

I mean really, if parents can't take the time needed to have a frank discussion with their children concerning pornography and the often-distorted ways in which it portrays sexuality, then it doesn't matter if websites ask for CC details or not, because at best it just delays the problem until one is old enough,

Which is exactly what this law aims to to do, to allow them to view it when they are old enough. Do you really think the mind of a 6 yr old is a capable as understanding all the implications about something as the mind of a fully grown adult?

If parents can neither make the time needed for educating their children, nor have the time made for them, then pornography is exactly the sort of subject that I think should be added to the sex education curriculum. As far as I remember, this was never addressed when I went to school.

What are you suggesting, that they show pornos in class to kids, fuck that!

Slippery slope is a fallacy for good reasons; I think I can say with certainty that certain darknet activities will never be legalised.

Lol, if there is one thing that has proven true with the passage of time, it's the slippery slope. Only those who lack the ability to make a proper argument or those who defend the indefensible call it a fallacy. With the way liberalism has corrupted society and social and moral values what was not acceptable today become so tomorrow. I have even seen degenerates try and make to case for legalising all sorts of crap from pedophillia to necrophilia, all using the same type of arguments and debating points that the human rights, identity politics and LGBT rights movement used. Just to be clear, I'm not saying the two movements are linked in any way (I'm gay myself) but the liberal narrative of never ending sexual 'freedom' will one day lead us to that dark place unless it is properly countered. If you think that is far fetched then look at what happened in Denmark in the 60s and 70s. They legalised porn with no regulations whatsoever and for about a decade, child porn was legal.

I'm not even asking that we go back in time or whatever, simply that applying the breaks every now and then and not blindly accepting every libertarian stance on social issues would do us a lot of good.

As for parental control, the tools are available but the government doesn't encourage their use, instead preferring top-down, "one size fits nobody" pseudo-solutions that don't take into account the values and preferences of specific families.

It is no different from the age classifications we had for videos and DVDs. I don't seem to remember anyone moaning about it because it was a one size fits all policy. As for that point, all laws are one size fits all, they are supposed to apply to everyone equally, you can't have laws tailored to each individual.

Also I would wager that most parents would be concerned if their kids were looking at hardcore porn so in this instance this law is at tailored to the concerns of most parents.

Opposing this particular policy from this rotten government isn't the same as opposing all regulation of the internet, though. There's a lot of space between holding out for a better government and giving up trying entirely.

I totally agree but that is an issue in and of itself as is this one. So far though I haven't seen any of these critics offer a better solution. This solution is not the most ideal but in the absence of alternatives, what does anyone else suggest?

 

[mather]

6 year olds shouldn't be a near screen unsupervised for any great length of time, certainly not a screen that has unchecked internet access, in the same way a kid that age shouldn't be running around the street unsupervised for any length of time.

What about all the times they are unsupervised? What about when kids are out in the playground at school or on the bus home? Even if your kids doesn't have a smartphone, you can bet that one in his/her circle of friends will have one.

Consider the general trend (for parents and kids) - life is much easier than it would have been 50.. 100 years ago. Or do you think existence would have been easier in previous decades?

I wasn't talking about 100 yrs ago, life was shit for many then. I was referring to the era of 1945 till the 70s, when the welfare state and NHS were better, people expected and got stable and well paid jobs that could properly support a family and a lot less social alienation. We reached a peak in living standards then in my opinion and since then everything has been in decline, jobs, wages, community, social and moral values etc... I don't believe in the myth of 'progress' that things in the future are going to be better simply because it is in the future, that is dogma and no different to a religion.

 

[mather]

a, yer still making no point.

I am, you are just too stupid to even get it.

If you don't have kids, do you really think you know more about parenting that those who are actually parents?

b, it is much to ask people to input their financial details on insecure websites.

If it bugs you that much, don't use the internet. Any website that requires your details (Facebook, Ebay, Amazon etc...) is vulnerable to hacking but I don't see you raising that point, wonder why that is?

 

[Ming]

Just an aside. I remember getting my first pron mag from the local newsagent (Penthouse). A rite of passage. I stashed it behind the wardrobe were it remained until one day it was gone when i got back from Polytechnic on holidays. The subject was never mentioned....until about 3 years later when my dad and i were drunk in a bar in Spain. 'Dad, did ever look behind the wardrobe in my room while i was away at college'? 'No son, your mum did though. While she was giving the room a good clean'. Nothing else was said but non-specific laughter started and 'behind the wardrobe' became a thing. And my bong was missing (California carafe bottle plus tubing and glue). They really tossed the place.

 

[Raheem]

This is the problem, parents expect that entertainment should pass certain standards, they are too lazy to implement their own standards and expect clueless fuckwits in government to implement those standards for them. There are plenty of tools available for free that parents could screen and censor internet usage, yet they think their MP should do it for them.

Children are not moral extensions of their parents, and there's no good basis for supposing it is right that a child's interests should be served or not served, by degrees, according to competences and resources of the random people who happen to be responsible for it. Granted, it is often unavoidable, but that doesn't make it a moral good unless you're Ayn Rand, and it's no solution to anything to blame the poor quality of people out there in the world, particularly when the issue is basically how much inconvenience is too much if you want to watch a visibly scared Eastern European teenager give a blowjob while you have a wank. It's completely dismal even without that context to wash your hands of a social conundrum by invoking feckless parents (although, in the literal sense you should definitely wash your hands).

 

[pengaleng]

regulating the internet is such a huge 'challenge' it's probably more reasonable to have an expectation that parents should be responsible enough to lock their internet down - public access internet seems to accomplish it and millions of schools and offices.

and as for 'mnerrrrr me kid will see something on another kids phone' - maybe if thats the case talk to the other kids parents seeing as it's known to happen, cus it's not like the social is scary to anyone is it?

 

[pengaleng]

I am, you are just too stupid to even get it.

If you don't have kids, do you really think you know more about parenting that those who are actually parents?



If it bugs you that much, don't use the internet. Any website that requires your details (Facebook, Ebay, Amazon etc...) is vulnerable to hacking but I don't see you raising that point, wonder why that is?

didnt wanna touch c, then? lol classic.

and for the record I dont actually use facebook, ebay or amazon, thats probably why I'm not raising that point, you needn't wonder.

 

[NoXion]

But you and a whole lot of other people seem to fall for them. Of course regulating the internet is not easy thing and a big challenge, but I am instantly suspicious of any narrative that says it can't be done.

Who on this thread is saying it that? I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly am not. I think what really concerns most people about this particular policy is the idea that one should hand over financially valuable information regardless of whether one is actually paying for legal content or not.

But the point that exposing kids to all the crap that is not age appropriate on the internet does harm is true.

Well many child psychologists, clinical experts in addiction and mental health workers will disagree with you and I'll take their advice over yours anyday. Just because it conflicts with your free for all liberal dogma doesn't mean it is not true.

Plenty of people view inappropriate content as children without growing up into serial killers or sex pests, and I'm sure said experts would agree that parents and educators have a major role to play in guiding their kids on such matters. This policy completely ignores parental input as far as I can tell. It also does nothing for those kids whose parents don't give a shit.

I'll admit that any solution has it's problems and fallbacks, I said as much in my previous posts. But I can't help but feel that these fall back arguments are just cynical and disingenuous. If you are such a critic of this solution, I don't see you or anyone else coming up with something that is constructive and I can't but feel that any solution (no matter how effective it is) is going to get shot down by some because the very notion of having the internet regulated (like everything else is in society) is an anathema to them.

Besides throwing your hands up and saying 'this is the world we live in now, get used to it', what solutions do you have to stop kids from getting easy access to porn?

I have in fact offered alternatives; educating kids and encouraging and helping parents to take better control of their child's internet access.

Which is exactly what this law aims to to do, to allow them to view it when they are old enough. Do you really think the mind of a 6 yr old is a capable as understanding all the implications about something as the mind of a fully grown adult?

This law does no such thing if kids can "borrow" their parents' credit cards. Or if kids visit one of the many sites that will doubtless ignore this law because they're outside of the UK and/or don't give a shit. Or any number of scenarios one could think up. Whereas at least helping parents to acquire and use the means to control internet access at home, doesn't rely on porn companies being based in this country and abiding by UK laws. Educating kids will also help regardless of whether parents control their child's internet access or not.

What are you suggesting, that they show pornos in class to kids, fuck that!

No. That's an uncharacteristically ungenerous interpretation of my words. Despite what prudish puritanical types might think, sex education isn't about teaching kids specific techniques, or at least it wasn't when I went to school. Speaking of which, my sex education didn't even address the subject of porn. Kids need to know that the shit they might see on PornHub or wherever isn't representative of sex or relationships in real life.

Lol, if there is one thing that has proven true with the passage of time, it's the slippery slope. Only those who lack the ability to make a proper argument or those who defend the indefensible call it a fallacy. With the way liberalism has corrupted society and social and moral values what was not acceptable today become so tomorrow. I have even seen degenerates try and make to case for legalising all sorts of crap from pedophillia to necrophilia, all using the same type of arguments and debating points that the human rights, identity politics and LGBT rights movement used. Just to be clear, I'm not saying the two movements are linked in any way (I'm gay myself) but the liberal narrative of never ending sexual 'freedom' will one day lead us to that dark place unless it is properly countered. If you think that is far fetched then look at what happened in Denmark in the 60s and 70s. They legalised porn with no regulations whatsoever and for about a decade, child porn was legal.

I'm not even asking that we go back in time or whatever, simply that applying the breaks every now and then and not blindly accepting every libertarian stance on social issues would do us a lot of good.

Just because paedos steal arguments from others doesn't make their arguments right, no more than fascists cloaking themselves in the rhetoric of the left makes them friends of the working class. Kids by their nature can't give informed consent to sexual acts, and no amount of twisting by paedo advocates is getting around that fact. Hence why the argument that gay rights are a slippery slope leading to paedo rights is a fallacy.

It is no different from the age classifications we had for videos and DVDs. I don't seem to remember anyone moaning about it because it was a one size fits all policy. As for that point, all laws are one size fits all, they are supposed to apply to everyone equally, you can't have laws tailored to each individual.

Also I would wager that most parents would be concerned if their kids were looking at hardcore porn so in this instance this law is at tailored to the concerns of most parents.

Age classifications are a hell of a lot more flexible than a policy that demands that everyone, whether they have kids or not, hand over CC details in order to view legal content. If parents are concerned about their kids viewing hardcore pornography then they should at least be trying to control their kids' internet access, rather than just letting the government do it for them. If parents want help with that then they should get it, and I reckon it would be a damn sight easier and more effective.

 

[Dom Traynor]

c, discuss porn with your kids.

I read the stories out of Fiesta to my son every night before bed

 

[mather]

Who on this thread is saying it that? I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly am not.

I have seen others say this, not you but others have made such claims.

I think what really concerns most people about this particular policy is the idea that one should hand over financially valuable information regardless of whether one is actually paying for legal content or not.

What about other alternatives that could verify age with divulging financial details such as passport number. If I understand this correctly, every passport issued has a unique number that identifies the holder of said passport. Why not have a system that asks for that, then you solve the issue of divulging financial information.

Plenty of people view inappropriate content as children without growing up into serial killers or sex pests, and I'm sure said experts would agree that parents and educators have a major role to play in guiding their kids on such matters.

None of them argue against parents having a greater role but as I have said many times before, parents can't be there for their kids all the time due to work. In this world, you have to work to support kids but at very the same time you work to support your kids you have to leave them and not always be there for them and not one of those experts argues against the state intervening if the parents cannot be there all the time or if it is in the interests of the child/children's welfare to intervene.

Just because they don't grow into the worst examples (serial killers or sex pests) doesn't mean that what they are exposed to doesn't cause damage. This is a very libertarian view of the effects of harm, as long as you're not actively going out to punch people in the face, whatever you do doesn't harm society at large. I just don't buy that logic. It is when parents cannot or won't step up that you need state intervention, otherwise you leave them at the mercy of neglect or abuse and for what, to make some point about parents who (in many cases because of circumstances beyond their control) cannot be there 100% of the time for their child.

This policy completely ignores parental input as far as I can tell.

It really doesn't, just correctly acknowledges that parents can't always be there due to work.

It also does nothing for those kids whose parents don't give a shit.

How do you know that. If for example it stops 6 out of every 10 children from accessing porn than that is good enough for me. Yes, the more tech savvy kids will find ways around it but many others won't.

As for the parents who don't give a shit, it is those instances that the state should step in, because if they don't who will? Child welfare is too important an issue to turn into some political point scoring about parents having to do everything.

I have in fact offered alternatives; educating kids and encouraging and helping parents to take better control of their child's internet access.

No one is arguing against that are they and I don't get the false dichotomy that somehow having legislation to limit porn exposure to kids somehow negates other solutions. Also, educating kids is good and all but kids being kids will sometime do things they know they are not supposed to.

This law does no such thing if kids can "borrow" their parents' credit cards.

Well that makes it easier to trace and can help out parents as one day dad will get a msg saying 'thank you for registering with us' when he knows he never registered with them and so will know it is probably his son who nicked his card and can confront him on it.

Or if kids visit one of the many sites that will doubtless ignore this law because they're outside of the UK and/or don't give a shit.

Well there is one very simple solution to that problem, ban any porn site that does not follow our laws. If they wish to enjoy UK custom they can either abide by the rules or fuck off. Even Google had to bend to the Chinese to get access to their internet users.

Educating kids will also help regardless of whether parents control their child's internet access or not.

But certain things are not age appropriate, like I said no parent should ever have to explain something as graphic as fisting or rape 'fantasy' to a 6 yr old. Your arguments seem to rest on the basis that a child's mind is as developed and as rational as an adults when it really is not. Education has it's place but you cannot teach kids from right and wrong with just carrot, you need some stick too.

No. That's an uncharacteristically ungenerous interpretation of my words. Despite what prudish puritanical types might think, sex education isn't about teaching kids specific techniques, or at least it wasn't when I went to school.

They show porn vids to kids in Denmark and from what I have seen their sex 'education' seems like gross titillation. Sex education should just be a matter of fact thing like any other aspect of biology and social studies.

Just because paedos steal arguments from others doesn't make their arguments right, no more than fascists cloaking themselves in the rhetoric of the left makes them friends of the working class.

The real world is not the Oxford debating society where ideas sink or swim on the basis of their objective truth or how correct they are. More often than not bad/incorrect ideas have had enormous influence due to the fact that they are useful to those promoting them. Take for example the idea of trickle down economics. It bullshit and objectively wrong but it is an idea that caught on and influenced enough people to cause lasting damage, despite it being wrong. Your fascism example backs up my point, despite their claims to be on the side of the workers to be bullshit, they did convince enough people that at one point over half the nations of Europe were ruled by fascist or para-fascist regimes.

Pedos steal the language of the civil rights movement not because they are right but because they are useful. Pedos will have a hard time convincing anyone to support them if they simply state they are horny for kids but if they dress up their narrative as one of human rights and civil liberties and talk about how their 'sexuality' is being oppressed then they will certainly get more support from some deluded liberals than they otherwise would. What I am saying is not even hypothetical, it happened in Denmark in the 70s.

Kids by their nature can't give informed consent to sexual acts, and no amount of twisting by paedo advocates is getting around that fact. Hence why the argument that gay rights are a slippery slope leading to paedo rights is a fallacy.

I was simply using gay rights as an example and being gay myself I obviously support equal rights for gays, that specifically is not the issue but what is the issue is the wider narrative of human rights and how it can at times be abused by people who are asking for rights they simply do not deserve.

It is my opinion that the left could well do with forming it's own views of social issues with it's own critical eye without doing what is does now which is to simply follow the liberal/libertarian way of thinking, with its obsession with everything beginning and ending with the individual. It is no surprise that the left is now a lot more individualistic since it's marriage with liberalism and divorce from the working class during the 60s and ever since.

Age classifications are a hell of a lot more flexible than a policy that demands that everyone, whether they have kids or not, hand over CC details in order to view legal content.

The difference being that in the old days you had to go to a video store to get pornos or a newsagent to get a mag and the staff could see whether you're old enough or not. Heck I tried to get porn mags from the newsagent when I was about 14 but never did because the newsagent could see that I was talking bollocks when I said I was 18. On the internet there is not that level of social interaction where the owners of porn sites can see who is consuming their porn and in the absence of the ability of people making discretionary decisions like that, a general age verification system sounds good and a whole lot better than just doing nothing and moaning about parents not pulling their weight.

 

[NoXion]

I have seen others say this, not you but others have made such claims.

What about other alternatives that could verify age with divulging financial details such as passport number. If I understand this correctly, every passport issued has a unique number that identifies the holder of said passport. Why not have a system that asks for that, then you solve the issue of divulging financial information.

Well that certainly avoids the problem of potentially giving fraudsters and hackers a bonanza. It does raise the question of why the government didn't go for that in the first place. My reckoning based on their previous actions is that they don't actually give a shit, and that they chose credit cards for the same reason that they keep floating those fucking awful benefit payment cards - because the companies involved are willing to scratch their back in turn.

None of them argue against parents having a greater role but as I have said many times before, parents can't be there for their kids all the time due to work. In this world, you have to work to support kids but at very the same time you work to support your kids you have to leave them and not always be there for them and not one of those experts argues against the state intervening if the parents cannot be there all the time or if it is in the interests of the child/children's welfare to intervene.

Just because they don't grow into the worst examples (serial killers or sex pests) doesn't mean that what they are exposed to doesn't cause damage. This is a very libertarian view of the effects of harm, as long as you're not actively going out to punch people in the face, whatever you do doesn't harm society at large. I just don't buy that logic. It is when parents cannot or won't step up that you need state intervention, otherwise you leave them at the mercy of neglect or abuse and for what, to make some point about parents who (in many cases because of circumstances beyond their control) cannot be there 100% of the time for their child.

If parents cannot make the time to personally supervise their children, then there are other ways. Like I said before, the tools exist for parents to take better control, and the government could take action to encourage and help parents acquire and use those tools effectively. Educating kids provides an avenue through which society can help even if their parents don't give a shit, in which case this policy would also be ineffective.

This policy applies to everyone, regardless of how good they are at being parents, or even if they have any kids in the first place. That's not the state stepping in to help the most vulnerable at their hour of need, that's the state adding yet another pointless hurdle in order to be seen to be doing something.

It really doesn't, just correctly acknowledges that parents can't always be there due to work.

So where do parents get to give their opinion on what they consider to be pornography? Do you really think every family has the same standards on the matter?

How do you know that. If for example it stops 6 out of every 10 children from accessing porn than that is good enough for me. Yes, the more tech savvy kids will find ways around it but many others won't.

Because you don't have to be tech savvy, or even particularly smart, to borrow a credit card for five minutes. I think 6 out of 10 is probably extremely optimistic.

As for the parents who don't give a shit, it is those instances that the state should step in, because if they don't who will? Child welfare is too important an issue to turn into some political point scoring about parents having to do everything.

If the state needs to step in to protect the welfare of children from neglectful parents, then I would hope that such action would be more substantial than requiring one to fill out a form on a web page. Also, this policy doesn't represent the state stepping to protect anyone because even households without children will have to submit CC details. Exactly who is being protected in that case?

 

[NoXion]

No one is arguing against that are they and I don't get the false dichotomy that somehow having legislation to limit porn exposure to kids somehow negates other solutions. Also, educating kids is good and all but kids being kids will sometime do things they know they are not supposed to.

I'm not convinced that this policy will actually "limit porn exposure to kids". Education on the other hand does work do reduce things like teen pregnancy, and empirical results trump abstract projections.

Well that makes it easier to trace and can help out parents as one day dad will get a msg saying 'thank you for registering with us' when he knows he never registered with them and so will know it is probably his son who nicked his card and can confront him on it.

Assuming that the kid in question supplies their parents' phone number or email. Or that the website is scrupulous about sending those kind of messages.

Well there is one very simple solution to that problem, ban any porn site that does not follow our laws. If they wish to enjoy UK custom they can either abide by the rules or fuck off. Even Google had to bend to the Chinese to get access to their internet users.

That's why nobody in China sees anything the government doesn't want them to see. The government has to be aware of a site in order to ban it, so new sites, obscure sites, etc would still be accessible. Using a web-based proxy is simple enough and easily circumvents the weak-sauce "bans" imposed by our technically ignorant courts of law.

There's also no reason to believe that what the law considers "pornography" is necessarily the same thing as what experts agree is harmful to children. Parents, lawmakers, experts and ordinary citizens can all agree that something like Anal Pirates 6 constitutes hardcore pornography and is thus not suitable for minors, but all the real arguments will be focused on the edge cases.

Not so simple really, is it?

But certain things are not age appropriate, like I said no parent should ever have to explain something as graphic as fisting or rape 'fantasy' to a 6 yr old. Your arguments seem to rest on the basis that a child's mind is as developed and as rational as an adults when it really is not. Education has it's place but you cannot teach kids from right and wrong with just carrot, you need some stick too.

There's no need to go into the messy details that I can see. Presenting the basic facts about pornography - that it is a for-profit business and how that might influence the general nature of the acts depicted within it, and how said acts contrast with healthy sexual encounters in the real world - is not a matter of carrot/stick as far as I am concerned. In the UK I understand that sex education typically begins at 14 or 15, so I have no idea why you keep going on about 6 year olds.

They show porn vids to kids in Denmark and from what I have seen their sex 'education' seems like gross titillation. Sex education should just be a matter of fact thing like any other aspect of biology and social studies.

Well here in the more strait-laced UK I don't think you will have to worry about any of that happening. Although to my knowledge the Danes are not a markedly more depraved people than Brits are, so maybe there are lessons to be learned there.

The real world is not the Oxford debating society where ideas sink or swim on the basis of their objective truth or how correct they are. More often than not bad/incorrect ideas have had enormous influence due to the fact that they are useful to those promoting them. Take for example the idea of trickle down economics. It bullshit and objectively wrong but it is an idea that caught on and influenced enough people to cause lasting damage, despite it being wrong. Your fascism example backs up my point, despite their claims to be on the side of the workers to be bullshit, they did convince enough people that at one point over half the nations of Europe were ruled by fascist or para-fascist regimes.

Pedos steal the language of the civil rights movement not because they are right but because they are useful. Pedos will have a hard time convincing anyone to support them if they simply state they are horny for kids but if they dress up their narrative as one of human rights and civil liberties and talk about how their 'sexuality' is being oppressed then they will certainly get more support from some deluded liberals than they otherwise would. What I am saying is not even hypothetical, it happened in Denmark in the 70s.

Which was at least 38 years ago. Also the history of consent laws in Denmark shows that paedo advocates didn't get very far:

In 1969, Denmark became the first country to legalise pictorial pornography,[24] but this did not include specific laws related to the age of people participating in the production. Consequently, the legal age of consent (15) equaled the limit for pornography produced within the country, but material produced in other countries (where the Danish consent law does not apply) was not covered and therefore legal. In 1980 it became illegal to sell, spread or possess pornography involving children under the age of 15, regardless of country of origin (Danish Penal Code §235).[25] The limit was later changed to 18 years, which is the standing law today, although it remains legal for a person over the age of 15 to take their own nude photos, as long as they are only shared with friends (for example, with a boy/girlfriend), the receiver explicitly has received the right to possess them, and they are not shared or spread further.[25] In the period between the legalisation of pornography and the 1980 amendment to the Danish Penal Code, some companies (infamously Color Climax) exploited the lack of age restrictions on material produced in other countries.[26]

So much for that slippery slope, eh?

I was simply using gay rights as an example and being gay myself I obviously support equal rights for gays, that specifically is not the issue but what is the issue is the wider narrative of human rights and how it can at times be abused by people who are asking for rights they simply do not deserve.

It is my opinion that the left could well do with forming it's own views of social issues with it's own critical eye without doing what is does now which is to simply follow the liberal/libertarian way of thinking, with its obsession with everything beginning and ending with the individual. It is no surprise that the left is now a lot more individualistic since it's marriage with liberalism and divorce from the working class during the 60s and ever since.

And I'm pointing out that the people who claim gay rights are a gateway to pedo rights - whether those people are warning against it or arguing for it - are committing the exact same fallacy, it's just that they have differing opinions on the matter. If that's too rarefied and Oxford Debating Club-like for your tastes, then unlike fascism I strongly doubt that paedo advocacy will ever become popular enough to change the law.

Excessive individualism certainly has its problems, but I don't think that the answer involves handing control over to a government composed largely of Tories and Blairites and their associated "morals", which include covering up the crimes of well-connected paedos, leaving vulnerable people to die in miserable poverty, bombing and invading countries on the basis of lies cooked up to try convincing a skeptical public and so on. Giving the control to parents instead sounds like a better idea to me, and that doesn't mean that parents will have to constantly look over the shoulders of their children.

The difference being that in the old days you had to go to a video store to get pornos or a newsagent to get a mag and the staff could see whether you're old enough or not. Heck I tried to get porn mags from the newsagent when I was about 14 but never did because the newsagent could see that I was talking bollocks when I said I was 18. On the internet there is not that level of social interaction where the owners of porn sites can see who is consuming their porn and in the absence of the ability of people making discretionary decisions like that, a general age verification system sounds good and a whole lot better than just doing nothing and moaning about parents not pulling their weight.

Many a good idea has been scuppered because of the complications involved in their implementation. Using passport numbers sounds like a better idea than CC details, but that still leaves questions such as how much an age verification system would cost to implement, and the effects that a cost would have. The major streaming sites can easily afford it, but smaller sites are likely to suffer, leading to the "McDonaldisation/Facebookisation" of internet porn and attendant consequences.

 

[phillm]

Just an aside. I remember getting my first pron mag from the local newsagent (Penthouse). A rite of passage. I stashed it behind the wardrobe were it remained until one day it was gone when i got back from Polytechnic on holidays. The subject was never mentioned....until about 3 years later when my dad and i were drunk in a bar in Spain. 'Dad, did ever look behind the wardrobe in my room while i was away at college'? 'No son, your mum did though. While she was giving the room a good clean'. Nothing else was said but non-specific laughter started and 'behind the wardrobe' became a thing. And my bong was missing (California carafe bottle plus tubing and glue). They really tossed the place.

Aye the 'mum searches' were like a shake-down at a maximum security prison. They are all seeing , all powerful.

 

[cybershot]

Just an aside. I remember getting my first pron mag from the local newsagent (Penthouse). A rite of passage. I stashed it behind the wardrobe were it remained until one day it was gone when i got back from Polytechnic on holidays. The subject was never mentioned....until about 3 years later when my dad and i were drunk in a bar in Spain. 'Dad, did ever look behind the wardrobe in my room while i was away at college'? 'No son, your mum did though. While she was giving the room a good clean'. Nothing else was said but non-specific laughter started and 'behind the wardrobe' became a thing. And my bong was missing (California carafe bottle plus tubing and glue). They really tossed the place.

Reminds me of a story my sister recently told me that my Mum has never fessed up too. My mum, assumed I was on loads of drugs because I'd go clubbing every weekend.

So searched my room. All she found was porn, bless her, she left it where she found it.

 

[cybershot]

It looks like it is about to happen.

Age checks to be introduced on porn websites in UK

Two things come to mind:

1. How many hours after a site introduces it do we think someone will leak all the names of the credit card holders?
2. How many seconds after it is implemented do you think many more people in this country will learn about proxies?

Worth noting that the guardian article above has since been updated since yesterday, with a bit more of a backlash tone.

 

[souljacker]

This is a classic example of government not getting the internet. Is it really going to be possible to say to every porn site "If you don't do this, we'll block you"? Legitimate porn sites might comply, but not all of them will. The ones that do comply will need to perform location based IP lookups to push back the age verification thing. Any kid with even the tiniest bit of internet knowledge will be able to use a VPN to get round it or just use torrents or some other downloading method instead. This info will be round the school in no time at all and all this effort will be undone. Sites that are more under the radar will ignore the laws and will still be accessible. Yes, the government could block them in the UK, but as they've found with the torrent sites, proxies will pop up, VPNs will be used and kids will still get access to porn. So the government has wasted it's time and money implementing a pointless law.