21 ms·

UK drops plans for online pornography age verification system

143 points by JulianMorrison 7y ago

rasengan 7y ago
This is big news, but unfortunately, it sounds like it was dropped due to implementation issue as opposed to the fact that it is censorship and, moreover, an invasion of privacy. As I always said, opt-in is not an option.
gherkinnn 7y ago
Good riddance. A moronic idea to begin with. “The decision will disappoint a number of British businesses that had invested substantial time and money developing verification products.” I’m devastated. Let’s hope they all follow their morals and go bankrupt.
- neiman 7y ago
  Don't worry about them too much; they're gonna sell the technology to other countries.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  What's the moronic idea? Requiring age verification for age-restricted products, or age-restricting porn?
  - e2le 7y ago
    Requiring that people buy a "porn pass" (a nice way of saying license) in order to view porn is moronic. I also have reservations on how peoples information is collected and stored when they buy said porn pass which could have far reaching negative consequences.
    - jimcsharp 7y ago
      I thought almost everyone in the UK already paid for BBC. Hacker news isn't Reddit and I'm acting entirely too silly.
      - e2le 7y ago
        Your election isn't going to be threatened because you pay for a TV license and neither is your religious family going to disown you. The TV license is also moronic but for different reasons and is probably why there is a growing movement to scrap it.
        commoner 7y ago
        The parent comment was a joke: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BBC https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BBC
        e2le 7y ago
        Went over my head.
      - Bantros 7y ago
        I'd rather burn the money than buy a tv license
        e2le 7y ago
        My family has being hounded by BBC goons in the past for ceasing to pay for the TV license. They even had the "TV detector van" come out and hang around their home before a women hired by them try to forcefully gain entry by pushing past them at the door. It's an entirely optional license fee and those who don't own a TV are not required to pay for it. They employ scare tactics and harass people into paying up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
        DonHopkins 7y ago
    - cr0sh 7y ago
      > I also have reservations on how peoples information is collected and stored when they buy said porn pass which could have far reaching negative consequences. I'd wager a good deal of money on betting that the conservative minded people pushing this legislation are also likely ones who consume a great deal of the content this legislation is aimed at. I tend to wonder: Do they have to buy said "passes" as well, or are they allowed to "opt out", so to speak? I'd better the latter is more likely than the former, but it raises the question of what makes them so darn special? Of course, they'd probably claim they don't need it anyhow, as they are (somehow) of higher moral character (or some such rubbish) and would -never- consume such content anyhow... If something like this actually gained traction and went on to become law, it wouldn't be very long until one or more of the legislators who pushed for it found their internet browsing history out in the public sphere. Sad thing, though? Given today's seeming apathy, and in some cases acceptance and encouragement, of such activity by our public servants, likely nothing would happen to them politically or publicly. It's a sickening form of Animal Farm we are currently living in.
  - gherkinnn 7y ago
    Fair question. Mainly the possible implementations and the thus following implications. It enrages me how technically illiterate (insult of your choosing) conjure up these idiotic ideas and hordes of (more insults) companies jump on that bandwagon. All in the name of “save the children”. When we all know that that’s a very poor excuse but an excellent gateway for further regulation, since few people will publicly stand against it for obvious reasons. I also faintly remember them banning various genres like bdsm and squirting. The latter because it might be simulated by pissing. I’m in to neither but it’s nobody’s business, as long as it’s consenting. Whether or not to age-restrict porn I don’t know. I’m the wrong person to ask.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    The specific moronic idea here was that the UK, a relatively small country that's nowhere near as powerful as it once was should get to enforce this rule for the entire globe. That's both the idea that wasn't workable (the original plan said ISPs have to censor the rest of the world using DNS blocking, as you may have noticed this doesn't work if you have DPRIVE, which was in fact already under development before the UK Government came up with this stupid idea) and it's the idea that makes no coherent sense anyway. Why should a Russian pornographer obey a British rule? Should a Canadian pornographer obey Chinese rules? How does "pornography" get to be special here? We have international rules, but only for things everybody (more or less) agrees are bad, like murder or piracy. We don't have such agreement as to what pornography even includes, let alone whether it should be restricted and who should get to access it.
    - journalctl 7y ago
      The UK has a long history of exerting power over large portions of the world. Perhaps they haven’t yet realized that’s no longer the case.
  - jaredklewis 7y ago
    I would say, it’s a horrible use of taxes to have the government attempt the Sisyphean task of classifying every site on the Internet and keeping it updated. If porn is a social ill (not sure I’m convinced, but I probably could be with some data), before we go all boot-on-face, let’s at least try engaging with minors first. As a minor in the US I was subjected to countless classes and lectures exploring the harms of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. If a minor in the US begins smoking, it’s not because they’ve never heard that cigarettes cause cancer. Are youth in the UK educated about porn and its harms? I would say starting there seems smarter.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - ben_w 7y ago
    I wouldn’t call the general idea “moronic”, however the attitude of the UK government seemed to treat “website” as equivalent to “publication” without any awareness of how much larger the current film classification board would have to become for that to work. Separately, I would argue that if even one category of content should be age restricted, then internet access as a whole should be age restricted. AI isn’t ready to be a good age-appropriate filter yet.
    - gherkinnn 7y ago
      A reasonable take on the topic. Regarding “if one then all”: The beauty behind the porn filter is that few people (especially our stainless leaders) will publicly say stand against it for fear of being ridiculed and not reelected. So you can get the infrastructure in place with only perverts protesting, only to then further expand that filter because terrorism | children | piracy | copyright | social credit | whathaveyou.
  - neiman 7y ago
    Age-restricting porn in the internet era is like record companies fighting digital music in the end of the 90s. Good luck with that. (all that without having really an opinion on the the topic of if and from which age porn should be restricted)
jupp0r 7y ago
Thank you, internet.
kerrsclyde 7y ago
VPN Providers will be crying into their beer.
alkonaut 7y ago
Sudden outbreak of common sense.
martokus 7y ago
I wonder who would stand up and say how much tax payers money were wasted here? Someone should, right? At least for Pornxit a decision was made. Brexit to follow... Update: spelling
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > Pornxit Eh, tacking -xit onto things doesn't work nearly as well as -gate, unfortunately.
  - Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
    Sexit
jliptzin 7y ago
> Although the age verification policy was first proposed by the Conservatives during the 2015 general election, it took years to develop and make it into law. Why are such laws always proposed by conservatives? Aren't they supposed to be for smaller, less intrusive government?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Possibly because pornography is against conservative values, at least for some definitions of "conservative".
  - galaxyLogic 7y ago
    Right. In the patriarchal society the patriarchs, the Abrahams, can have many wives. That means there are many men who can not have any wives. Now if those wifeless men had access to pornography they might get the idea that they want a wife too. So it's better for the patriarchs to keep porn away from the less fortunate men who might be inspired by it to demand a rule that no man can have more than one wife.
    - esarbe 7y ago
      Since the UK is not a patriarchal society, this comment contributes nothing. Also, to keep the peace in societies such as you described, it would probably make sense to have pornography available as outlet for repressed sexual desires.
      - galaxyLogic 7y ago
        In my opinion UK is, more or less, "patriarchal society". All societies are, more or less, no? Would you agree that say Saudi-Arabia is a "patriarchal society"? I can readily agree with your point it would probably help them as a society to legalize porn but seems like they are not going to do that any time soon: https://www.quora.com/Is-porn-banned-in-Saudi https://www.quora.com/Is-porn-banned-in-Saudi Why? If they did allow it the absolute power of the ruling dynasty could be questioned in other ways and that might be the end of that dynasty.
danjc 7y ago
Given the sentiment expressed in the comments here, I'd be interested to hear what technique others would propose to prevent access to porn by minors.
- vengefulduck 7y ago
  Parenting
- Isxida 7y ago
  Parenting and parental control tools (kids as a user role)
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  I don't think it's necessary to prevent minors from accessing pornography. 17 year old teenagers have a sex drive, it's time that society gets over it.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  The real question is why is that a goal in the first place? What is the harm prevented? The way I see it avoiding awkward conversations seems to be the most consistent "real goal" judging by other actions.
- yew 7y ago
  Given that I've not heard a proposal that wouldn't have also helped my parents hide the existence of gay people until I went off to university (and they tried!) - I wouldn't. I'm quite sure ulterior motives explain more than stated goals, here and elsewhere.
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  It's not plausible to do that. So teach them what it is and that it's stylized and unreal. Tell them that you don't want it on the family computer or the family wifi. Teach them to identify and despise misogyny. Teach them how to resist peer pressure. Teach them that society has weird ideas about what counts as real sex, or improved or advanced sex, when in reality it's just a thing adults do to express closeness and have fun. And then they will regulate themselves.
remotedeveloper 7y ago
> Instead, the government would instead focus on measures to protect children in the much broader online harms white paper.
nothrabannosir 7y ago
While the title inspires confidence ... > The culture secretary, Nicky Morgan, told parliament the policy would be abandoned. Instead, the government would instead focus on measures to protect children in the much broader online harms white paper. This is expected to introduce a new internet regulator, which will impose a duty of care on all websites and social media outlets – not just pornography sites. Which links to: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi... .. which is almost a satire of every “think of the children” and “beware of terrorists” manifesto ever written. It’s a long document but I couldn’t find a single mention of the balance between safety and governmental overreach.. I would be surprised if e2e encryption were compatible with this white paper.
- someanyone 7y ago
  Interestingly enough, it (encryption) may be fine: > 4.7. Reflecting the importance of privacy, the framework will also ensure a differentiated approach for private communication, meaning any requirements to scan or monitor content for tightly defined categories of illegal content will not apply to private channels.
  - timerol 7y ago
    This is a very broad point. It's compatible with everything from "anything goes as long as you connect via HTTPS" to "Big Brother is watching if you don't turn off all electronics nearby and talk quietly". The next sentence says that they haven't really thought about it yet: "We are consulting on definitions of private communications, and what measures should apply to these services."
- otakucode 7y ago
  Quite a few years ago I recall watching a presentation by a leader of a child advocacy organization that was dealing with the various governments in the EU and providing technical guidance to them. They were very close at the time to moving forward with a plan to require video card manufacturers to build things into their firmware to check every single image before it is displayed on screen against a database of known illegal imagery. The crux of the talk from the advocate was that they, child advocacy organizations, spend an awful lot of time and resources fighting against these sorts of high-profile attacks against imagery because it is known to not actually help kids in abusive situations. I keep expecting that sort of policy to re-appear. As technical people, we know that the technical aspects of such a proposal are insane and impractical, but that often doesn't constrain policymakers.
pmoriarty 7y ago
How does looking at pictures of naked people having sex harm children?
- billpg 7y ago
  I would instead ask if watching videos of women being raped and beaten up (even if fictional) harms children or sets up teenage boys with unreasonable expectations of what sex is like.
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    Too be honest, as a (probably still) dumb boy, I'm not sure NOT watching said content sets us up with any better expectations. The vast majority of people just have no freaking idea when it comes to sex; porn, erotica, wikihow articles or not
    - cauliflower99 7y ago
      I recall speaking with someone who became addicted to porn at a young age. It destroyed his life, his relationships and he became severely depressed. Furthermore, the porn industry has one of the highest rates of suicide. Perhaps the vast majority of people don't have a good idea precisely because they have watched porn from a young age. I know that's the case with the young adults of my generation (26 years). So to answer your question => Yes; not watching porn is much healthier than watching.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        I'm not sure I'd agree, unless you have statistics to back it up. Sure, porn may be unrealistic, but it does help normalize sexuality and might provide information to those who may otherwise not get it.
        lm28469 7y ago
        Might also normalise unhealthy sexual behaviors and spread misinformation. I don't think anyone can backup their claim with stats on that subject though.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
LinuxBender 7y ago
If they had kept the requirement simple (such as adding the RTA header) [1] and requiring browser developers to recognize the RTA header, then they would not have had the complexity and doubts currently in play. That would have pushed the requirement, liability and decision onto the parents as to whether or not adult content was appropriate. [1] - https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label
- schoen 7y ago
  It's difficult to force foreign web sites and foreign browser developers to support this, in general but especially if you don't have the threat of blocking them if they fail to comply. Even so, some of them are likely to be indifferent or actively opposed to it.
  - LinuxBender 7y ago
    There are already lists that say what domains are adult. This would just be adding one field that says RTA=(0|1|2) 0 being no header, 1 being site wide header, 2 being headers per URL. Governments that wish to go chasing after domain owners for non compliance could do so, just as they do today for copyright violations. (domain take-downs, etc)
    - schoen 7y ago
      I don't understand the international enforcement part. It's not illegal in the U.S. to have a porn site or sexually explicit site without an RTA header. There's no legal remedy available in the U.S. to the U.K. government against a site that intentionally decides not to use this header, nor against people providing infrastructure to that site. DNS registrars, registries, and ICANN don't require it either.
      - LinuxBender 7y ago
        This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. Certainly this won't solve VPN's and some proxies, but then who are we trying to block? Adults? Children? If we are thinking of the children, then an order to UK ISP's to consume the non-compliance list and block those domains (and even IP's if you want to get heavy handed) should more than suffice. Whether or not you decide to block CDN IP's is entirely up to how heavy handed you want to get. I predict CDN's would move adult sites to their own CIDR blocks if this starts occurring. If we are trying to block adults, that is a whole other discussion as to the intention of the blocking in the first place. I would expect some countries in the middle east already know how to address this problem, by forcing all traffic through a MITM set of proxies. I believe Syria and Iran use Bluecoat proxies. China uses (or used) a heavily modified netfliter implementation. They have the distinct advantage of not having to be performant. Priority always goes to blocking first.
Scapeghost 7y ago
The repression of sex instead of violence is THE single most bizarre facet of human society. WHY are there so many taboos around an act that provides pleasure, reduces stress and literally creates life, that is the most natural instinct and urge of practically every single creature in known existence, but we can freely show depictions of ending someone's life and glamorize death, injury and misery? What the honest, actual, fuck.
- roryrjb 7y ago
  Great comment. One word: religion.
  - chance_state 7y ago
    Don't you think people are naturally more private about sex though? I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along.
    - rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
      >I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along. My impression is it has less to do with religion itself but rather the culture. China under the CCP is far from a religious culture, but they’ve banned porn for decades. >Don’t you think people are naturally more private about sex though? The first rule of Fuck Club: don’t talk about Fuck Club.
    - dx87 7y ago
      I had to read a book about a tribe in the pacific islands, and they were more open about sex, but they still had some rules. For example, having multiple partners was considered immature behavior that is only acceptable for teenagers. Once the villagers got older, it was expected that they would get "married" and try to raise a family, but there was nothing forcing them to stay together. If they fell out of love, one would move out. As long as they stayed monogomous, it didn't matter how long they were in a relationship.
tryTryTryAgain 7y ago
Pornography is absolute fucking toxic waste. It is misery inducing in both obvious and subtle ways. Not only does pornography destroy reputation and exploit the naive, but it also causes a seething undercurrent of repressed jealousy to transpire among sexually frustrated individuals of all persuasions, far worse than the body image anxiety that any glossy fashion magazine could ever hope to provoke. If changes aren't made to reign in that extremely graphic pornography we see on the internet, with all the emphatic blockade tactics used against racists, malignant nationalists, child pornography and pedophilia, radicalizing terrorist propaganda and warring, retaliatory drug cartel snuff violence, you will see things get worse. Repeat: You will see things get worse. Much worse.
damnyou 7y ago
The fact that state-enforced age verification was within the overton window in the UK is unfathomable. All age restrictions are toxic and lead to a culture where parents and children mutually distrust each other. And the state wants to enforce them! No gods, no masters.
ColinWright 7y ago
Also discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21271103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21271103 Mentioned here with no discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270259

This is big news, but unfortunately, it sounds like it was dropped due to implementation issue as opposed to the fact that it is censorship and, moreover, an invasion of privacy. As I always said, opt-in is not an option.

gherkinnn 7y ago

Good riddance. A moronic idea to begin with. “The decision will disappoint a number of British businesses that had invested substantial time and money developing verification products.” I’m devastated. Let’s hope they all follow their morals and go bankrupt.

neiman 7y ago
Don't worry about them too much; they're gonna sell the technology to other countries.
vonmoltke 7y ago
What's the moronic idea? Requiring age verification for age-restricted products, or age-restricting porn?
- e2le 7y ago
  Requiring that people buy a "porn pass" (a nice way of saying license) in order to view porn is moronic. I also have reservations on how peoples information is collected and stored when they buy said porn pass which could have far reaching negative consequences.
  - jimcsharp 7y ago
    I thought almost everyone in the UK already paid for BBC. Hacker news isn't Reddit and I'm acting entirely too silly.
    - e2le 7y ago
      Your election isn't going to be threatened because you pay for a TV license and neither is your religious family going to disown you. The TV license is also moronic but for different reasons and is probably why there is a growing movement to scrap it.
      - commoner 7y ago
        The parent comment was a joke: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BBC https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BBC
        e2le 7y ago
        Went over my head.
    - Bantros 7y ago
      I'd rather burn the money than buy a tv license
      - e2le 7y ago
        My family has being hounded by BBC goons in the past for ceasing to pay for the TV license. They even had the "TV detector van" come out and hang around their home before a women hired by them try to forcefully gain entry by pushing past them at the door. It's an entirely optional license fee and those who don't own a TV are not required to pay for it. They employ scare tactics and harass people into paying up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
        DonHopkins 7y ago
  - cr0sh 7y ago
    > I also have reservations on how peoples information is collected and stored when they buy said porn pass which could have far reaching negative consequences. I'd wager a good deal of money on betting that the conservative minded people pushing this legislation are also likely ones who consume a great deal of the content this legislation is aimed at. I tend to wonder: Do they have to buy said "passes" as well, or are they allowed to "opt out", so to speak? I'd better the latter is more likely than the former, but it raises the question of what makes them so darn special? Of course, they'd probably claim they don't need it anyhow, as they are (somehow) of higher moral character (or some such rubbish) and would -never- consume such content anyhow... If something like this actually gained traction and went on to become law, it wouldn't be very long until one or more of the legislators who pushed for it found their internet browsing history out in the public sphere. Sad thing, though? Given today's seeming apathy, and in some cases acceptance and encouragement, of such activity by our public servants, likely nothing would happen to them politically or publicly. It's a sickening form of Animal Farm we are currently living in.
- gherkinnn 7y ago
  Fair question. Mainly the possible implementations and the thus following implications. It enrages me how technically illiterate (insult of your choosing) conjure up these idiotic ideas and hordes of (more insults) companies jump on that bandwagon. All in the name of “save the children”. When we all know that that’s a very poor excuse but an excellent gateway for further regulation, since few people will publicly stand against it for obvious reasons. I also faintly remember them banning various genres like bdsm and squirting. The latter because it might be simulated by pissing. I’m in to neither but it’s nobody’s business, as long as it’s consenting. Whether or not to age-restrict porn I don’t know. I’m the wrong person to ask.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  The specific moronic idea here was that the UK, a relatively small country that's nowhere near as powerful as it once was should get to enforce this rule for the entire globe. That's both the idea that wasn't workable (the original plan said ISPs have to censor the rest of the world using DNS blocking, as you may have noticed this doesn't work if you have DPRIVE, which was in fact already under development before the UK Government came up with this stupid idea) and it's the idea that makes no coherent sense anyway. Why should a Russian pornographer obey a British rule? Should a Canadian pornographer obey Chinese rules? How does "pornography" get to be special here? We have international rules, but only for things everybody (more or less) agrees are bad, like murder or piracy. We don't have such agreement as to what pornography even includes, let alone whether it should be restricted and who should get to access it.
  - journalctl 7y ago
    The UK has a long history of exerting power over large portions of the world. Perhaps they haven’t yet realized that’s no longer the case.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  I would say, it’s a horrible use of taxes to have the government attempt the Sisyphean task of classifying every site on the Internet and keeping it updated. If porn is a social ill (not sure I’m convinced, but I probably could be with some data), before we go all boot-on-face, let’s at least try engaging with minors first. As a minor in the US I was subjected to countless classes and lectures exploring the harms of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. If a minor in the US begins smoking, it’s not because they’ve never heard that cigarettes cause cancer. Are youth in the UK educated about porn and its harms? I would say starting there seems smarter.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ben_w 7y ago
  I wouldn’t call the general idea “moronic”, however the attitude of the UK government seemed to treat “website” as equivalent to “publication” without any awareness of how much larger the current film classification board would have to become for that to work. Separately, I would argue that if even one category of content should be age restricted, then internet access as a whole should be age restricted. AI isn’t ready to be a good age-appropriate filter yet.
  - gherkinnn 7y ago
    A reasonable take on the topic. Regarding “if one then all”: The beauty behind the porn filter is that few people (especially our stainless leaders) will publicly say stand against it for fear of being ridiculed and not reelected. So you can get the infrastructure in place with only perverts protesting, only to then further expand that filter because terrorism | children | piracy | copyright | social credit | whathaveyou.
- neiman 7y ago
  Age-restricting porn in the internet era is like record companies fighting digital music in the end of the 90s. Good luck with that. (all that without having really an opinion on the the topic of if and from which age porn should be restricted)

jupp0r 7y ago

Thank you, internet.

kerrsclyde 7y ago

VPN Providers will be crying into their beer.

alkonaut 7y ago

Sudden outbreak of common sense.

martokus 7y ago

I wonder who would stand up and say how much tax payers money were wasted here? Someone should, right? At least for Pornxit a decision was made. Brexit to follow... Update: spelling

vonmoltke 7y ago
> Pornxit Eh, tacking -xit onto things doesn't work nearly as well as -gate, unfortunately.
- Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
  Sexit

jliptzin 7y ago

> Although the age verification policy was first proposed by the Conservatives during the 2015 general election, it took years to develop and make it into law. Why are such laws always proposed by conservatives? Aren't they supposed to be for smaller, less intrusive government?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Possibly because pornography is against conservative values, at least for some definitions of "conservative".
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  Right. In the patriarchal society the patriarchs, the Abrahams, can have many wives. That means there are many men who can not have any wives. Now if those wifeless men had access to pornography they might get the idea that they want a wife too. So it's better for the patriarchs to keep porn away from the less fortunate men who might be inspired by it to demand a rule that no man can have more than one wife.
  - esarbe 7y ago
    Since the UK is not a patriarchal society, this comment contributes nothing. Also, to keep the peace in societies such as you described, it would probably make sense to have pornography available as outlet for repressed sexual desires.
    - galaxyLogic 7y ago
      In my opinion UK is, more or less, "patriarchal society". All societies are, more or less, no? Would you agree that say Saudi-Arabia is a "patriarchal society"? I can readily agree with your point it would probably help them as a society to legalize porn but seems like they are not going to do that any time soon: https://www.quora.com/Is-porn-banned-in-Saudi https://www.quora.com/Is-porn-banned-in-Saudi Why? If they did allow it the absolute power of the ruling dynasty could be questioned in other ways and that might be the end of that dynasty.

danjc 7y ago

Given the sentiment expressed in the comments here, I'd be interested to hear what technique others would propose to prevent access to porn by minors.

vengefulduck 7y ago
Parenting
Isxida 7y ago
Parenting and parental control tools (kids as a user role)
ThrustVectoring 7y ago
I don't think it's necessary to prevent minors from accessing pornography. 17 year old teenagers have a sex drive, it's time that society gets over it.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The real question is why is that a goal in the first place? What is the harm prevented? The way I see it avoiding awkward conversations seems to be the most consistent "real goal" judging by other actions.
yew 7y ago
Given that I've not heard a proposal that wouldn't have also helped my parents hide the existence of gay people until I went off to university (and they tried!) - I wouldn't. I'm quite sure ulterior motives explain more than stated goals, here and elsewhere.
JulianMorrison 7y ago
It's not plausible to do that. So teach them what it is and that it's stylized and unreal. Tell them that you don't want it on the family computer or the family wifi. Teach them to identify and despise misogyny. Teach them how to resist peer pressure. Teach them that society has weird ideas about what counts as real sex, or improved or advanced sex, when in reality it's just a thing adults do to express closeness and have fun. And then they will regulate themselves.

remotedeveloper 7y ago

> Instead, the government would instead focus on measures to protect children in the much broader online harms white paper.

nothrabannosir 7y ago

While the title inspires confidence ... > The culture secretary, Nicky Morgan, told parliament the policy would be abandoned. Instead, the government would instead focus on measures to protect children in the much broader online harms white paper. This is expected to introduce a new internet regulator, which will impose a duty of care on all websites and social media outlets – not just pornography sites. Which links to: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi... .. which is almost a satire of every “think of the children” and “beware of terrorists” manifesto ever written. It’s a long document but I couldn’t find a single mention of the balance between safety and governmental overreach.. I would be surprised if e2e encryption were compatible with this white paper.

someanyone 7y ago
Interestingly enough, it (encryption) may be fine: > 4.7. Reflecting the importance of privacy, the framework will also ensure a differentiated approach for private communication, meaning any requirements to scan or monitor content for tightly defined categories of illegal content will not apply to private channels.
- timerol 7y ago
  This is a very broad point. It's compatible with everything from "anything goes as long as you connect via HTTPS" to "Big Brother is watching if you don't turn off all electronics nearby and talk quietly". The next sentence says that they haven't really thought about it yet: "We are consulting on definitions of private communications, and what measures should apply to these services."
otakucode 7y ago
Quite a few years ago I recall watching a presentation by a leader of a child advocacy organization that was dealing with the various governments in the EU and providing technical guidance to them. They were very close at the time to moving forward with a plan to require video card manufacturers to build things into their firmware to check every single image before it is displayed on screen against a database of known illegal imagery. The crux of the talk from the advocate was that they, child advocacy organizations, spend an awful lot of time and resources fighting against these sorts of high-profile attacks against imagery because it is known to not actually help kids in abusive situations. I keep expecting that sort of policy to re-appear. As technical people, we know that the technical aspects of such a proposal are insane and impractical, but that often doesn't constrain policymakers.

pmoriarty 7y ago

How does looking at pictures of naked people having sex harm children?

billpg 7y ago
I would instead ask if watching videos of women being raped and beaten up (even if fictional) harms children or sets up teenage boys with unreasonable expectations of what sex is like.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  Too be honest, as a (probably still) dumb boy, I'm not sure NOT watching said content sets us up with any better expectations. The vast majority of people just have no freaking idea when it comes to sex; porn, erotica, wikihow articles or not
  - cauliflower99 7y ago
    I recall speaking with someone who became addicted to porn at a young age. It destroyed his life, his relationships and he became severely depressed. Furthermore, the porn industry has one of the highest rates of suicide. Perhaps the vast majority of people don't have a good idea precisely because they have watched porn from a young age. I know that's the case with the young adults of my generation (26 years). So to answer your question => Yes; not watching porn is much healthier than watching.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      I'm not sure I'd agree, unless you have statistics to back it up. Sure, porn may be unrealistic, but it does help normalize sexuality and might provide information to those who may otherwise not get it.
      - lm28469 7y ago
        Might also normalise unhealthy sexual behaviors and spread misinformation. I don't think anyone can backup their claim with stats on that subject though.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

LinuxBender 7y ago

If they had kept the requirement simple (such as adding the RTA header) [1] and requiring browser developers to recognize the RTA header, then they would not have had the complexity and doubts currently in play. That would have pushed the requirement, liability and decision onto the parents as to whether or not adult content was appropriate. [1] - https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label

schoen 7y ago
It's difficult to force foreign web sites and foreign browser developers to support this, in general but especially if you don't have the threat of blocking them if they fail to comply. Even so, some of them are likely to be indifferent or actively opposed to it.
- LinuxBender 7y ago
  There are already lists that say what domains are adult. This would just be adding one field that says RTA=(0|1|2) 0 being no header, 1 being site wide header, 2 being headers per URL. Governments that wish to go chasing after domain owners for non compliance could do so, just as they do today for copyright violations. (domain take-downs, etc)
  - schoen 7y ago
    I don't understand the international enforcement part. It's not illegal in the U.S. to have a porn site or sexually explicit site without an RTA header. There's no legal remedy available in the U.S. to the U.K. government against a site that intentionally decides not to use this header, nor against people providing infrastructure to that site. DNS registrars, registries, and ICANN don't require it either.
    - LinuxBender 7y ago
      This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. Certainly this won't solve VPN's and some proxies, but then who are we trying to block? Adults? Children? If we are thinking of the children, then an order to UK ISP's to consume the non-compliance list and block those domains (and even IP's if you want to get heavy handed) should more than suffice. Whether or not you decide to block CDN IP's is entirely up to how heavy handed you want to get. I predict CDN's would move adult sites to their own CIDR blocks if this starts occurring. If we are trying to block adults, that is a whole other discussion as to the intention of the blocking in the first place. I would expect some countries in the middle east already know how to address this problem, by forcing all traffic through a MITM set of proxies. I believe Syria and Iran use Bluecoat proxies. China uses (or used) a heavily modified netfliter implementation. They have the distinct advantage of not having to be performant. Priority always goes to blocking first.

Scapeghost 7y ago

The repression of sex instead of violence is THE single most bizarre facet of human society. WHY are there so many taboos around an act that provides pleasure, reduces stress and literally creates life, that is the most natural instinct and urge of practically every single creature in known existence, but we can freely show depictions of ending someone's life and glamorize death, injury and misery? What the honest, actual, fuck.

roryrjb 7y ago
Great comment. One word: religion.
- chance_state 7y ago
  Don't you think people are naturally more private about sex though? I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along.
  - rm_-rf_slash 7y ago
    >I would be curious how people behaved wrt sex before the modern repressive religions came along. My impression is it has less to do with religion itself but rather the culture. China under the CCP is far from a religious culture, but they’ve banned porn for decades. >Don’t you think people are naturally more private about sex though? The first rule of Fuck Club: don’t talk about Fuck Club.
  - dx87 7y ago
    I had to read a book about a tribe in the pacific islands, and they were more open about sex, but they still had some rules. For example, having multiple partners was considered immature behavior that is only acceptable for teenagers. Once the villagers got older, it was expected that they would get "married" and try to raise a family, but there was nothing forcing them to stay together. If they fell out of love, one would move out. As long as they stayed monogomous, it didn't matter how long they were in a relationship.

tryTryTryAgain 7y ago

Pornography is absolute fucking toxic waste. It is misery inducing in both obvious and subtle ways. Not only does pornography destroy reputation and exploit the naive, but it also causes a seething undercurrent of repressed jealousy to transpire among sexually frustrated individuals of all persuasions, far worse than the body image anxiety that any glossy fashion magazine could ever hope to provoke. If changes aren't made to reign in that extremely graphic pornography we see on the internet, with all the emphatic blockade tactics used against racists, malignant nationalists, child pornography and pedophilia, radicalizing terrorist propaganda and warring, retaliatory drug cartel snuff violence, you will see things get worse. Repeat: You will see things get worse. Much worse.

damnyou 7y ago

The fact that state-enforced age verification was within the overton window in the UK is unfathomable. All age restrictions are toxic and lead to a culture where parents and children mutually distrust each other. And the state wants to enforce them! No gods, no masters.

ColinWright 7y ago

Also discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21271103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21271103 Mentioned here with no discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270259