6 ms·

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
        Also fish licenses and dog licenses with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'cat' written in crayon, from the man from the cat detector van! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t3B-ssC5j0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t3B-ssC5j0 The Young Ones got busted by a TV detector van: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn1Y7nhB16U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn1Y7nhB16U
        gherkinnn 7y ago
        I forgot quite how funny the Young Ones is. Thanks for the reminder. Rick is a timeless character.
      - jammygit 7y ago
        I thought posters were joking. That is absurd
      - agurk 7y ago
        There was a hn thread recently about detector vans[0] for those interested in a discussion on this. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646743
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Bantros 7y ago
        Amazing what they can get away with
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonplackett 7y ago
    The difference is that your BBC viewing habits, if exposed in a massive hack, are (probably) not that much use to a blackmailer.
    - Redoubts 7y ago
      Says you!
      - jonplackett 7y ago
        I did say probably...
- 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)

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
      Also fish licenses and dog licenses with the word 'dog' crossed out and 'cat' written in crayon, from the man from the cat detector van! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t3B-ssC5j0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t3B-ssC5j0 The Young Ones got busted by a TV detector van: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn1Y7nhB16U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn1Y7nhB16U
      - gherkinnn 7y ago
        I forgot quite how funny the Young Ones is. Thanks for the reminder. Rick is a timeless character.
    - jammygit 7y ago
      I thought posters were joking. That is absurd
    - agurk 7y ago
      There was a hn thread recently about detector vans[0] for those interested in a discussion on this. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20646743
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Bantros 7y ago
      Amazing what they can get away with
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jonplackett 7y ago
  The difference is that your BBC viewing habits, if exposed in a massive hack, are (probably) not that much use to a blackmailer.
  - Redoubts 7y ago
    Says you!
    - jonplackett 7y ago
      I did say probably...
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)