3 ms·

> With online porn, the scale and complications doing it put a much bigger burden This could be very easily done at the ISP level for the whole connection. (I'

> With online porn, the scale and complications doing it put a much bigger burden This could be very easily done at the ISP level for the whole connection. (I'm talking best effort not a perfect implementation) Why not just block all "Adult" content by default and allow the buyer to opt in (both temporarily via password, and permanently). Then it would be a decision each household could easily make about what they want. edit: I love the downvotes without rebuttal. Reminder that the downvote in this community is not "I disagree with you"

freedomben 4y ago
Aside from the implications of turning an ISP into a decider of what you get to see rather than being a "dumb pipe," what about parents who want to view porn but don't want their kids to? Should they be forced to choose between 20 years of abstinence or potentially exposing their kids? The "household" is a pretty bad level at which to have to make these decisions, given that people of all age ranges share the same household. It seems to me that age verification makes a lot more sense than this, (and ftr I think Utah's bill is ridiculous overreach and would have massive privacy implications that are highly problematic).
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > what about parents who want to view porn but don't want their kids to That was specifically addressed in my post. Temporary disable. Remember that safe guards dont have to be perfect before being implemented. They just need to be better than the status quo. The status quo right now is 10 year old kids viewing porn and thinking that's what average intimate loving relationships look like.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    Yeah the temporary disable isn't my complaint. That's not the worst part. My criticism is the system in place after the parent has made the choice. As a parent, do you choose your own freedom or to protect your children? Most will choose the latter and basically have to choose "abstinence" for themselves for many years. It's a pretty sucky choice to have to make given that such an artificial and unneccesary choice is being forced on them by the legal system and their ISP.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      My point was at the moment of choosing they could either open the entire connection to $CONTENT or open the device (MAC address, DHCP assigned IP) up (afaik most ISPs control the router too) for traffic to those sites. What I'm suggesting does not require abstinence from those who have the password.
- Slava_Propanei 4y ago
  [dead]
sv123 4y ago
Maybe I'm daft but how would ISPs be able to control it? Solely based on domain name? What about porn intermixed with other content on sites like reddit?
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > (I'm talking best effort not a perfect implementation) Correct. The first iterative step would be to simply block the big obvious domains and sources escalating the arms race. It will never be possible to keep 100% of porn out of your kids' hands, but just like alcohol, cigarettes, and getting behind a car we can setup a better starting point than "Do you promise you're older than 18/19/21? YES/NO" It's a bit absurd that providing alcohol to minor is punishable by a fine, but we give the internet/porn industry a free pass. Also if you were to hand out porn to a minor you'd probably be hit with some kind of charge (inviting a minor to some sexuality), but the Porn industry is handing it out en masse without any repercussion
- Volrath89 4y ago
  The iPhone already accomplishes this pretty well in my experience. You can go to Screen Time > Content & Privacy Restrictions > Content Restrictions > Web Content > Limit Adult Websites. It blocks everything, including porn subreddits. I assume they use some kind of regex to do this, and it works.

freedomben 4y ago

Aside from the implications of turning an ISP into a decider of what you get to see rather than being a "dumb pipe," what about parents who want to view porn but don't want their kids to? Should they be forced to choose between 20 years of abstinence or potentially exposing their kids? The "household" is a pretty bad level at which to have to make these decisions, given that people of all age ranges share the same household. It seems to me that age verification makes a lot more sense than this, (and ftr I think Utah's bill is ridiculous overreach and would have massive privacy implications that are highly problematic).

maerF0x0 4y ago
> what about parents who want to view porn but don't want their kids to That was specifically addressed in my post. Temporary disable. Remember that safe guards dont have to be perfect before being implemented. They just need to be better than the status quo. The status quo right now is 10 year old kids viewing porn and thinking that's what average intimate loving relationships look like.
- freedomben 4y ago
  Yeah the temporary disable isn't my complaint. That's not the worst part. My criticism is the system in place after the parent has made the choice. As a parent, do you choose your own freedom or to protect your children? Most will choose the latter and basically have to choose "abstinence" for themselves for many years. It's a pretty sucky choice to have to make given that such an artificial and unneccesary choice is being forced on them by the legal system and their ISP.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    My point was at the moment of choosing they could either open the entire connection to $CONTENT or open the device (MAC address, DHCP assigned IP) up (afaik most ISPs control the router too) for traffic to those sites. What I'm suggesting does not require abstinence from those who have the password.
Slava_Propanei 4y ago
[dead]

sv123 4y ago

Maybe I'm daft but how would ISPs be able to control it? Solely based on domain name? What about porn intermixed with other content on sites like reddit?

maerF0x0 4y ago
> (I'm talking best effort not a perfect implementation) Correct. The first iterative step would be to simply block the big obvious domains and sources escalating the arms race. It will never be possible to keep 100% of porn out of your kids' hands, but just like alcohol, cigarettes, and getting behind a car we can setup a better starting point than "Do you promise you're older than 18/19/21? YES/NO" It's a bit absurd that providing alcohol to minor is punishable by a fine, but we give the internet/porn industry a free pass. Also if you were to hand out porn to a minor you'd probably be hit with some kind of charge (inviting a minor to some sexuality), but the Porn industry is handing it out en masse without any repercussion
Volrath89 4y ago
The iPhone already accomplishes this pretty well in my experience. You can go to Screen Time > Content & Privacy Restrictions > Content Restrictions > Web Content > Limit Adult Websites. It blocks everything, including porn subreddits. I assume they use some kind of regex to do this, and it works.