6 ms·

Parents have plenty of capacity to exercise control over their children. For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographi

Parents have plenty of capacity to exercise control over their children. For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographic content if the client's user agent sets an HTTP header indicating they don't want to see it? Now you don't have any privacy problems because the header contains no personally identifying information -- you don't even have to be under 18 to opt into it. But then parents can configure the kid's devices to send that header, without even impacting the kid's privacy to view content that isn't designated as pornographic, since the header is an opt-in to censorship rather than the removal of anonymity. Also notice that an academic discussion of sexual identity isn't inherently pornographic but is something that can require privacy/anonymity.

yupyupyups 1y ago
Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young). However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. We also know from recorded interviews with these predetors that they don't seem to actually mind exposing kids to porn. https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937 https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937
- imtringued 1y ago
  Your argument is bullshit. There is no content filter on this planet that will prevent children from seeing blocked content. The children that know how to circumvent the protections will circumvent them. The providers of blocked content will figure out a way around them too. Content filters only affect law abiding users and providers. The hallmark of an effective policy is to make it as easy as possible to comply with it. Setting a header is pretty damn easy to implement and enforce by the government. It also displays trust in law abiding citizen, who will comply with the law, because they know that it serves their best interests, rather than being shoved down their throats against their will. The alternative will have exactly the same or - far more likely - worse results, because the cost of verifying every user's age is far too high to be implemented by the vast majority of sites on the internet. It's more likely that when law abiding citizens are faced with laws that are impossible to implement that they just throw up their hands up and close up shop or move somewhere else. In the second scenario their services might still be accessible in the UK and need to be blocked by the UK government, the online safety act achieves essentially nothing in this scenario.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young). We're talking about a law. If you distribute pornography to someone who sent the header in that request, it would be a violation of the law. But that law doesn't have any ID requirements or privacy problems, unlike the proposed one. > However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. To begin with, "targeting children" is preposterous. It assumes that they would not only not care but prefer to have children as users than adults, even though children are less likely to have access to money to pay for content/subscriptions and purposely targeting children would get them into trouble even under longstanding existing laws. On top of that, the header isn't specifying that the user is under 18, it's specifying that the user agent is requesting not to be shown pornography. It's as likely to be set when the user is a 45 year old woman as a 14 year old boy, so using it to distinguish between them wouldn't work anyway.
  - kelipso 1y ago
    They would benefit from targeting children because porn is addictive and it is a stronger addiction the younger you start. Building future customers, basic business tactics really.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      This is the kind of "business tactic" they used to teach about in DARE rather than business school. Porn companies don't have any kind of monopoly or brand loyalty and the ones shady enough to do something like that are exactly the ones that won't still be in business by the time today's kids are adults, so anyone doing it wouldn't be the one deriving a benefit from it. Even normal companies don't care about customers decades from now because the thing they do teach in business school is discount rates. A dollar in 10 years is worth less than half that today. Likewise, managers get bonuses and promotions on the basis of present-day profits rather than something that happens a generation from now when they're likely to be at a different company anyway. The premise that they're expected to do that on a widespread basis is ridiculous. Instead it will be one fool who writes something along those lines in an email which is then published because media companies love publishing anything which is bad PR for someone they don't like, regardless of whether it was ever widely implemented or implemented at all. It isn't an actual business strategy for real businesses.
subscribed 1y ago
We're discussing Wikipedia here so unless you're calling them porn peddlers, it's getting more and more bizarre. This discussion started from the categorisation error. Technical means should be irrelevant here.
- yupyupyups 1y ago
  We are discussing "young people exploring their gender or sexual identity on the internet". This does include pornography, because it's very accessible and not hard to come by if you search for sexual terms. It also includes social media and online games where predators, and again, pornography is present.

yupyupyups 1y ago

Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young). However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. We also know from recorded interviews with these predetors that they don't seem to actually mind exposing kids to porn. https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937 https://x.com/arden_young_/status/1732422651950612937

imtringued 1y ago
Your argument is bullshit. There is no content filter on this planet that will prevent children from seeing blocked content. The children that know how to circumvent the protections will circumvent them. The providers of blocked content will figure out a way around them too. Content filters only affect law abiding users and providers. The hallmark of an effective policy is to make it as easy as possible to comply with it. Setting a header is pretty damn easy to implement and enforce by the government. It also displays trust in law abiding citizen, who will comply with the law, because they know that it serves their best interests, rather than being shoved down their throats against their will. The alternative will have exactly the same or - far more likely - worse results, because the cost of verifying every user's age is far too high to be implemented by the vast majority of sites on the internet. It's more likely that when law abiding citizens are faced with laws that are impossible to implement that they just throw up their hands up and close up shop or move somewhere else. In the second scenario their services might still be accessible in the UK and need to be blocked by the UK government, the online safety act achieves essentially nothing in this scenario.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young). We're talking about a law. If you distribute pornography to someone who sent the header in that request, it would be a violation of the law. But that law doesn't have any ID requirements or privacy problems, unlike the proposed one. > However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. To begin with, "targeting children" is preposterous. It assumes that they would not only not care but prefer to have children as users than adults, even though children are less likely to have access to money to pay for content/subscriptions and purposely targeting children would get them into trouble even under longstanding existing laws. On top of that, the header isn't specifying that the user is under 18, it's specifying that the user agent is requesting not to be shown pornography. It's as likely to be set when the user is a 45 year old woman as a 14 year old boy, so using it to distinguish between them wouldn't work anyway.
- kelipso 1y ago
  They would benefit from targeting children because porn is addictive and it is a stronger addiction the younger you start. Building future customers, basic business tactics really.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    This is the kind of "business tactic" they used to teach about in DARE rather than business school. Porn companies don't have any kind of monopoly or brand loyalty and the ones shady enough to do something like that are exactly the ones that won't still be in business by the time today's kids are adults, so anyone doing it wouldn't be the one deriving a benefit from it. Even normal companies don't care about customers decades from now because the thing they do teach in business school is discount rates. A dollar in 10 years is worth less than half that today. Likewise, managers get bonuses and promotions on the basis of present-day profits rather than something that happens a generation from now when they're likely to be at a different company anyway. The premise that they're expected to do that on a widespread basis is ridiculous. Instead it will be one fool who writes something along those lines in an email which is then published because media companies love publishing anything which is bad PR for someone they don't like, regardless of whether it was ever widely implemented or implemented at all. It isn't an actual business strategy for real businesses.

subscribed 1y ago

We're discussing Wikipedia here so unless you're calling them porn peddlers, it's getting more and more bizarre. This discussion started from the categorisation error. Technical means should be irrelevant here.

yupyupyups 1y ago
We are discussing "young people exploring their gender or sexual identity on the internet". This does include pornography, because it's very accessible and not hard to come by if you search for sexual terms. It also includes social media and online games where predators, and again, pornography is present.