- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Should we invest in education for children as to what is and isn’t healthy sexual behaviour, or perhaps put the responsibility for patenting children on the parents? No, let’s bring in authoritarian laws and undermine online privacy again, and maybe let some of our mates get rich while we’re at it!
Problem is, just like pensioners this cohort of active voters (entitled parents) have the ear of political parties. They threaten to vote with their feet. These daft policies don’t start in a vacuum. Middle class parents have lobbied for years to get to this stage and the government had obliged rather than do the hard thing and better educate parents on how to keep their children safe online.
Can’t wait for Keir to get in and reverse or axe this policy. That’s what he’ll do, right? Right?
Kier ain’t axing shit. The man is too busy pivoting on all pledges so he can morph into Boris and you think he will make this the seperating line?
Unlike the tories, Labour have a costed manifesto, so they have to remove things if the economy gets worse and they’ll have less money to work with if they win. It keeps getting worse, so they keep removing things from the manifesto. There’s not really another option other than running on a manifesto they know contains things that can’t fit in the budget.
Wait, really? Ok, I admit that’s actually a good reason for removing manifesto promises. I was under the impression they cut the £28B etc etc just because they felt like it/lobbying/appeasing demographics
Although initially missing from the U.K.’s next attempt at internet regulation, pressure from children’s charities, age verification providers and vocal parliamentarians persuaded the government to revamp the defunct regime through the Online Safety Act.
I think “age verification providers” are a bit biased here. I’d imagine VPN companies are lobbying hard for this too as they will gain from this.
Another argument for physical media - I am pretty sure I have a VHS around here with something smutty on it…
Hahaha, old dinosaurs can’t keep up with technology.
My daughter is in her mid-teens. She’s into performing arts and dance. Even she knows what a VPN is.
This will make a difference but a much smaller one than they think. It might remove some cases of accidental discovery but it will remove very few cases of intentional access.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Porn perusers will soon have to prove their age by uploading an identity document like a passport, registering a credit card, presenting their face to AI-powered scanning technology, or using a handful of other methods outlined in draft guidance from the regime’s regulator, Ofcom.
Although initially missing from the U.K.’s next attempt at internet regulation, pressure from children’s charities, age verification providers and vocal parliamentarians persuaded the government to revamp the defunct regime through the Online Safety Act.
Many videos depict graphic and degrading abuse of women, sickening acts of rape and incest, and many underage participants,” Tory MP Miriam Cates, a strong advocate for the legislation, told the House of Commons in September.
Research indicates younger kids who stumble across porn accidentally can find it shocking and disturbing — although the majority of young people surveyed in a 2020 British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) report said this didn’t impact them in the long term.
But the issue is complicated: the BBFC report found that older teens said they watched porn for educational purposes, due to a lack of information about sex in schools, or for gratification, while half of the LGBTQ+ respondents said it had helped them understand and explore their sexual identity.
“The squeamishness associated with pornography has made it nearly impossible to have a mature discussion about the technical feasibility, trade-offs, and effectiveness of age verification mandates,” says Matthew Lesh, director of public policy and communications at the free-market think tank.
The original article contains 2,313 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 89%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Should ban it altogether
I don’t agree with that. I think age verification is fine for things like online alcohol sales.
There’s a difference though. Very few people would care if the government knows they bought some whisky, and very few would care if that information leaks out. But people will care a lot if the government know what porn they’re consuming and WILL care if this information leaks out
No, I agree it shouldn’t be implemented for this. I was just using the ole’ lemmy switcheroo, because I think the comment I replied to was implying porn should be banned.
because I think the comment I replied to was implying porn should be banned.
Oh he definitely was, take a look through is profile and you’ll see comments like this:
Because you’re deliberately trying to lead people away from God and telling people that they can trust their carnal desires instead.
I was literally showing a person how ridiculous their argument for banning religion sounded in that comment by switching perspectives for them, but hey, who needs context 😜
But people will care a lot if the government know what porn they’re consuming and WILL care if this information leaks out
It’s an odd one, I’ll tell anyone down the pub who asks (although everyone seems to change the topic when I bring it up) and wouldn’t object to the government knowing, but I’d object to the government demanding to know everyone’s porn habits.
Yea, that makes sense, where I’ve seen it implemented here in America typically your ID is checked at point of delivery/pickup which also avoids the whole having to upload your ID to some random third party thing
But when it comes to objectifying women, 18 doesn’t necessarily mean mature enough in the eyes of men.
And what about women objectifying men?
Is there ever a ‘correct age’ to objectify anybody? Porn isn’t always about objectifying women, even if that is how you see it.
Fair point. But about age, tbh, should ban it entirely
It’s a good job my porn doesn’t have women in it then!
Unironically defeated my argument 🫢
It’s you again, maybe we should ban you from Lemmy!
Here’s my comment from the last time I saw this guy on the other post:
Because you’re deliberately trying to lead people away from God and telling people that they can trust their carnal desires instead.
Oh I see, you’re one of those religious nuts that tries to impose their beliefs on others and then gets angry when people try to tell people to err on the side of logic, science and facts instead of a fictional “god” and his book that’s completely unverifiable.
Shove it up your ass
Edit: oh wait sorry forgot I was on a UK community, shove it up your arse
Porn ruins lives, men’s impression of women and objectifies women, as well as pornhub helping facilitate the trafficking of children and being lenient on cp. But sure, it’s all about this “unverifiable” book, I guess
Religion ruins lives, men’s impression of women and objectifies women, as well as The Church helping facilitate the trafficking of children and being lenient on cp. But sure, it’s all about this “unverifiable” book, I guess
Organized religion has ruined far more lives than porn ever has, both directly and indirectly.
Millions upon millions of deaths and countless unnecessary suffering can be laid at the feet of religion, there’s a war going on because of religion right now. What was the last war that was started over porn? I don’t remember any crusades “in the name of porn”. Porn is all inclusive of everyone’s backgrounds, can’t say the same for religion.
And don’t go all “those are different sects/church’s, can’t blame their actions on my Church” blah blah blah, I could throw a dart at a dart board full of every religion, sect and church and pull up some deep dark atrocities about the one it lands on.
So what about Atheism then? You know, Maoist China, Soviet Russia and very arguably Nazi Germany
I was interested in your comment and found this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Nazi Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian nation
and 1.5% as “atheist”
Identifying as Christian and actually being one are completely separate things. Hitler pretended to be a Christian in public yet hated it in private. Your own article even says this:
Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state. Although the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics and Protestants, aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler saw the Kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-Church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.
Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, saw an “insoluble opposition” between the Christian and Nazi world views. The Führer angered the churches by appointing Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi ideologist in 1934. Heinrich Himmler saw the main task of his SS organization to be that of acting as the vanguard in overcoming Christianity and restoring a “Germanic” way of living. Hitler’s chosen deputy, Martin Bormann, advised Nazi officials in 1941 that “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”
I don’t think whether they were really Christian or not makes much difference to the argument. Sure the top of the party may not have been devout church goers, but the population needed a religious edge to be pushed into war.
So I ask myself: if the nazi were outgoing atheists world war 2 may not have happened?
So you’re saying it’s impossible to be moral and atheist at the same time. That’s interesting I wonder how you justify the holy wars then?
Get out of here with your nonsense. If you’re not going to engage in actual discussion just don’t start.
I literally never said that. I was pointing out how athiest regimes, upon the dismissal of God, still carried out genocide and murder. I was pointing out how the argument saying religion causes atrocities is fundamentally stupid.
Any time I claimed atheism was bad was making a point to how another side of the argument can be made. Devil’s advocate, if you will.
WhAt AbOuT AtHeISM
Stfu, I’ve read through your other comments and that’s the only counter point you ever bring up, and I said nothing about it.
You’re trying to be subtle about it, but it’s still evident that you’re a run of the mill “Don’t turn away from god! You’ll go-to hell! Don’t sin! Think about ThE AfTErLifE! No sex before marriage!” Religious nut.
You even have a comment towards someone: (I’m not going back to copy/paste so paraphrasing) “You’re telling people to prioritize 70-90 years of their life instead of eternity in the afterlife” yea no shit, our 70-90 years are the only thing somewhat guaranteed vs a mythical afterlife
But as I’ve learned in my life, there’s no point in bringing up structured counter points with a religious nut as they’ll just constantly pull gotchas out their ass. So bye 👋
May The Lord have mercy upon you, my brother.
