Something has to be done. It's not just about porn or violence of NSFL etc... but there is a serious problem on the internet, that is always lambasted with the "Won't somebody think of the children" memes.
When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place, there is something wrong.
Whilst there are privacy concerns regarding any ID situation, nobody seems to be trying to solve the problem in other ways, short of limiting internet access (which causes other outcries).
I'm all for a better solution, but nobody seems to be proposing one.
(For the moment, as a parent, my young daughter doesn't get any unaccompanied internet access - I am thinking of my child)
How do we solve this problem ?
Edit: It's interesting to note diminishing points for a post that asks how to solve a problem. Obviously some people feel very strongly that even questioning the situation is wrong.
Can you define the problem more pointedly? It sounds like the problem is 'information (and ergo imagery) is accessible ", which I do not see as a probely
^^ This really opened my eyes to this problem for me.. It's really rather worrying, and I guess my generation (early 30s) were the last to avoid this so it's kind of invisible to us because of how awkward it is to talk about such things.
We need to do something, perhaps better education and getting more comfortable talking about sex and relationships with young people is a better approach than failed-from-the-outset restrictions...
Either way, the points in that video are imo, valid, and should worry everyone.
There is a pool of resources related to damage the porn has done for this generation from scientific studies, ex and recovering porn addicts and as well as from the partners of addicts.
Not the op, but it doesn't sound like you're trying very hard to understand. Simply put—and speaking as a person who doesn't care about what adults do and see on the internet involving other adults—there is simply no bulletproof way of reliably ensuring children do not see or experience something online that is inappropriate for their age (or against a parent's personal sensitivities), while preserving a parent's freedom to encounter such things. As one who ardently opposes censorship and supports accessibility to information and material that some may find objectionable, I can empathize and understand why there is a need in people's minds for wanting to have something that works flawlessly, without requiring them to lock down every device and constantly hover over the shoulders of their children when they are using internet-enabled devices. Some parents who feel this way can very well be consumers of material they think is inappropriate for their children, wishing to prevent their children from being exposed to such material until they deem their child has enough maturity to properly understand it and place it in a context for life, while also wanting to avoid being hovering, controlling parents who make their children feel like they're controlled and permitted no freedom to grow and learn and make mistakes.
For example, I'm a fan of Game of Thrones, but I wouldn't watch it with an 8-year-old. Extrapolate that to the realm of porn—especially of the BDSM or other such role-playing and kink variety—and we wind up in a place of genuine conflict for some parents, even those who might enjoy such things themselves. Moreover, there is more than a small amount of collected evidence and accounts from people who document how such material is impacting such things as teenagers' views on sexuality and what behaviors are normal, as well as young women encountering what they report as the effects of porn on their teen male peers—with such reports including expectations of sexual acts before they've even shared a kiss. The prevalence of such information and imagery, which the average adult may be able to successfully contextualize, provides a different set of challenges to the inexperienced and less mature adolescent population.
So, no, what the parent said wasn't that "information (and ergo imagery) is accessible" is the problem. It's more likely that the problem is there's no shortage of ways that people, young or otherwise, can stumble upon or be introduced to things that can be seriously problematic for their level of maturity and development.
Despite all that, just to be very clear, I'm not suggesting that government-issued porn IDs or similar programs are the answer, or that they would even help solve the problem some people legitimately worry about and feel matters for their, and their children's, lives. I see a lot of problems with even suggesting that, and think it's an awful solution. But I think there's value in recognizing there is a problem strongly felt by many people, and the problem isn't merely access to information and imagery. As with many things in life, I find myself mixed between recognizing the value in empathizing with and understanding people's concerns, and unapologetically upholding on principle the accessibility of information (and imagery) some may find objectionable.
Isn't it better to assume nothing is safe for children and to leave the internet as the wild wild west that it is? Have the Government set up their own CA to sign the stuff they approve of. A child safe web browser would just disregard anything that doesn't have a valid certificate.
Do you seriously think this is a viable solution that doesn't compromise society freedoms and scales well really securing children at the same time? I am really, really sceptical about that. Are we guarding our kids when they play with their friends, who can expose them to all kind of nasty content/ideas/materials/behaviours? Are we censoring ads that are everywhere and are filled with sexual/erotic conotations? Are we keeping kids from interacting with other people in any way (freely available phone line at home?) that could cause them to be exposed to things we wouldn't like them to be exposed to?
And in the end, aren't we making them too fragile and unable to deal with things they shouldnt be interacting with, by keeping them in golden safety cage? I am not saying that we should not take care of them, but when I hear ideas like that, I wonder how the hell we've managed to survive our childhood without all of it being there to save us from this dreadful world!
Proper advice/education is really the only solution.
We all know how ridiculous any attempts to censor the internet is to people with even a minimal amount of tech savvy, especially if gov.uk are involved... I mean, take the UK's attempt to block e.g thepiratebay.org which is defeated by simply putting https:// infront of it (at least, currently, on virgin media)..
The actual issue here though is the progression that some teenage kid goes through by initially looking to find some "HOTCHIX" to... solve an urge.. to 6 months later only getting off to really extreme stuff, being unable to really form relationships, the self destructive mentality porn addiction puts anyone in, and that we have an epidemic of erectile dysfunction in really young people as a result...
None of this is good.
Censorship will never be the solution, but I think we do need to do something; I have no idea what, though....
The problem you're describing is exactly what we need to solve, instead of introducing another censorship/citizen tracking measure. Kids should be learning about their own sexuality, about these urges, how to handle them, how to not handle them. The main reason they're reaching out to that is the obvious, unescapable growth phase AND complete lack of support from parents, teachers and society in general. On one hand we're making sex and sexuality the ultimate taboo, pushing kids into handling these issues completely alone, on the other we're pouring sexuality into everything around us, including car tires sales. And then we try to censor/track all citizens in name of 'think of the children', what's a completely and utterly broken and least effective solution to the symptoms, not the disease.
We're in kind of uncharted territory here though -- for anyone under, what, 25? There has been an almost unlimited amount of instant gratification/indulgence a click or a swipe away that's ALWAYS been there for them. We've never really had to think about what kind of problems this sort of thing produces before. We didn't have that option when we were in puberty or the following over-hormonal years following...
Hopefully things aren't quite so dire as we're making out. I've read several reports that generally say the next generation and entirely boring and barely even drink, fight, get high, smoke, blabla anymore... I'm not sure I totally believe it as a blanket statement, but it seems we're getting a bit less wild as a society... Maybe things will work out ok regardless, then. Or maybe this is a result of isolationism caused by over saturation. Who knows?
We got the pixies and nirvana, weed and wasted days trying to get PPP working..
In an age before the internet was widely available in the home I would just stay up late, which was 11pm back in those days, and watch the "ten minute freeview" on "television X" where there was about a 33% chance that you might spy a woman's lady bits for about 5 seconds.
Realistically, kids will circumvent almost anything you put in place if they're interested enough in what they're trying to achieve.
Ok, that got a chuckle out of me. But really, as a serial porn consumer, I can tell you that people don't progress towards more and more extreme stuff. This isn't like drugs where you start developing resistance to the active substance. If it were, we'd see people give up sex in a few months after starting and the entire human race would die off.
You're basically designing a system for perfectly horny teens in frictionless vacuum.
Another thought - someone should get PornHub to release stats on if and how people's tastes in erotica progress.
> initially looking to find some "HOTCHIX" to... solve an urge.. to 6 months later only getting off to really extreme stuff
Been there, done that. Went away once I realized how fake and asexual porn actually is and that 90% of stuff out there (both vanilla and extreme, pro and amateur) really has no fucking reason to turn anyone on once the initial novelty wears off. I don't believe that wanking to people who are not aroused/shy/insecure/bored/desperate/trying hard to make a show ought to feel any good. It really is hard to find good porn.
> being unable to really form relationships
Had that before the internet, heck, even before the collection of printed lingerie ads cut from newspapers (good fucking luck "protecting" your kids from that, losers). Anyway, I tend to blame my parents' own shitty relationship for this thing.
> an epidemic of erectile dysfunction in really young people
Correlates with relationship problems, one could wonder which way the causation goes. Why should anyone get hard for someone he is with only for social acceptance or, worse yet, self-acceptance?
The older I get, the more convinced I become that parenthood effectively cauterizes a large part of your rational mind, supplanting it with emotional, fear-driven responses.
Anyone with a basic understanding of the internet knows that the UK's censorship proposals won't work, and the only thing that really could work is complete government control over all internet content. Disturbingly, even that isn't too high of a price for the people that get the warm and fuzzies from knowing that their special little guy is protected from mean, nasty reality.
If you want to shelter your child from certain sites or content, that is your problem. Take responsibility for your own family, don't ask the entire world to change and give away our freedoms because of your laziness/ineptitude.
Do you realise that children become adults and that ignoring problems faced by other people's children means your ignoring what will become the whole world's problems.
If the internet fucks up everyone's kids except your own then your own kids still have to live in that world.
The idea that future generations are individual families private problems is an insidious wrong.
We're in the world together and where possessible should share that responsibility.
> We're in the world together and where possessible should share that responsibility.
No, I have no obligation or responsibility to your child. You can ask me for my voluntary help, but that's it.
I generally don't believe in limiting freedoms because people abuse and/or misuse something. There are exceptions of course, but this is clearly not one of them. Should we limit the amount of chocolate sold in stores because obese people lack self-discipline or because parents cannot control their children?
Take responsibility for your family or don't have one at all.
> simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery
Is that a real problem though? You did quote the accidentally after all. Both kids and adults have access to things they seek - whether that's going to be internet, magazine brought to school, or some other means. If they don't seek such content, they won't see much more than what's already available to everyone in the daily mail. I think the internet just made people aware of what's already been going on.
My questions would be "does porn prohibition create more good than the very likely government/school punishment for kids who will seek it regardless". (Once it's tracked and officially acted on, it's going to be a sex offender case like sexting became, right?)
(Also from my experience, things other kids did/said at school was likely more damaging and plain evil than anything I've seen on the internet so far. Kids have unrestricted imagination and are brutal. And I get the impression lots of parents forget what really happened.)
If you want to block porn at home, there are thousands of solutions for that. And they do work pretty well. If you're thinking of a global solution, I think it's just too dangerous.
It's certainly easy to stumble across unsavoury content - I have done so accidentally in the past and was amazed how easy it was.
I can't say how much of a problem it is, but then I suspect nobody can.
As a parent (and yes, as stated already, I do limit internet access) I know that most parents definitely wouldn't want these things to be viewed early in life - I have no problem with adults viewing whatever they want, although I would suggest that people who constantly search for the NSFL content are possibly not well adjusted.
I don't claim to know the answer - I just get the impression that these options are always pushed away due to 'freedom' but there is little alternative offered to help society maintain a healthy mental balance.
If you want to filter traffic at home, I don't think it's that hard. There's a whole industry trying to solve that problem. Google "internet family filter" and choose one. Your ISP probably provides one as well (my last 3 ISPs did) I'll likely use one as well when I have kids. But I'm absolutely against any government program to enforce the same.
But my experience is much different. Apart from sexualised models advertising things, I've not run into anything (by accident) I wouldn't share at a family table.
We agree that government is not the right way of solving this issue, but it's incredibly easy to have images to show up that are far from appropriate for children... or that you would share at the table
It is SO easy to break NetNanny an the like. They don't work. Any 12 year old determined kid can figure it out. MAYBE if you combined a family friendly ISP with a parental controlled fire wall, AND several layers of software/browser based filtering this could be accomplished.
Putting this aside, no matter how much you protect your children at home, you can't protect them away from home.
IIRC, people in china have no problem using a vpn or whatever to bypass the great firewall? Why would government purchases blocking software be more effective than parent purchased blocking software?
> (Once it's tracked and officially acted on, it's going to be a sex offender case like sexting became, right?)
I'm not 100%, but I think recent guidelines in the UK advised that is an underage person is caught "sexting" with another underage person of the same age, they'll be no criminal repurcusions.
That's right. The Crown Prosecution Service (the national body which prosecutes essentially all criminal cases on behalf of the state) takes the view that charging under-18s for genuinely consensual sexual activity is generally not in the public interest. This policy (and guidance on essentially all other charging decisions) is helpfully published online as part of the CPS legal manual.
It's still a matter of prosecutorial discretion rather than being actually legal, though.
Because it's a sexual activity, illegal if done with pictures of under 18s (but not generally considered in the public interest to prosecute by the CPS if the pics are of the perpetrators themselves and it was consensual - so no "revenge porn" setting or whatever).
Yes. I search for children's content on Youtube. Youtube returns children's content. We click to play, and I get a pre-roll ad for a horror film, or alcohol, or gambling.
An iOS app advertises itself as suitable for ages 4+. It contains ads. Those ads are sometimes for gambling, or alcohol services. I'd say that app isn't suitable for children, and the uk regulator is looking at that.
Wait, but is that related to the proposal? Not my native language and all, but I thought this is basically age-gating .. porn sites.
If you have a random app (unrelated, not a porn site) showing ads (unrelated unless a porn site) of alcohol services (not sure what that is, but .. unrelated/not porn), how does this apply?
How would you age-gate ads? Wouldn't that require a new X-KID-PRESENT: 1 http header so that each and every ad network can suppress ~questionable~ content? In fact: That's a great thought experiment: Is a site that serves ads that might contain 'adult' ads at times a porn site according to the British government and would need to verify that the visitor is of age?
> That's a great thought experiment: Is a site that serves ads that might contain 'adult' ads at times a porn site according to the British government and would need to verify that the visitor is of age?
The simplest solution is to just require ID from everyone everywhere. They'll figure it out sooner or later if you let them build the infrastructure now.
They currently are age-gated. The age gating clearly isn't working. Advertisers in the UK are not allowed to target children with alcohol or gambling ads.
I don't care how it happens, but showing alcohol ads to children in apps for children because the parent has a credit card and owns the phone is sub-optimal.
Maybe, yeah. But is it neglect on the part of the developer (What are the consequences? You installed the app, no?), on the part of the parent not supervising (I'm kinda defending this position in this thread) or a reason to fix this with a generic law?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I really think that it's the parents' responsibility. And if ads are considered harmful in your household, don't use ad based apps / use an ad blocker? That should solve the problem on a local level.
Edit: It just came to my mind that ad supported apps are often/usually free.. Is that the case here? Because I seriously dislike the idea of blaming a developer of a free application for different ideas about morality or a bad choice ('copy/paste some ad integration code' - stupidity vs malice?) in implementing a way to make some money.
> Yes. I search for children's content on Youtube. Youtube returns children's content. We click to play, and I get a pre-roll ad for a horror film, or alcohol, or gambling.
Out in the real world, people will think you're weird and/or a religious nut if you don't drink at a business function. So why should I worry about my daughter seeing an advertisement for alcohol before her episode of Paw Patrol starts playing?
Because I don't want my son to think that drinking is considered something he should do without knowing limits (although there are warnings, he can't read). Because gambling is a designer addiction and I don't want him to install such an app before he can know the consequences of his actions.
But mostly because I don't want him waking up at night screaming from nightmares. I like my dearly won sleep.
The less you talk about drinking the more he'll hide it from you. Ditto with gambling and sex. My parents talked about everything besides sex and I never drank or gambled in excess. And I'll leave this post at that.
I guess my original post wasn't very constructive. I wanted to say that seeing ads probably doesn't cause alcoholism, but OTOH, being unable to handle the thought that your precious snowflake could get to know about X too early is a sure way to lose his trust if he does get to know. And the OP indeed seemed a bit paranoid.
How about you deal with your irrelevant problem on your own?
Maybe don't let your kid that DOESNT EVEN READ yet zombiefy itself?
Maybe complain to Google/Apple about particular ads? Install some ad blocking software? Pay for youtube red? Purchase the ad-less versions of the apps?
Basically don't think that your inability to deal with the world warrants nationwide heavy handed regulation, please
Do you understand how selfish you sound, or has the magic of parenthood vaporized all of your self-awareness?
You made the choice to have a child. You made the choice to entertain them with YouTube. The possibility of them seeing an advertisement for alcohol (my goodness! Your son will turn into a tattooed hooligan in a week!) is not sufficient reason for handing the internet over to state censorship.
In short, stop trying to make society raise your kid for you. Give independence and self-responsibility a try, you might like it.
There's currently a gap in regulation. App makers have apps targeted at children (and with an age range of eg 4+); those apps carry ads; those ad networks use information about the phone owner to decide the age suitability of ad.
I can't help but find amusing their statistic that "30% of young people have been bothered by an ad in the last 12 months". I don't know about the UK, but at least here down south, the really disturbing ads are the official ones, particularly the safe driving campaigns. The Spanish ads in particular are often very graphic and gut-wrenching.
I do agree that apps (or videos) directed at children shouldn't show non-child-safe ads. I just don't see what does that have to do with the proposal under discussion.
Outside of, maybe, image searches and 4chan (where there are no filters at all), it's not that easy to accidentally stumble across pornographic images on the web nowadays. Legitimate sites with a vested interest in preventing minors viewing inappropriate content will make that content opt-in.
I don't see a problem when you have to go looking for it to find it. At that point it's not the fault of the internet, but someone's lack of discipline and self control.
Except that's wrong. All forms of child pornography are banned and posting one nets you a permanent ban. Several boards (i.e. everything outside the 18+ section) disallow posting any erotic content and doing so gets you a ban. 4chan was never meant as a free-for-all.
Child pornography is banned, but because moderators have to see it to ban it, and because the entire site is public, it's still possible for a user to encounter it without wanting to.
The thing is, if you want to prevent your children from accessing sites you'd prefer them not to without accompanying them in the future... there's been commercial solutions to that almost since the first porn site existed. Net Nanny's been around almost as long as I've been alive. Combine that with ensuring that your child's computer is in a public place, not their bedroom.
Frankly, if people are going to be exposed to said imagery at some point, they probably need to be educated about it. And not just about porn - about people with racist and bigoted views, about the news they'll read about someone committing a school shooting or a bombing.
There's no way we're ever going to convince people on the Internet to self-categorise and warn people about what they're going to come across. The only option is to supervise your child's use of the Internet (and other media, tbh) while you try to prepare them for what they're going to come across.
> Frankly, if people are going to be exposed to said imagery at some point, they probably need to be educated about it.
That's what this is all about isn't it? There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development, and I honestly doubt porn is one of the bigger bad influences. Kids are growing up watching popular peers give them beauty and fashion tips or perform dangerous stunts and pranks on extremely popular Youtube channels. Of course all you see is the side they want you to see: the successful prank with hilarious consequences, the perfect look by that pretty girl with the perfect figure.
But left to their own devices your children won't see that girl's bad hair day, or the stunt that backfired and landed one of the kids in hospital. Your kids won't realize that the brand of lipstick the popular beauty vlogger promotes also sends her plenty of free samples in return for the favour, or that that hilarious prank was staged.
It's our responsibility as parents and educators — as adults — to teach kids about this.
Now for porn this always gets tricky, because a lot of people would like to stick to just the basic birds and bees (if even that) and just pretend that sexuality is something you receive with your drivers licence. It doesn't work that way, and believing that blocking a vaunted digital commodity will make it go away is an age-old fallacy. There will always be that one kid who can get the goods, with that one app or website that completely circumvents the blockade.
Meanwhile you get to register for your approved pervert ID if you actually want to comply with the system and watch porn. It boggles my mind how anyone can think that this will benefit society rather than take another step towards a full Orwellian surveillance state.
> I'm all for a better solution, but nobody seems to be proposing one.
You are probably doing all right already. The computer and tablets stay in the living room where you can supervise incidentally until they reach the teenage years. And then the smartphones stay with you after bedtime. For the rest, it is up to you to set a good example, and to explain the world to your kids as they encounter it. That means talking about sex too, and that means explaining what they are looking at when they do stumble upon adult content — not acting embarrassed and making them feel guilty as if they've bitten into some forbidden fruit.
"Oh this is just adult sex, you'll understand better when you are older. Any questions?"
If it really bothers you; install filtering software. Filtering the parts of reality deemed not yet suitable from your children is responsible (just don't pretend it doesn't exist); filtering it from society at large is unbearably sanctimonious.
> That's what this is all about isn't it? There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development, and I honestly doubt porn is one of the bigger bad influences.
Indeed, I'd list the MRA/PUA/GamerGaters as a much greater risk to young males (directly; young females as a consequence). I'd probably have the alt-right/conspiracy loons above porn as well.
I would add watching news and using social media to that list, as there plenty of research that show how those destroys a persons ability to assess risk. Each year we get studies that show how people are factually more safer today than last year, and yet perceive the world as less safe.
Are you seriously doubting that there are peer reviewed articles that assert that there are things on the internet that can harm a child's development and well-being?
Have a look at Google Scholar for a plethora of papers about cyber-bullying, grooming, self-esteem issues (mental and physical), pro-anorexia blogs, etcetera. You can combine the keywords "internet" and "children" with any of the above to get an extensive list of papers on each topic.
And yet, the vast majority of bullying takes place in meat-space, not cyber-space. Most sexual abuse of children happens at the hands of family members. Most self-esteem issues are caused by interactions kids have with other kids, or experiences they have in group activities, sports, etc.
I've never seen a peer-reviewed meta-study that suggests that the Internet is any more dangerous for kids than ordinary life.
Pick 3 that don't A) bias the result by only looking at negative outcomes and B) don't bias the result by their funding or researches massive bias.
EX: Cyber-bullying has many positive outcomes preparing sheltered children to the kind of people that live in the real world. Just look at what happened to the US hikers captured by Iran for an idea of what a sheltered upbringing results in.
Very practical - don't give your <12yo child a tablet or smartphone. They're not necessary parts of human existence, and certainly not of a child's existence.
My 4 year old has a tablet, and I'm getting her a smart phone as soon as she can figure out how to text. She uses it to watch shows, draw, play games, facetime with her grandparents, look at family photos, etc.
There will always be that kid at school or at a friend's house that DOES have access to these devices. We are already a paranoid, helicopter parent society as it is. Next step, strap kids into their beds and chairs and spoon feed them only what you want them to consume. Never let them leave home. Problem solved.
Cool. The idea is that theoretically, you're opening your kid's mind to more and more things under some degree of supervision. By the time they're looking up horrific or immoral stuff on their own or with friends, hopefully you've given them the tools to handle it. The idea isn't to stick a filter on their computer until they turn 18 and assume that there's no further parenting needed.
Respectfully, I don't think that something has to be done. While your definition of said problem is fair and reasonable, and I share some of your concerns for children going online, overall I don't agree.
I don't think the internet reflects more than the real world offers. It is challenging as a parent (and a school, employer, etc) to govern (!) or monitor how people use your internet access. Certainly much harder than preventing your kids from going to a particular physical place.
However, the freely available information that the internet allows humanity to share and access is changing the world. Some things will be better, some perhaps worse and at least more challenging, but I don't support curtailing the freedoms of many. Much damage can be done through things like the proposed ID system, and it will be just that kind of damage - systemic.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is - don't be afraid of the world. It's a wonderful and scary place, full of many terrible and beautiful things, and the internet is too. I guess I just don't like the idea of having to turn 18 then get a passport just to Google what's in another country :T
"I don't think the internet reflects more than the real world offers. It is challenging as a parent (and a school, employer, etc) to govern (!) or monitor how people use your internet access. Certainly much harder than preventing your kids from going to a particular physical place."
A thought just popped up in my head about this. Yes, the internet is a reflection of the physical world, but it doesn't have any of the constraints that we have put in the real world. In the real world, you try and select a good neighborhood to raise your children in. This saves them from even coming close to physical spaces we'd like them to avoid.
Then in the real world you have signs all over the place that warn you from entering a dangerous situation. Then we regulate access to some of the more dangerous places (places that deal with hazardous materials, prisons, etc). You have things like the "Sex offender registry" which warns you of people to look out for. You have a lot of safeguards in the physical world that nobody bats an eye at because they all make sense.
And on top of all this evolution has given you an innate sense of danger. So you naturally stay away from people with knifes, guns, etc.
The internet has none of this. So while I'm all for freedom of information, I still think there is a need for some protection. On the internet, adults and kids are some of the time just 1 click away from a NSFL site, except of course that kids can't recognize that; which might be true for some adults as well.
The difficulty is that there is a world of difference between a system which allows a simple, independent and anonymous ID check like you'd get at a bar, vs. an online system that inevitably stores and records your interactions.
Perhaps the best way to think of the problem is like this: Yes, kids having access to porn and NSFL content is potentially damaging to society.
However, a society where the state keeps a detailed record of everyone's personal sexual preferences is potentially even worse off.
True. I'm not saying that this system works. I'm just saying that we can't just outright reject every system, just by saying "freedom of speech" and the related arguments that are used to reject any such efforts.
"Good neighbourhood" = Ask your child to only use Facebook. Don't let him go near the train station. Leave the Google Safe Search by default. Let them use a video player, but download the content yourself.
"Signs all over the place": I don't remember seeing the sign "Warning: Guy selling drugs here" in the backstreet next to my town hall (Lyon, France, not a small city), nor the "Beware of aholes" sign in my highschool ;) and I especially remember 3x4m panels of ads for dating Minitel site (in France) with the curve of a woman's back: The bad world has never really been separated from children, but we'd teach them. I would teach my child to not click on ads, blinking stuff and bodies if they still meet any. They'll have to resist when the hormons kick in, so they'd better learn young.
Then, monitor him/her/ah. It's not normal, for a child, to sit unsupervised at a computer for more than a few minutes. Place the computer in the living room, not in their room. They exactly know what to do and where not to click when the parents are around ;)
Which means: Problem solved. Yes, some may fall addicted to porn or see curse words, but only if parents don't spend enough time to supervise them, pretty much like in my youth. But at least, other citizen remain untracked.
I saw porn accidentally at around 11 by visiting python.com (I was trying to python.org). I turned out fine, I'm not really sure what's the big danger. It's just sexualized naked humans. Big deal.
Maybe people are just uncomfortable that children might like porn.
I started regularly viewing porn since 8 or 9 years old. To this day I'm not into "pro" porn or any other type of strange porn, just amateur couples filming themselves fucking. I watched indie European movies with my parents that had full nudity and penetration before that age even. Despite my other character flaws, I don't actually have any sexual hangups, harmful fetishes, etc.
I have literally no problem with my future child watching a video of people having sex.
Even before internet, many (most ?) teenagers had access one way or another to sexual contents. Videotapes, magazines and so on... I wonder why it's such a big deal. I think it's the role of the parents, or even school, to educate them about this.
Sorry that there are very harsh comments out here.
You cant solve your problem relying on laws or global restrictions. The damage is already done.
The only solution is preparing your child how to respond on her own when she encounters inappropriate content. Not by restricting her. Not by always accompanying her when she uses Internet.
You need to educate her by telling her the Truth, ie the nature of the content and why it is inappropriate according to what you believe. This is more than sex education. Be more specific. Explain what happens there. Yes you can and is your responsibility to teach your child to avoid/hate NSFL if you think it harms her physical, emotional and mental well being, no matter what society believes and advocates by telling its all SAFE.
"my young daughter doesn't get any unaccompanied internet access" - you will discover that you are mistaken about this. Kids do not tell adults about the hole in the fence.
The reality is that we have a misogyny problem, not really a porn problem per se but one that's reflective of a society that could, for example, produce Trump.
Trying to solve this by blocking porn is basically misogyny trying to protect itself through distraction. Hey look over there, she has her tits out gasp, clutch pearls.
There used to be a option here in Sweden and elsewhere in the world, and it was called the national censors. They would look at movies, tv, music, books, and decide if it posed a serous problem where someone could 'accidentally' be exposed and harm the efforts to be well-adjusted citizens.
And, in most part, it was not that bad. Sure, Swedes could not watch the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the UK banned Monthy Python, and the US banned Show Girls, but was it really so bad? Well, maybe... Okey it was pretty bad and society discarded that system for a very good reason.
Actually the UK hasn't discarded it's system, but you've possibly misunderstood what the system is.
Monty Python was rated as suitable for ages 14+ by the BBFC. Some local authorities (which have power over what may be shown in cinemas) banned cinemas from playing it, but buying a physical copy was never banned.
Nowadays there are only a small number of films outright 'banned' by the BBFC, almost always due to rape or torture scenes that don't have appropriate context, and the 'ban' only extends to screenings and to selling physical copies.
Well, reading about "Monty Python's Life of Brian" gives a rather strong message that censoring played a significant role in the UK for that movie. But you make a good point that rather than it being national censors, it was town councils. Not sure if the general public or artistic creator feel that its much of a difference.
Looking at history of censoring in uk, or looking at examples in other countries, is it a productive, effective and favorable method in keeping citizens well-adjusted?
If the films that have been censored hadn't been, I don't think anyone would be directly be suffering other than the politicians who have some of the public screaming at them. However, if there were no censorship, producers would know they could put anything up and perhaps we would get steadily more and more filth on the screen. Obviously that's hard to be sure about either way.
I think the minimal complete censorship they do now (which seems to be entirely sex/violence related) is probably in about the right place - if people and papers on both side are complaining, that's a good sign you might have found the right balance!
I don't think Monty Python (presumably you're thinking of Life of Brian?) was ever banned in the UK. I certainly saw it in a cinema in England shortly after its release. There were a few protests by some religious groups.
There is no problem. I grew up with the internet. Had full access as a kid. Many people did too. The only problem is that fascists want to control the internet, that's the real problem.
I appreciate this comment, as I know a lot of people who grew up with the internet.
I would therefore ask another question: Is it really fascism trying to control the internet, or people afraid to accept responsibility for what they want to do ?
(I suspect both)
The modern way of entitlement means everybody should be free to do whatever they want without government interfering, which demonstrates that the meaning of the word 'goverment' is lost, especially when the people vote for the prevailing authority.
Do you feel reponsible as part of a society, or are you only responsible to yourself ?
Not the GP, but in my world you're responsible for your part of society - not all of it. There's no consensus on when - for example - kids should be allowed to look at some random.jpg.
As a parent, you make decisions for your daughter every day. Whether she gets unfiltered internet access or not is one of these. I think most rational people wouldn't criticize your personal decision, even if they disagree.
But handing this responsibility out to the state seems wrong to me on multiple levels. Privacy issues (which are actually HUGE) aside: There's no clear cut answer for the questions
- what is considered porn/inapproriate nudity anyway
- at which age is my kid allowed to watch porn (this proposal says 18 for some reason?)
- what kind of porn is agreeable and what is not
The government shouldn't meddle in issues of morality.
With this argument, I could argue for any fascist dictatorship I want. A government should serve its people, first and foremost. Remember, a law always has to be kept with the threat of force, or actual force if it is broken. This is a classic example of a regulation that cuts deeply into personal freedom and causes much more harm than good. Ironically, the burden of proof is now suddenly upon us, the people, to argue against it.
Can you tell me, what is the justification of the government's power over us to decide when we are ready to watch porn? How dare they interfere with deeply private matters like this one? How about them showing first, without a doubt, that porn without ID is harmful, and that enforcing such an ID helps at all?
Where do you draw the line though? I understand the point you're trying to make, but don't you agree that I can counter your 'else .. anarchy' point with 'govern, like in Brave New World'?
People that argue that the government doesn't need to track people's porn habits and decide at which age porn is acceptable aren't automatically against governing/governments.
I understand what 18 years represent in the UK (and here as well), but the reasoning between 'porn' -> 'has to be an adult' is .. unclear. I see no connection here. I assume most people in the UK have sex before the age of 18 for example. Why is that unrestricted? Are you allowed to drive motorized vehicles below the age of 18? Why?
That completely ignores that porn is undefined and porn != porn. You might consider something as pornographic that I consider natural or vice versa? Why would you really want to throw a couple having sex on tape in the same bucket as - say two girls, one cup?
What about content that is brutal and gory? I know there are rules in place for movies or games, but random websites? I don't think they're required to ask for a proof of adulthood, are they?
What about questionable ideological content? Why aren't forums required to make sure that the visitors are adults as soon as the topics are too far off to the left or right?
You can expand this argument ("Think of the children, seeing porn") again and again.
Anyway: In the end I see no way, none, that this proposal can help parents. You, we, have to judge any content for ourselves and our kids - be it a simple comic, a Hollywood movie, random mp4s or .. written text on the internet.
Would the age being 16 change that, as it's the age of consent. Would that then be seen that the age of consent should be removed ?
Unfortunately, I believe it probably would help many parents as there are still a vast amount of people who are unaware of what the internet offers, even though their children already see it.
You could suggest educating parents, but then many don't care.
It's certainly been interesting seeing the differing viewpoints on this discussion.
I think any law is bound to be wrong in too many cases: If you lower the bar to 16 I'll certainly find a 17 year old that isn't ~stable~ enough for some content and the problem persists: Parents, individuals, have to protect their kids based on intimate knowledge about the persons, on a case to case basis.
About the clueless parents: I don't feel that there's a pressing need either. First: Lots of parents of small kids (a growing number, the majority soon if not already) probably already grew up with the internet. There's a gap, I agree that a generation of parents that didn't use the internet as a kid exists.
But I reason that protecting your kid is first and foremost media agnostic. You talk about stuff you might see on tv, you don't just give them the remote and hope that your receiver blocks content and asks for a pin whenever something scary comes up - or you're lazy. The same applies for the internet: You talk to your kids, about the very same things. Violence, sexuality, consensus, morality. And try to make them feel safe so that they'll talk with you about anything disturbing they encounter.
Parents don't need to understand the internet (but it might help). The internet has nothing new to offer - porn isn't a new thing. You didn't need to understand how your kid got access to these filthy VHS tapes 30 years ago and still were responsible for your child.
I feel that technology cannot be used as an excuse here, a la "I don't understand this newfangled gadget, someone else tell my kids how to live this life".
Thank you, I don't want anyone to feel responsible for me. I want to be FREE, first and foremost. If other people feeling responsible for me is conditioned on them owning my body in ways of e.g. banning what drugs I can take and what porn I can watch, then no thanks. I will never push my feeling responsible on people in forceful or even violent ways because I respect liberty too deeply, and I don't want that to be done to me.
This is not a modern way of entitlement. This is basic liberty at the most fundamental level. A sense of entitlement is what the government has. What is the justification of the government's power? Back in the age of kings, they argued that god instated them. At least they were trying to come up with a reason for their power. Today it is me, the single individual, who has to argue for his liberty. It is ridiculous.
> When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place, there is something wrong.
"is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life" is an extraordinarily weak argument for harmfulness.
Eating ice-cream is also not going to help someone be well-adjusted in life.
Given what was being discussed in the context, what you're saying equates to "there's something wrong that the public can get free access to ice-cream".
Restricting access is not the only way to address issues in society.
In any case, my only point was that the person I was replying to provided a very weak argument that the thing is bad in the first place. Note that this is not the same as me saying it isn't bad in any way.
I will not allow my daughter free access to ice cream, either ;)
I see your point. I think that, unsurprisingly, this is a much bigger issue than just 'porn' and everyone sees it from different viewpoints (humans, eh).
> When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can ... be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life ... there is something wrong
I am really trying to understand your point of view, and am failing.
Are you saying that you go online, and are bombarded by images that you don't want to see? Then why do you still go online? Have you taken a community college class about internet access, and how to find information you want (and by extension: avoid information you don't?)
You can voluntarily install any number of parent-protection extensions for your browser. Why do you want to control other people's speech rather than doing something simple to block content from your own browser that you don't want?
I suppose my point (which I obviously failed at, as most people are just suggesting an internet filter) was that it has become - thanks to the internet - to be exposed to a lot of areas of life which would not normally be encountered.
Many people don't see this as a problem, and many people likely never experience it (either through limited internet use, or otherwise).
Perhaps it isn't a problem, but if it is, such that enough interest it pushed in solving it, how can society grow to cope with it ?
Or something like that.
Perhaps people honestly believe that a child, growing up into their twenties and beyond, constantly watching porn and NSFL content, is a typical example of a well-adjusted member of society. Maybe that's correct these days.
shrug
Perhaps I'm completely out of touch and my ethics/morality mark is completely on the wrong end of the scale - I'm not sure (hence the flameproof suit).
I just think this topic is worth discussion, rather than being instantly dismissed as nanny-state takeover.
I'm sorry but maybe, just maybe the thought of "be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place" is a tad protectionist. There are still people (including children) dying and fighting daily just to survive in this world, an "accidental" porn image won't strip your child her future. There's porn in this world, there's violence, if anything, exposure is necessary to actually become well-adjusted to reality.
My kids are 2.5 and 4 and have no access to devices that connect to the internet. Yet. So remember the 'no battle plan survives the contact with the enemy' thing.
Honestly - while the internet makes it easier to get to questionable content and is a unified interface to both lots of good stuff all the way to the really ugly parts: I don't think that changes the responsibilites compared to my childhood.
Parents decide what kids are allowed to access. Parents have to enforce their rules and handle infractions. No. One. Else. (We're not talking criminal stuff here, we're talking about morality. If a kid is a cyber bully or sells illegal stuff online: Sure, let the police handle that. But looking at tits et al..?)
It might be harder for parents to enforce their prefered world view now - but that's still on them (or us, really. I'm one of them). In my world the only way to ~solve~ this problem - if you feel it is one - is to be open about it, tell your kids that they should be careful, to make them trust you so that they'll reach out to you when they find ... confusing content. There's no way to avoid these contacts. It's also kinda like the "Google has your mail anyway" problem: Protect your kids from things you don't endorse and some other kid, with parents of different standards, is going to share it with your daughter.
As a sidenote: Honestly, in my childhood (born '79) it was trivial to get hardcore porn (VHS) and magazines of all sorts and for every fetish were easily accessible. Yes, stumbling upon these things wasn't likely without expressing interest, but then again: Neither was it possible to stumble upon gazillion Wikipedia articles about animals or something positive like that.
Not arguing against you, but I'd like to point out that using your power to lobby government to create rules and regulations such that your children won't have the ability to step out of line, is a valid way of enforcing your rules.
I agree with the concept that it would be nice to do something, but that the current proposed solutions aren't good. I'd just like to point out that 'something has to be done' is a dangerous phrase which can easily lead to bad law. 'Something has to be done' leads to 'this is something', which leads to 'we have to do this'.
Whenever someone proposes one or more 'solutions' to a problem, they must not only be compared against each other, but also against the status quo. If they don't beat the status quo, then no - nothing 'has to be done'.
My take is - you don't even have to go to wrong websites to be deeply hurt. A lot of niche sites monetize using shady AD networks which serve deeply disturbing semi-porn ads to shares of audience.
Given this situation, I find attention to porn sites misguided. At least a person going to porn hub decided to be there, as opposed to going to a gaming wiki and seeing degenerate ads.
Here is a simple solutions: porn sites use a .xxx domain or some such, and browsers can trivially be configured to block that domain.
I'd be fine with government enforcing such a rule.
But years and years after we started talking about such a solution, we don't have it, but instead have intrusive privacy distroying solutions that don't see to even address the problem.
Sites which spawn porn popups in the face of children involved in innocuous browsing aren't going to respect laws concerning "porn IDs" anyway.
Any hypothetical positive consequences of a national database of porn access traced to particular individuals are more than outweighed by the glaringly obvious negative ones.
1. Sure, the open Internet is not a child-safe network.
2. Changing the Internet to be child-safe would mean adding restrictions such that it changes into a non-open network.
3. People who like the Internet the way it is, don't want this to happen. This explains
> some people feel very strongly that even questioning the situation is wrong
-- they will cede no point that could support measures that would close up the Net. This is tactically understandable. Unfortunately, it's a barrier to communication and fully-open debate on the issue.
4. I, for one, like the Internet the way it is.
5. My sort of proposal: building an alternative family-safe network upon the existing protocol. Put regulations into this new thing, leave the old one alone.
6. Family-friendly computing needs a whole new paradigm, as I see it. First, put aside the 'personal computer' as a basic unit. All terminals on the famnet will be shared, household ones. Like a a game console that sits in the living room. No personal accounts. No private email that the superuser parents can spy on, just no (fake) privacy at all. A radical re-imagining is needed!
7. Or let some some corporation take care of it for you. Block all sites except Facebook.
Glad you liked them! Despite being childless, the idea of family computing has been on my mind for a while...
Yeah, Facebook is a bad example of a family-safe network. But it has some probably-desirable aspects. A central authority that sets rules and enforces them, one place you can send complaints to. And it has aspects the net's openness too, anyone can make a page. But non-curated mass-broadcasted user content is too much openness for a truly all-ages network.
And I'm inclined to prefer a more decentralised system. One that lets groups of families, churches, schools, etc. to self-govern their networks.
This is not a problem that needs solving. It's hard to "accidentally" run across something really harmful on the internet. And run of the mill porn isn't. By the time your kid knows what's going on in those pictures the cat's out of the bag. My wife and I admitted to each other once that we first downloaded porn around age 10-11 (over our 2400 baud modems!) We turned out, by all accounts, normal and well adjusted. So did my friends, who were doing the same thing at the same ages. We're job-holding, child-raising respectable adults ourselves now.
My wife and I have a young daughter, and we can't see any reason to control what she does online. Bigger picture: kids don't really need to be protected from the world. They need to be taught right and wrong and how to protect themselves, but it's an enormously bad idea to try to sanitize the world to be more suitable for kids, instead of raising kids that are suitable for the world that actually exists.
The chilling part is when this measure "works" in everybody psyche guilt and makes all people feel they are guilty unless proven innocent (of a non-crime, but for social engineering purposes that last bit is irrelevant). It's really hard to believe this is for real.
I mean, just a few years ago your daughter was literally sucking on titties like it was nothing. You want to prevent her from accidentally seeing some of the more ridiculous hardcore imagery thats out there? Fine, thats reasonable: install uBlock Origin, done. You wanna make sure she doesn't see naked people? You have to explain how that even begins to be traumatic if you expect to have common ground with other reasonable people.
There is a serious problem with this stuff on the Internet, but there are existing private solutions you can install either on devices or routers to address this question. Have you tried these solutions and how well do they work?
The big problem is: how far do you extend the block?
I mean, if you let me write the blocklist I'd put the Daily Mail on it (persistent racism, homophobia/transphobia leading to suicide, and the sexually exploitative "sidebar of shame" commenting on women's bodies). I can't imagine getting universal support for that opinion. Other people might go in the other direction and demand that all material that even mentions homosexuality be banned.
If I had kids, I'd definitely want to block them from reddit and 4chan until at least mid-teens. I note that, on my EE mobile phone, there is some URL filtering that blocks NSFW subreddits (and also a few random blogs for no discernable reason). But it only works on http, not https, making it kind of a figleaf.
Second real, difficult to address problem: use of social media for bullying. This includes nonconsensual circulation of nudes (tricky one: should be severely punished, but not by putting kids on the sex offender registry).
I went to school in an era when, if you wanted to get adult material off the internet, you had to wait for the guy who had the modem to download it to floppy disks and circulate it in the playground. Now consider trying to block "samizdat" porn on SD cards.
(Also, wasn't there a thing on HN a while back about attempting and failing to automatically detect people building penises in LEGO's MMO?)
This is something. Therefore, this has to be done.
Before internet porn became a thing, we were warned by various people about the harm that pornography does, and in particular, how it increases the incidence of rapes and sexual assaults, and is bad for the status of women in society. It was being proposed that it be banned outright.
Now that pornography is widespread, and free, has there been an explosion of rapes and sexual violence?
The UK Government which is allegedly proposing this is led by a woman. So are the governments of Scotland, Germany, Norway, and various other countries. I expect the United States will soon have a president who is a woman. I don't think the status of women has suffered.
The UK Government now has its work cut out mitigating the harm caused by the EU referendum vote. It should be concentrating on that and mitigating its impact.
If you're worried about harm it might cause to children (whatever that might be), you've already answered your own question: you control their access. Children cannot (or should not) set up internet access themselves.
I don't know if the Internet is the problem here. When I was a kid me and my friends accidentally found massive amounts of porn-mags in the small woods close to our school. Fun and exciting we thought, not really in a sexual way. doesn't matter.
Should we ban porn mags too? Or should we ban urban areas? Or regulate how you legally can dispose of porn-mags? I've also accidentally seen people being too drunk, and people having heart attacks. As a kid.. how should we protect people from seeing things? it's the wrong line of thinking.
It's not about banning anything. It's about restricting access to minors. It's never been legal in the UK for minors to buy porn mags or videos in a store.
About what exactly? What is this massive harm being done to children if they see a pair of boobies? Where are these people that at one point saw something disturbing on the internet and became fundamentally broken as a result. Is there anyone struggling to be "well adjusted" because they watched Faces of Death when then were under 18?
I just can't wrap my head around this "something must be done" worry. It is so vague, so undefined, and such a pessimistic view of people in general.
You can accidentally cross the street and die - that doesn't mean we should put guards on the pavements and issue pedestrian ids.
There is a better solution. How about parents take responsibility for what their kids do?
>When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place, there is something wrong.
And what's to prevent the same sort of "mentally broken" person who would host a website with NSFL images, from simply printing them off and dropping pages on the street? How were you planning on preventing your child from picking up a piece of paper on a street corner with NSFL images?
We all want to protect our children from the "real world" for as long as possible. But at some point they need to learn to cope with the fact that this world is full of disgusting people and actions.
> How were you planning on preventing your child from picking up a piece of paper on a street corner with NSFL images? //
Picking it up first and putting it in the bin? I've done this with porn and with images on cigarette cartons.
Not always possible, but just because there are problems with "real" life doesn't mean we shouldn't remove problems from online life.
Online life magnifies niches that in the offline world would be hidden away - that can be good but also means exposure to things that one is unlikely to ever be exposed to in the real world.
One can go on the web property of respected international media companies and be exposed to content that a person IRL would never share with you for fear of it ending in arrest or destruction of their public character.
I've seen far worse things online (mostly by "choice", curiosity can be a bad thing) than would ever be printed by a locally identifiable company.
I stumbled upon porn when walking to the park as a 7 year old. I guess if I had a helicopter parent it's POSSIBLE they would've run to grab it from me before I could see it. Of course I would've hated my parents if they had been helicopter parents, and I'd probably be a worse adult as a result.
Are you planning on hovering over your children 24/7 for the rest of their lives? Because you can't protect them. And ruining all of society in order to delay exposing your child to difficult things for, at best, a couple of years, is ridiculous. If you don't want your children seeing NSFL things on a computer, don't let them use a computer.
>And ruining all of society in order to delay exposing your child to difficult things for, at best, a couple of years, is ridiculous. //
As an adult I've seen things that have screwed me up, for more than just a few days. As a child I see those things either passing one by or being far more severe; both options are open depending on the particular nature of the content.
> If you don't want your children seeing NSFL things on a computer, don't let them use a computer. //
So people should only use computers if they want their children to see NSFL things?
There are alternatives top that position.
Personally with my [pre-teen] children I allow them to use computers with whitelist settings or with direct oversight - this in response to access to porn with our eldest child.
In physical daily life people would laugh at you for claiming that I'm a helicopter parent - I've been "told off" in public a couple of times for letting kids "too much freedom", but once they're wise to roads, sensible with new people, aware they can be injured then they're pretty safe around the general population as a group. Online you don't have the public available to help, children don't have their normal senses of danger and wariness that they build up from bumps, scrapes and bruises.
For sure, as teenagers they'll chase after "interesting" content both of a sexual and gore-ish (and ...) nature out of curiosity, but I'm not going to abandon them to that in the same way I'm not going to drop them off to play in a crack house.
The attempt to equivalise published porn that you saw as a child I'm guessing >15 years ago [?] with the crudest of online content available now is damaging. I too saw porn as a child of a similar age, softcore images of airbrushed men/women, and wouldn't shirk at my kids seeing the same; it's not like they don't know what naked people look like. NSFL content available online, both porn/gore/other, is an entirely different category and warrants a completely different approach to 'normal' sexual imagery IMO.
Have we actually established that this is a problem? Is viewing porn or violent imagery or whatever on the Internet actually harmful to children or does it just make parents uncomfortable?
Sure, sure. This is clearly why we need ID cards to use televisions and listen to radio. Because someone with a radio could accidentally tune into Rush Limbaugh, and someone with a TV could accidentally tune into an episode of Jackass. Clearly we need a government solution for a private problem because we wouldn't want all of these non-well-adjusted people roaming the streets, free to enjoy the banality of their existences.
I think the blocking should be on your side. The Internet is meant to be free. Want to keep porn away from yourself or kids? Install an extension, or get one of those services that automatically blocks it.
The same way, we should block on device/user level. Afraid your kids will watch it on their phones? Okay, cool, let's provide that kind of blocking at a cellular provider level or even at a phone level (I'm sure Safari or Chrome could implement blockers). We should blacklist rather than whitelist.
I think the best way to deal with "accidentally" viewing something is require a "popup" (think modal rather than traditional popup) that asks you if you are 18 or above and warn you of the content which a ton of sites already do. Or implement a simple HTTP header that tells your browser that you're accessing a site that's not safe for minors.
>that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life
This is the crux of your argument and is vaguely worded. Saying 'not going to help' is not mutually exclusive with 'not going to hinder'. I'd like to see a proof of a stronger condition than 'not helping', for example 'actively harming' before you are justified in calling for action. Your have not provided any sources to back up your claims.
This argument frustrates me because even if uncensored internet access is mentally harmful for a child, the assumption that the correct way to address this is censorship, to me, smacks of denial. Censorship only works on the naive.
> How do we solve the problem?
Accept that uncensored internet access in a 21st century western society is unconditional, and display appropriate parenting skills to teach your children to mentally cope with anything they might encounter. 'Worked on my machine'.
simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place, there is something wrong.
The worst of the worst content perverting a well-adjusted life come from popular, generally SFW, mass-media outlets. If the goal of web filtering is for a well-adjusted life, put the firewall in front of sensationalism, fear-mongering, outrage-bait and hate-mongering.
Or, in other words, block all blogs, news, and clickbait sites. Porn can get through though. Sure it's taboo, but society as a whole is much better at understanding it does not represent reality.
> When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place, there is something wrong.
How accidental is it really?
All the major search engines and social networks have some sort of "safe search" filter system. The porn sites submit themselves and are listed in parental blocking tools to limit Internet access.
The answer is, honestly, it isn't accidental. People have tools already to handle this situation in a variety of ways and simply choose not to exercise their free will to utilize them.
It is as "accidental" as being offended by walking into an adult toy shop.
> Whilst there are privacy concerns regarding any ID situation, nobody seems to be trying to solve the problem in other ways, short of limiting internet access (which causes other outcries).
Private, cheap solutions exist already. Why is its the government's job to force you to use them? Why don't you use them willingly?
> (For the moment, as a parent, my young daughter doesn't get any unaccompanied internet access - I am thinking of my child)
I'm uncertain why you believe the government would do a better job and honestly, I'm concerned you think that would be the case given the financial incentive in this case clearly works correctly in favor of the porn blocking companies. (i.e. There is no money to be made circumventing them to show porn to people who can't buy adult products. Even the ad revenue is worthless because your advertisers can't sell them anything.)
> Edit: It's interesting to note diminishing points for a post that asks how to solve a problem. Obviously some people feel very strongly that even questioning the situation is wrong.
Honestly, if you are not willing to exercise your own free will to provide safeguards against accidents, why should the government do so?
It isn't like these people are posting public billboards at the side of the road that are impossible to avoid.
There is a solution: it's installing netnanny (or whatever it's called these days) on your children's devices, and being a responsible parent to the best of your abilities.
Please don't let your squeamishness for your children's sake crap over everyone else's freedom to not be put on a leakable list that can be used to further erode our privacy for decades to come.
Now you might say "but buying booze has an id check: surely this is the same!". To that I say:
- Buying booze is not something you can be blackmailed or shamed about, except in very specific circumstances
- When I buy booze I flash an ID that the human can look at and trust, and then they promptly forget who I am when they serve the next person. I'm not sure if that's either implementable on the internet, or even desired.
I am of the opinion that your post does not clearly demonstrate the existence of any problem, thereby a necessity of a solution to said supposed problem; or anything at all except maybe some xeno and nimby.
But I might be missing something. Perhaps a negative effect in academic studies, or maybe working life was shown by a number of conclusive studies as in recent years?
Am I missing something?
I think the answer is primarily non-technical. I believe we have to find healthy ways for people to express themselves and especially to communicate what makes them feel "not well-adjusted". Censorship doesn't solve these issues for any age group. Like prohibition, it simply shifts the problems around or sweeps them under the rug, thereby distorting the actual issue (which never goes away): humans have a vast array of choices.. how do we make the right ones? When it comes to porn, I think this is a question of social pressure like anything else: sex exists and it's not necessarily the way it's protrayed in porn. As soon as you're old enough to find your way to this sort of content, someone needs to have that conversation with you.
We need more empathy, more listening, more communication - not less.
Government's entitlement over human life is staggering. It's patently obvious they are going to use the data to shame, blackmail and accuse dissidents at will. 'Think of the children' is not going to suffice.
If past behaviour is any predictor of future behaviour, your data is going to be exploited by private citizens as well. What could go wrong?
«The case exposed inadequate safeguards against abuse, including warnings to staff not to use the databases created to house these vast collections of data to search for and/or access information ‘about other members of staff, neighbours, friends, acquaintances, family members and public figures’. Internal oversight failed, with highly sensitive databases treated like Facebook to check on birthdays, and very worryingly on family members for ‘personal reasons’.» – https://medium.com/privacy-international/press-release-new-c...
I find it impressive that the UK people trust their government so much even to the point where they are happy to leave the EU to give it more power. That seems questionable.
It's not about 'trust' at all. The typical brexit supporter doesn't 'trust' any of these people any farther than they can throw some ministry building. The brexit supporters are convinced they'll have more influence over a sovereign UK government that answers to UK votes, whereas they have learned through long experience that they have next to no influence over Brussels, by design.
This straw man the_mitsuhiko setup with brexit dunderheads that "trust their [UK] government so much" is a fiction that exists inside his/her head; a sad self-delusion people indulge to demean things they don't like.
So... only .co.uk, or full 3/4 of the internet, including Tumblr?
This is, of course, is a question for what counts as "operating in Britain". A site that is running on servers in Britain? A site that is owned by a British company? A site that happens to be available on the greater internet?
Gosh, countries and borders became relics when the internet got spread wide enough.
It doesn't matter which sites are targeted. What worries me is the authoritarian mindset. That the state becomes the nanny of all the people. That responsibility for oneself and one's children is no longer the norm, but discouraged and deferred to the state. And the justification for these forceful invasions into our lives is relentless moralizing akin to that of extremist religious people. That is the conclusion I draw from this.
In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously against regulation like this because the line of what counts as (porn|extreme|violent|whatever) is too blurry and is too easy to be used to censor whatever the state declares unhealthy, and this is not good.
/going rather offtopic afterwards
What's also not good is how ugly the internet became. Even in the 90s it was rather easy to stumble upon unexpected material; a prime example would be if you'd searched "Spice Girls" somewhere in ~1996 on Altavista - the results were definitely not showing the pop band.
I'm well aware how formerly extreme things, like in fashion or in porn is slowly merging into the mainstream, and so the dark pits of the internet are becoming more accepted. It's also true that bullying, tweet wars, doxing, etc, due to the lack of critical mass of internet users, were not present, and that they are actual, existing issues which should be addressed, but no one knows, how.
So no, I'm seriously against a porn database; it's not helping anything, not solving any real problems. The "protect the children" is bullshit; I'm guessing many who are supporting the idea would get a heart attack should they learn how aware "kids" are compared to them, and this is not just due to the internet. These people are the same by the way who grew up in the 70s...
Anyway, there are problems which needs attention and regulations, but that's not porn.
> In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while.
This not a really good analysis.
In Europe, the state is responsible of guaranteeing that the basic Human Rights are protected for all of its citizens. Than includes the right to education, health care, proper nutrition, shelter, security, etc. In general, the state does not intervene in private matters as far as this does not jeopardize the former. It's for a reason that laws about same sex marriage, soft drug legalization, etc. are passed in Europe decades before than in the US.
In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe.
>In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe.
No, it's not. What are you talking about?
The US is more like Western Europe, in fact the US is probably even more liberal than Western Europe, when it comes to porn. The UK is puritanical all by itself, and closer to, say, Saudi Arabia.
Here in the US, we produce all kinds of porn. California (LA mainly) used to be the hub for it, but it's spread out from there and now it's being made all over; you can find people looking for porn performers on any city's Craigslist now. We don't have any kind of "great firewall" to protect us from porn. We don't have proposals to make citizens get "ID cards" to view porn online. We don't have weird anti-porn laws against things like "face-sitting" (remember the flap in Britain a few years ago about that? They had women sitting on men's faces in front of government buildings to protest the ruling), or any other regulation on what kinds of positions are allowed to be shown in porn. It's pretty much totally unregulated over here. The industry does some internal self-regulation, but it's not government-imposed, and there's lots of small, independent producers (basically anyone with a camera) who aren't part of that.
Don't lump us Americans in with British prudery. We have some prudishness problems in parts of our society in "meatspace", but on the internet, it's the Wild West.
Broadly, UK law is restricted to UK companies for material which is illegal to post. So libelous sites hosted outside the country aren't censored, because the libel isn't 'located' in the UK (yes, this is a tortured analysis).
But the UK has more recently established a China-style firewall that restricts access to sites hosted anywhere, based on where you view from. Originally, it was implemented to block access to torrent sites. And of course, at the time everyone swore "it's just the torrent sites, there will never be a slippery slope!"
But now it would age-gate pornography viewed from any UK IP address. Well, the content they can find anyway - they'll have to either run a blacklist (catching only large, paid sites) or a blocking filter with a whitelist (blocking all kinds of legitimate content - usually this ends up blocking sexual health sites). And yes, Tumblr is hopeless, there's really no way to know what a given page will have on it.
So it's the authoritarian, cut-off-access bit, but it still won't work.
Point of fact: the UK's internet filter was originally implemented about a decade ago, to block child pornography. And (to borrow your turn of phrase) at the time, everyone swore "it's just the child pornography, there will never be a slippery slope!"
... then, as of a couple of years ago, they started using it to block torrent sites. So it goes.
It's really sad to see a country famous for its liberal traditions, sleepwalk back into the sort of draconian censorship that we thought was a relic from darker times.
Here in the USA, we don't block internet sites. We have no "great firewall" here. (We do have to worry about our IP addresses being associated with torrenting copyrighted content and getting sued however.)
So if you're in the UK and you want to use a VPN to access adult content (but you don't want to distribute copyrighted movies and music), the USA is an excellent VPN host country to use.
If the UK uses drones on the USA, the results will not be pretty for the UK. The UK will be squashed like the little bug that it is to us.
And given our near-religious devotion to freedom of speech, we're not going to be "strong-armed" into adopting such blocking either.
Not sure of the (technical) feasibility of this, but I have some social observations.
It seems the motivating factor, ostensibly, is to protect children. However, the primary concern of those who don't like this seems to be with leaks and possible ensuing shaming. So, if the stigma attached to watching (non illegal) porn is done away with, the fear of leak becomes irrelevant. If protecting children is paramount then society must do away with silly witch hunts and being so anal (no pun intended).
While we are at it, why restrict to porn and why not extend to all things abusive to kids, including violence, racism, stupid stunts and pranks etc referenced by many other posters? Seems porn gets targeted almost always! imagine if porn were a person in the west, they would have sued the heck out of everyone.
The telecoms already have that type of data that could be leaked to an extent. In 2013 British Telecom enabled porn filtering [1] that was on by default, so when setting up your account you'd have to opt out.
This was present on mobile networks for a long while. The honest and real reason I had it disabled was when it listed the ThinkPad knowledge collector http://thinkwiki.org/ as adult site... ( I'm not joking. ) - this is probably also a prime example lists like this are complete and utter jokes.
But do they have a record of the reason you disabled it or did they just change a flag and lump you in with everyone else?
A bit more paranoid. If they do this tracking for porn, maybe in the future they add other types of content they want to track. I know it sounds silly but it's not like the data is going to go away and likely will only ever increase the amount of tracking. Sadly I know many people who see no issue with this.
At that time, I was probably listed as requested access to mature content; reasons were not required but a few years ago they were already asking for identification, eg. passports.
What's frightening is how silent everyone is about this.
Opting out was such a humiliating experience. I had to spend 30 minutes on phone with a woman to explain why I needed it disabled and why I don't have a british driving license.
Luckily the filters always included way too much stuff, so calling to have the filters off wasn't ever a conversation about "I want to watch porn", but "I want access to this website about testicular cancer".
Well, let's extend even further - why restrict to things abusive to kids, why not extend to all things abusive to anyone?!? Like news shows that obviously have "wrong" news or different opinions, history-channels that focus on the less glamorous sides of say the British in WWII, etc...
This is a slippery slope that one should not enter. If your kid encounters porn then banning porn will not fix the kid. Educating will fix your kid...
My primary concern isn't leaks or shaming. What I really have a problem with is the role of government here. Elections are not perfect, that's why we have separation of powers. But it's hard to see how any government imposed solution can be implemented without upsetting the balance and opening the door to government censorship/manipulation further down the road.
The responsibility to block this content should be with the parents and the free market. As a parent I can already purchase content filtering services. The UK government is meddling in an area it doesn't need to, with potentially disastrous consequences, presumably for PR purposes.
Does anyone have any ideas how likely this will actually become law? Crazy laws get proposed here in America all the time. From what I've seen by watching the Prime Minister's questions every now and then, lots of far-fetched proposals are made across the pond as well. But they never get far, and not worth getting bothered about.
"The government" in a parliamentary system, in this context, refers to what we would call "the administration" in the US, i.e. the Prime Minister and his ministers. And almost by definition, the government controls a majority in parliament ("almost" because it is possible to have a minority government) and has a high likelihood of passing its agenda. But the proposed laws do change a lot as they go through consultations and committees, and intra-party negotiations. There is a sizable libertarian wing of the Conservative Party.
As archaic as it sounds on paper, it's the best functioning upper house in the world. It provides actual substantive research into government policy, and a temporary restraint on changing long-time status quo, being able to delay legislation but not stop it altogether. I really hope you guys don't change it any more.
The more I think about it the more I'm starting to think that this is how you make an army of generic hackers.
Want $X? Learn to circumvent the system!
Why don't UK government leave that responsibility to the parents which are to decide what their children are allowed to watch or not. In the old Soviet the communists very much wanted government to replace both parents and God - seems like that idea has gotten new fuel in the UK.
Indeed the move to remove accountability from parents and burden everybody else is lamentable. Be that the sugar tax on soft drinks coming about just as a way to cut obese children as well as many other measures. Perish the thought they made the parents accountable.
+1 for the Nanny State reference. In typical UK surveillance state fashion they pander to base fears and unforgivably overlook how bad censorship is in places like China. Where it not for censorship I think the thrill of surfing the Open Web would be dampened, just like when drugs instantly become more exciting when they are outlawed and regulated.
I am certain outlawing base primal urges, like the right to ingest what one desires into one's own body makes such primal urges even more favorable, often to the point of detriment to the State who then have to feverishly invent something inverse to people's actual needs like Alcohol, or bromides like Sugar to pacify their citizenry.
Taxing soft drinks is not like removing accountability from parents. It's really quite similar to taxing tobacco. Cigarettes cause huge public health problems, resulting in massive costs to the government eventually (plus loss of productivity). Taxes are used to discourage the use of cigarettes, and it's worked: here in the US, smoking is at an all-time low I'm pretty sure. Smokers are pariahs now: they have to go stand outside in the rain (50 feet from the building entrance, away from any canopies) to get their fix. It's really great IMO: I don't have to constantly breathe that crap like I did 30+ years ago.
Taxing soft drinks is no different. Soft drinks are making the whole population (not just children) obese, so discouraging people from consuming them improves public health.
This isn't a parenting issue any more than having your local health department do free STD screenings is. It's a public health issue, which affects people of ALL ages. It's entirely appropriate for the government (at whatever level) to enact policies to try to improve public health, whether it's positive (STD testing, free condoms) or punitive (taxes on undesirable things). It's entirely valid for a government to have extra taxes on things which cause disproportionate costs to society, such as alcohol, cigarettes, and soft drinks, and to attempt to encourage positive behavior (such as how many US states have lower or zero sales taxes on (some) groceries, in order to reduce the burden on the poor and encourage people to prepare their own low-cost food instead of eating fast food).
If you want to complain about the State interfering with parenting and being a nanny, the laws in some US states basically forcing parents to be "helicopter parents" and forbidding children from walking around outside without adult supervision should be your target.
Fundamentally, my belief is that the government has a responsibility to provide for the general welfare of society, but in order to do so it needs to use evidence-based thinking. It also needs to balance this responsibility with the human rights of its citizens and the desire for freedom. There's mountains of evidence that tobacco is extremely bad for public health, and there's plenty of evidence that alcohol is also bad (except here, it seems to be OK and harmless in small quantities, like a glass of wine with dinner, but is a real problem when someone is addicted or drinks and drives), so regulating and taxing these things is justifiable. There's plenty of evidence now that soft drinks are associated with obesity, so the same applies here. There's zero evidence that having kids walk around by themselves at the age of ~8-10 is associated with a statistically significant risk of kidnapping, so there's no justification for the helicopter parent laws. And there's zero evidence that marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine or heroin, or any more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, so there's no justification for criminalizing it instead of just regulating it the way we do those two things.
The puritans are back. Here is a better idea, implement a vote-id so responsible adults can dismiss such inane ideas and recall offending MPs without delay so matters of the state can be attended to.
There only way we can realistically rehash the debate on pornography and entertain the idea that sufficient controls don't exist and are in some cases not practical or reasonable is by being intentionally obtuse and disingenious.
The idea that we can even consider implementing an adult-id for an entire population before considering its use for more effective democracy is telling of our current priorities and the complete reduction of the enlightenment of western democracy to a crude form of corporatocracy and control systems.
I have long thought it would be a great idea to force all pornographic material into a porn TLD, say .xxx
To access .xxx, you would submit your name, address, proof of age to whomever runs the regime and be given access. Sharing pornography should be a crime, especially if shared with minors. In a perfect world... Since we don't live in a perf3ct world, I'd be happy to see a forced TLD. Violators lose rights to any and all domains in perpetuity and are forbidden to start new ones. A 1M fine should suffice.
It's a proven fact pornography harms everyone involved. Men who are chronic users suffer impotence issues with real women. Pornography demeans women and lowers them to the status of sex machines, there only for the enjoyment of men. Women that are lured into the industry suffer horrendous self-esteem issues, die young, suffer from diseases, some fatal, and are reviled if/when they escape the industry. Not a good scene no matter how you slice it.
Or maybe people could get off their high horse and not impose their moral values on everyone else?
I'm all for regulating the industry if and when practices get distorted, same as any other industry dealing with humans. But if we ban porn for being generally harmful to its actors we should also ban:
-American football
-Boxing
-Extreme Sports
-..
And feel free to eventually add in everything someone doesn't like, as anything can be shown to be harmful in some extent.
this didnt work for germany, wont work for the UK either. most of the "porn" companies in the UK are only there to make use of tax advantages and billing, they are just shells that allow the parent company to move money through the UK to tax havens and mitigate risks. very very few porn companies are truly based in the UK, which means none will follow the rules.
231 comments
[ 13.6 ms ] story [ 4548 ms ] threadSomething has to be done. It's not just about porn or violence of NSFL etc... but there is a serious problem on the internet, that is always lambasted with the "Won't somebody think of the children" memes.
When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, without any safeguards in place, there is something wrong.
Whilst there are privacy concerns regarding any ID situation, nobody seems to be trying to solve the problem in other ways, short of limiting internet access (which causes other outcries).
I'm all for a better solution, but nobody seems to be proposing one.
(For the moment, as a parent, my young daughter doesn't get any unaccompanied internet access - I am thinking of my child)
How do we solve this problem ?
Edit: It's interesting to note diminishing points for a post that asks how to solve a problem. Obviously some people feel very strongly that even questioning the situation is wrong.
^^ This really opened my eyes to this problem for me.. It's really rather worrying, and I guess my generation (early 30s) were the last to avoid this so it's kind of invisible to us because of how awkward it is to talk about such things.
We need to do something, perhaps better education and getting more comfortable talking about sex and relationships with young people is a better approach than failed-from-the-outset restrictions...
Either way, the points in that video are imo, valid, and should worry everyone.
There is a pool of resources related to damage the porn has done for this generation from scientific studies, ex and recovering porn addicts and as well as from the partners of addicts.
Lots of people watch porn without becoming porn addicts.
For example, I'm a fan of Game of Thrones, but I wouldn't watch it with an 8-year-old. Extrapolate that to the realm of porn—especially of the BDSM or other such role-playing and kink variety—and we wind up in a place of genuine conflict for some parents, even those who might enjoy such things themselves. Moreover, there is more than a small amount of collected evidence and accounts from people who document how such material is impacting such things as teenagers' views on sexuality and what behaviors are normal, as well as young women encountering what they report as the effects of porn on their teen male peers—with such reports including expectations of sexual acts before they've even shared a kiss. The prevalence of such information and imagery, which the average adult may be able to successfully contextualize, provides a different set of challenges to the inexperienced and less mature adolescent population.
So, no, what the parent said wasn't that "information (and ergo imagery) is accessible" is the problem. It's more likely that the problem is there's no shortage of ways that people, young or otherwise, can stumble upon or be introduced to things that can be seriously problematic for their level of maturity and development.
Despite all that, just to be very clear, I'm not suggesting that government-issued porn IDs or similar programs are the answer, or that they would even help solve the problem some people legitimately worry about and feel matters for their, and their children's, lives. I see a lot of problems with even suggesting that, and think it's an awful solution. But I think there's value in recognizing there is a problem strongly felt by many people, and the problem isn't merely access to information and imagery. As with many things in life, I find myself mixed between recognizing the value in empathizing with and understanding people's concerns, and unapologetically upholding on principle the accessibility of information (and imagery) some may find objectionable.
And in the end, aren't we making them too fragile and unable to deal with things they shouldnt be interacting with, by keeping them in golden safety cage? I am not saying that we should not take care of them, but when I hear ideas like that, I wonder how the hell we've managed to survive our childhood without all of it being there to save us from this dreadful world!
We all know how ridiculous any attempts to censor the internet is to people with even a minimal amount of tech savvy, especially if gov.uk are involved... I mean, take the UK's attempt to block e.g thepiratebay.org which is defeated by simply putting https:// infront of it (at least, currently, on virgin media)..
The actual issue here though is the progression that some teenage kid goes through by initially looking to find some "HOTCHIX" to... solve an urge.. to 6 months later only getting off to really extreme stuff, being unable to really form relationships, the self destructive mentality porn addiction puts anyone in, and that we have an epidemic of erectile dysfunction in really young people as a result...
None of this is good.
Censorship will never be the solution, but I think we do need to do something; I have no idea what, though....
Hopefully things aren't quite so dire as we're making out. I've read several reports that generally say the next generation and entirely boring and barely even drink, fight, get high, smoke, blabla anymore... I'm not sure I totally believe it as a blanket statement, but it seems we're getting a bit less wild as a society... Maybe things will work out ok regardless, then. Or maybe this is a result of isolationism caused by over saturation. Who knows?
We got the pixies and nirvana, weed and wasted days trying to get PPP working..
They've got beiber and unlimited 1080p porn...
I think we lucked out in comparison.. :}
Realistically, kids will circumvent almost anything you put in place if they're interested enough in what they're trying to achieve.
Ok, that got a chuckle out of me. But really, as a serial porn consumer, I can tell you that people don't progress towards more and more extreme stuff. This isn't like drugs where you start developing resistance to the active substance. If it were, we'd see people give up sex in a few months after starting and the entire human race would die off.
You're basically designing a system for perfectly horny teens in frictionless vacuum.
Another thought - someone should get PornHub to release stats on if and how people's tastes in erotica progress.
Been there, done that. Went away once I realized how fake and asexual porn actually is and that 90% of stuff out there (both vanilla and extreme, pro and amateur) really has no fucking reason to turn anyone on once the initial novelty wears off. I don't believe that wanking to people who are not aroused/shy/insecure/bored/desperate/trying hard to make a show ought to feel any good. It really is hard to find good porn.
> being unable to really form relationships
Had that before the internet, heck, even before the collection of printed lingerie ads cut from newspapers (good fucking luck "protecting" your kids from that, losers). Anyway, I tend to blame my parents' own shitty relationship for this thing.
> an epidemic of erectile dysfunction in really young people
Correlates with relationship problems, one could wonder which way the causation goes. Why should anyone get hard for someone he is with only for social acceptance or, worse yet, self-acceptance?
Anyone with a basic understanding of the internet knows that the UK's censorship proposals won't work, and the only thing that really could work is complete government control over all internet content. Disturbingly, even that isn't too high of a price for the people that get the warm and fuzzies from knowing that their special little guy is protected from mean, nasty reality.
If the internet fucks up everyone's kids except your own then your own kids still have to live in that world.
The idea that future generations are individual families private problems is an insidious wrong.
We're in the world together and where possessible should share that responsibility.
No, I have no obligation or responsibility to your child. You can ask me for my voluntary help, but that's it.
I generally don't believe in limiting freedoms because people abuse and/or misuse something. There are exceptions of course, but this is clearly not one of them. Should we limit the amount of chocolate sold in stores because obese people lack self-discipline or because parents cannot control their children?
Take responsibility for your family or don't have one at all.
Is that a real problem though? You did quote the accidentally after all. Both kids and adults have access to things they seek - whether that's going to be internet, magazine brought to school, or some other means. If they don't seek such content, they won't see much more than what's already available to everyone in the daily mail. I think the internet just made people aware of what's already been going on.
My questions would be "does porn prohibition create more good than the very likely government/school punishment for kids who will seek it regardless". (Once it's tracked and officially acted on, it's going to be a sex offender case like sexting became, right?)
(Also from my experience, things other kids did/said at school was likely more damaging and plain evil than anything I've seen on the internet so far. Kids have unrestricted imagination and are brutal. And I get the impression lots of parents forget what really happened.)
If you want to block porn at home, there are thousands of solutions for that. And they do work pretty well. If you're thinking of a global solution, I think it's just too dangerous.
I can't say how much of a problem it is, but then I suspect nobody can.
As a parent (and yes, as stated already, I do limit internet access) I know that most parents definitely wouldn't want these things to be viewed early in life - I have no problem with adults viewing whatever they want, although I would suggest that people who constantly search for the NSFL content are possibly not well adjusted.
I don't claim to know the answer - I just get the impression that these options are always pushed away due to 'freedom' but there is little alternative offered to help society maintain a healthy mental balance.
But my experience is much different. Apart from sexualised models advertising things, I've not run into anything (by accident) I wouldn't share at a family table.
Putting this aside, no matter how much you protect your children at home, you can't protect them away from home.
IIRC, people in china have no problem using a vpn or whatever to bypass the great firewall? Why would government purchases blocking software be more effective than parent purchased blocking software?
And I'm not sure stacking protection helps. There's going to be a massive overlap in the lists of those services.
Did your wife believe you?
I'm not 100%, but I think recent guidelines in the UK advised that is an underage person is caught "sexting" with another underage person of the same age, they'll be no criminal repurcusions.
It's still a matter of prosecutorial discretion rather than being actually legal, though.
Yes. I search for children's content on Youtube. Youtube returns children's content. We click to play, and I get a pre-roll ad for a horror film, or alcohol, or gambling.
An iOS app advertises itself as suitable for ages 4+. It contains ads. Those ads are sometimes for gambling, or alcohol services. I'd say that app isn't suitable for children, and the uk regulator is looking at that.
If you have a random app (unrelated, not a porn site) showing ads (unrelated unless a porn site) of alcohol services (not sure what that is, but .. unrelated/not porn), how does this apply?
How would you age-gate ads? Wouldn't that require a new X-KID-PRESENT: 1 http header so that each and every ad network can suppress ~questionable~ content? In fact: That's a great thought experiment: Is a site that serves ads that might contain 'adult' ads at times a porn site according to the British government and would need to verify that the visitor is of age?
The simplest solution is to just require ID from everyone everywhere. They'll figure it out sooner or later if you let them build the infrastructure now.
They currently are age-gated. The age gating clearly isn't working. Advertisers in the UK are not allowed to target children with alcohol or gambling ads.
I don't care how it happens, but showing alcohol ads to children in apps for children because the parent has a credit card and owns the phone is sub-optimal.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I really think that it's the parents' responsibility. And if ads are considered harmful in your household, don't use ad based apps / use an ad blocker? That should solve the problem on a local level.
Edit: It just came to my mind that ad supported apps are often/usually free.. Is that the case here? Because I seriously dislike the idea of blaming a developer of a free application for different ideas about morality or a bad choice ('copy/paste some ad integration code' - stupidity vs malice?) in implementing a way to make some money.
Out in the real world, people will think you're weird and/or a religious nut if you don't drink at a business function. So why should I worry about my daughter seeing an advertisement for alcohol before her episode of Paw Patrol starts playing?
But mostly because I don't want him waking up at night screaming from nightmares. I like my dearly won sleep.
I'm not trying to say that it causes alcoholism. I'm just responding to someone dumping a useless anecdote.
Maybe don't let your kid that DOESNT EVEN READ yet zombiefy itself?
Maybe complain to Google/Apple about particular ads? Install some ad blocking software? Pay for youtube red? Purchase the ad-less versions of the apps?
Basically don't think that your inability to deal with the world warrants nationwide heavy handed regulation, please
You made the choice to have a child. You made the choice to entertain them with YouTube. The possibility of them seeing an advertisement for alcohol (my goodness! Your son will turn into a tattooed hooligan in a week!) is not sufficient reason for handing the internet over to state censorship.
In short, stop trying to make society raise your kid for you. Give independence and self-responsibility a try, you might like it.
In the UK advertisers are forbidden from advertising alcohol to children.
Here's the regulators page for adverts aimed at children: https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Children-an...
Here's their page for adverts about alcohol (note that some of those ads were online): https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Alcohol.asp...
There's currently a gap in regulation. App makers have apps targeted at children (and with an age range of eg 4+); those apps carry ads; those ad networks use information about the phone owner to decide the age suitability of ad.
This loophole is likely to close in 2017 or 2018
I do agree that apps (or videos) directed at children shouldn't show non-child-safe ads. I just don't see what does that have to do with the proposal under discussion.
One of the downsides of apps vs the open web is that you lose control of the experience.
With the open web the user can decide to remove sign up/social media/breaking news/in your face modals and pop-overs.
I don't see a problem when you have to go looking for it to find it. At that point it's not the fault of the internet, but someone's lack of discipline and self control.
Except that's wrong. All forms of child pornography are banned and posting one nets you a permanent ban. Several boards (i.e. everything outside the 18+ section) disallow posting any erotic content and doing so gets you a ban. 4chan was never meant as a free-for-all.
Child pornography is banned, but because moderators have to see it to ban it, and because the entire site is public, it's still possible for a user to encounter it without wanting to.
Frankly, if people are going to be exposed to said imagery at some point, they probably need to be educated about it. And not just about porn - about people with racist and bigoted views, about the news they'll read about someone committing a school shooting or a bombing.
There's no way we're ever going to convince people on the Internet to self-categorise and warn people about what they're going to come across. The only option is to supervise your child's use of the Internet (and other media, tbh) while you try to prepare them for what they're going to come across.
That's what this is all about isn't it? There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development, and I honestly doubt porn is one of the bigger bad influences. Kids are growing up watching popular peers give them beauty and fashion tips or perform dangerous stunts and pranks on extremely popular Youtube channels. Of course all you see is the side they want you to see: the successful prank with hilarious consequences, the perfect look by that pretty girl with the perfect figure.
But left to their own devices your children won't see that girl's bad hair day, or the stunt that backfired and landed one of the kids in hospital. Your kids won't realize that the brand of lipstick the popular beauty vlogger promotes also sends her plenty of free samples in return for the favour, or that that hilarious prank was staged.
It's our responsibility as parents and educators — as adults — to teach kids about this.
Now for porn this always gets tricky, because a lot of people would like to stick to just the basic birds and bees (if even that) and just pretend that sexuality is something you receive with your drivers licence. It doesn't work that way, and believing that blocking a vaunted digital commodity will make it go away is an age-old fallacy. There will always be that one kid who can get the goods, with that one app or website that completely circumvents the blockade.
Meanwhile you get to register for your approved pervert ID if you actually want to comply with the system and watch porn. It boggles my mind how anyone can think that this will benefit society rather than take another step towards a full Orwellian surveillance state.
> I'm all for a better solution, but nobody seems to be proposing one.
You are probably doing all right already. The computer and tablets stay in the living room where you can supervise incidentally until they reach the teenage years. And then the smartphones stay with you after bedtime. For the rest, it is up to you to set a good example, and to explain the world to your kids as they encounter it. That means talking about sex too, and that means explaining what they are looking at when they do stumble upon adult content — not acting embarrassed and making them feel guilty as if they've bitten into some forbidden fruit.
"Oh this is just adult sex, you'll understand better when you are older. Any questions?"
If it really bothers you; install filtering software. Filtering the parts of reality deemed not yet suitable from your children is responsible (just don't pretend it doesn't exist); filtering it from society at large is unbearably sanctimonious.
Indeed, I'd list the MRA/PUA/GamerGaters as a much greater risk to young males (directly; young females as a consequence). I'd probably have the alt-right/conspiracy loons above porn as well.
Let's say that it takes some knowledge and skills to bed new woman every week, for five years straight.
Few men would pull it off even if they didn't have moral objections.
[Citation needed.]
Have a look at Google Scholar for a plethora of papers about cyber-bullying, grooming, self-esteem issues (mental and physical), pro-anorexia blogs, etcetera. You can combine the keywords "internet" and "children" with any of the above to get an extensive list of papers on each topic.
I've never seen a peer-reviewed meta-study that suggests that the Internet is any more dangerous for kids than ordinary life.
EX: Cyber-bullying has many positive outcomes preparing sheltered children to the kind of people that live in the real world. Just look at what happened to the US hikers captured by Iran for an idea of what a sheltered upbringing results in.
haha oh wow
Not really practical advice in an era of tablets and mobiles.
Most of the "harms" of screen time disappear when adjusted for things like socio-economic status: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/screen-time-for-kids-is-... http://daily.jstor.org/screentime-feminist-issue. Basically, like most parenting advice, exhortations to limit kids' access to screens is based on pseudo-science and old wives' tales. It should not be taken seriously.
I don't think the internet reflects more than the real world offers. It is challenging as a parent (and a school, employer, etc) to govern (!) or monitor how people use your internet access. Certainly much harder than preventing your kids from going to a particular physical place.
However, the freely available information that the internet allows humanity to share and access is changing the world. Some things will be better, some perhaps worse and at least more challenging, but I don't support curtailing the freedoms of many. Much damage can be done through things like the proposed ID system, and it will be just that kind of damage - systemic.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is - don't be afraid of the world. It's a wonderful and scary place, full of many terrible and beautiful things, and the internet is too. I guess I just don't like the idea of having to turn 18 then get a passport just to Google what's in another country :T
A thought just popped up in my head about this. Yes, the internet is a reflection of the physical world, but it doesn't have any of the constraints that we have put in the real world. In the real world, you try and select a good neighborhood to raise your children in. This saves them from even coming close to physical spaces we'd like them to avoid.
Then in the real world you have signs all over the place that warn you from entering a dangerous situation. Then we regulate access to some of the more dangerous places (places that deal with hazardous materials, prisons, etc). You have things like the "Sex offender registry" which warns you of people to look out for. You have a lot of safeguards in the physical world that nobody bats an eye at because they all make sense.
And on top of all this evolution has given you an innate sense of danger. So you naturally stay away from people with knifes, guns, etc.
The internet has none of this. So while I'm all for freedom of information, I still think there is a need for some protection. On the internet, adults and kids are some of the time just 1 click away from a NSFL site, except of course that kids can't recognize that; which might be true for some adults as well.
Perhaps the best way to think of the problem is like this: Yes, kids having access to porn and NSFL content is potentially damaging to society.
However, a society where the state keeps a detailed record of everyone's personal sexual preferences is potentially even worse off.
"Good neighbourhood" = Ask your child to only use Facebook. Don't let him go near the train station. Leave the Google Safe Search by default. Let them use a video player, but download the content yourself.
"Signs all over the place": I don't remember seeing the sign "Warning: Guy selling drugs here" in the backstreet next to my town hall (Lyon, France, not a small city), nor the "Beware of aholes" sign in my highschool ;) and I especially remember 3x4m panels of ads for dating Minitel site (in France) with the curve of a woman's back: The bad world has never really been separated from children, but we'd teach them. I would teach my child to not click on ads, blinking stuff and bodies if they still meet any. They'll have to resist when the hormons kick in, so they'd better learn young.
Then, monitor him/her/ah. It's not normal, for a child, to sit unsupervised at a computer for more than a few minutes. Place the computer in the living room, not in their room. They exactly know what to do and where not to click when the parents are around ;)
Which means: Problem solved. Yes, some may fall addicted to porn or see curse words, but only if parents don't spend enough time to supervise them, pretty much like in my youth. But at least, other citizen remain untracked.
I think that at this point in time the internet is an integral part of "the real world".
Maybe people are just uncomfortable that children might like porn.
I have literally no problem with my future child watching a video of people having sex.
You cant solve your problem relying on laws or global restrictions. The damage is already done.
The only solution is preparing your child how to respond on her own when she encounters inappropriate content. Not by restricting her. Not by always accompanying her when she uses Internet.
You need to educate her by telling her the Truth, ie the nature of the content and why it is inappropriate according to what you believe. This is more than sex education. Be more specific. Explain what happens there. Yes you can and is your responsibility to teach your child to avoid/hate NSFL if you think it harms her physical, emotional and mental well being, no matter what society believes and advocates by telling its all SAFE.
The reality is that we have a misogyny problem, not really a porn problem per se but one that's reflective of a society that could, for example, produce Trump.
Trying to solve this by blocking porn is basically misogyny trying to protect itself through distraction. Hey look over there, she has her tits out gasp, clutch pearls.
And, in most part, it was not that bad. Sure, Swedes could not watch the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the UK banned Monthy Python, and the US banned Show Girls, but was it really so bad? Well, maybe... Okey it was pretty bad and society discarded that system for a very good reason.
Monty Python was rated as suitable for ages 14+ by the BBFC. Some local authorities (which have power over what may be shown in cinemas) banned cinemas from playing it, but buying a physical copy was never banned.
Nowadays there are only a small number of films outright 'banned' by the BBFC, almost always due to rape or torture scenes that don't have appropriate context, and the 'ban' only extends to screenings and to selling physical copies.
Looking at history of censoring in uk, or looking at examples in other countries, is it a productive, effective and favorable method in keeping citizens well-adjusted?
I think the minimal complete censorship they do now (which seems to be entirely sex/violence related) is probably in about the right place - if people and papers on both side are complaining, that's a good sign you might have found the right balance!
I would therefore ask another question: Is it really fascism trying to control the internet, or people afraid to accept responsibility for what they want to do ?
(I suspect both)
The modern way of entitlement means everybody should be free to do whatever they want without government interfering, which demonstrates that the meaning of the word 'goverment' is lost, especially when the people vote for the prevailing authority.
Do you feel reponsible as part of a society, or are you only responsible to yourself ?
As a parent, you make decisions for your daughter every day. Whether she gets unfiltered internet access or not is one of these. I think most rational people wouldn't criticize your personal decision, even if they disagree.
But handing this responsibility out to the state seems wrong to me on multiple levels. Privacy issues (which are actually HUGE) aside: There's no clear cut answer for the questions
- what is considered porn/inapproriate nudity anyway
- at which age is my kid allowed to watch porn (this proposal says 18 for some reason?)
- what kind of porn is agreeable and what is not
The government shouldn't meddle in issues of morality.
If so, what is their remit, and if not, what's the answer... anarchy ?
For reference, 18 is the legal 'adult' age in the UK, hence the age in this proposal.
With this argument, I could argue for any fascist dictatorship I want. A government should serve its people, first and foremost. Remember, a law always has to be kept with the threat of force, or actual force if it is broken. This is a classic example of a regulation that cuts deeply into personal freedom and causes much more harm than good. Ironically, the burden of proof is now suddenly upon us, the people, to argue against it.
Can you tell me, what is the justification of the government's power over us to decide when we are ready to watch porn? How dare they interfere with deeply private matters like this one? How about them showing first, without a doubt, that porn without ID is harmful, and that enforcing such an ID helps at all?
I understand what 18 years represent in the UK (and here as well), but the reasoning between 'porn' -> 'has to be an adult' is .. unclear. I see no connection here. I assume most people in the UK have sex before the age of 18 for example. Why is that unrestricted? Are you allowed to drive motorized vehicles below the age of 18? Why?
That completely ignores that porn is undefined and porn != porn. You might consider something as pornographic that I consider natural or vice versa? Why would you really want to throw a couple having sex on tape in the same bucket as - say two girls, one cup?
What about content that is brutal and gory? I know there are rules in place for movies or games, but random websites? I don't think they're required to ask for a proof of adulthood, are they?
What about questionable ideological content? Why aren't forums required to make sure that the visitors are adults as soon as the topics are too far off to the left or right?
You can expand this argument ("Think of the children, seeing porn") again and again.
Anyway: In the end I see no way, none, that this proposal can help parents. You, we, have to judge any content for ourselves and our kids - be it a simple comic, a Hollywood movie, random mp4s or .. written text on the internet.
Would the age being 16 change that, as it's the age of consent. Would that then be seen that the age of consent should be removed ?
Unfortunately, I believe it probably would help many parents as there are still a vast amount of people who are unaware of what the internet offers, even though their children already see it.
You could suggest educating parents, but then many don't care.
It's certainly been interesting seeing the differing viewpoints on this discussion.
About the clueless parents: I don't feel that there's a pressing need either. First: Lots of parents of small kids (a growing number, the majority soon if not already) probably already grew up with the internet. There's a gap, I agree that a generation of parents that didn't use the internet as a kid exists.
But I reason that protecting your kid is first and foremost media agnostic. You talk about stuff you might see on tv, you don't just give them the remote and hope that your receiver blocks content and asks for a pin whenever something scary comes up - or you're lazy. The same applies for the internet: You talk to your kids, about the very same things. Violence, sexuality, consensus, morality. And try to make them feel safe so that they'll talk with you about anything disturbing they encounter.
Parents don't need to understand the internet (but it might help). The internet has nothing new to offer - porn isn't a new thing. You didn't need to understand how your kid got access to these filthy VHS tapes 30 years ago and still were responsible for your child.
I feel that technology cannot be used as an excuse here, a la "I don't understand this newfangled gadget, someone else tell my kids how to live this life".
This is not a modern way of entitlement. This is basic liberty at the most fundamental level. A sense of entitlement is what the government has. What is the justification of the government's power? Back in the age of kings, they argued that god instated them. At least they were trying to come up with a reason for their power. Today it is me, the single individual, who has to argue for his liberty. It is ridiculous.
It's interesting to see how people vary in their expectations regarding Freedom and 'Liberty', based upon country etc.
"is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life" is an extraordinarily weak argument for harmfulness.
Eating ice-cream is also not going to help someone be well-adjusted in life.
Isn't one of the main values of a society, that it strives to help everyone within that society ?
What is the 'correct' social attitude towards looking after the welfare of others ?
Restricting access is not the only way to address issues in society.
In any case, my only point was that the person I was replying to provided a very weak argument that the thing is bad in the first place. Note that this is not the same as me saying it isn't bad in any way.
I see your point. I think that, unsurprisingly, this is a much bigger issue than just 'porn' and everyone sees it from different viewpoints (humans, eh).
Thanks for the reply.
I am really trying to understand your point of view, and am failing.
Are you saying that you go online, and are bombarded by images that you don't want to see? Then why do you still go online? Have you taken a community college class about internet access, and how to find information you want (and by extension: avoid information you don't?)
You can voluntarily install any number of parent-protection extensions for your browser. Why do you want to control other people's speech rather than doing something simple to block content from your own browser that you don't want?
Many people don't see this as a problem, and many people likely never experience it (either through limited internet use, or otherwise).
Perhaps it isn't a problem, but if it is, such that enough interest it pushed in solving it, how can society grow to cope with it ?
Or something like that.
Perhaps people honestly believe that a child, growing up into their twenties and beyond, constantly watching porn and NSFL content, is a typical example of a well-adjusted member of society. Maybe that's correct these days.
shrug
Perhaps I'm completely out of touch and my ethics/morality mark is completely on the wrong end of the scale - I'm not sure (hence the flameproof suit).
I just think this topic is worth discussion, rather than being instantly dismissed as nanny-state takeover.
Honestly - while the internet makes it easier to get to questionable content and is a unified interface to both lots of good stuff all the way to the really ugly parts: I don't think that changes the responsibilites compared to my childhood.
Parents decide what kids are allowed to access. Parents have to enforce their rules and handle infractions. No. One. Else. (We're not talking criminal stuff here, we're talking about morality. If a kid is a cyber bully or sells illegal stuff online: Sure, let the police handle that. But looking at tits et al..?)
It might be harder for parents to enforce their prefered world view now - but that's still on them (or us, really. I'm one of them). In my world the only way to ~solve~ this problem - if you feel it is one - is to be open about it, tell your kids that they should be careful, to make them trust you so that they'll reach out to you when they find ... confusing content. There's no way to avoid these contacts. It's also kinda like the "Google has your mail anyway" problem: Protect your kids from things you don't endorse and some other kid, with parents of different standards, is going to share it with your daughter.
As a sidenote: Honestly, in my childhood (born '79) it was trivial to get hardcore porn (VHS) and magazines of all sorts and for every fetish were easily accessible. Yes, stumbling upon these things wasn't likely without expressing interest, but then again: Neither was it possible to stumble upon gazillion Wikipedia articles about animals or something positive like that.
Problem solved. Parents need to parent their children. They always have and they always will. Whatever surveillance state you install.
The bigger problem is that some parents don't have time or energy to do this - and that is part of a far wider socio-economic issue.
Whenever someone proposes one or more 'solutions' to a problem, they must not only be compared against each other, but also against the status quo. If they don't beat the status quo, then no - nothing 'has to be done'.
(Genuine question, not rhetorical)
It used to be (and still is in many countries) that religion directed the people. These days it is more often corporations (through advertising).
How should society be directed ?
Given this situation, I find attention to porn sites misguided. At least a person going to porn hub decided to be there, as opposed to going to a gaming wiki and seeing degenerate ads.
I'd be fine with government enforcing such a rule.
But years and years after we started talking about such a solution, we don't have it, but instead have intrusive privacy distroying solutions that don't see to even address the problem.
What if I just type in "31.192.120.36", the current public IP of www.pornhub.com?
Any hypothetical positive consequences of a national database of porn access traced to particular individuals are more than outweighed by the glaringly obvious negative ones.
2. Changing the Internet to be child-safe would mean adding restrictions such that it changes into a non-open network.
3. People who like the Internet the way it is, don't want this to happen. This explains
> some people feel very strongly that even questioning the situation is wrong
-- they will cede no point that could support measures that would close up the Net. This is tactically understandable. Unfortunately, it's a barrier to communication and fully-open debate on the issue.
4. I, for one, like the Internet the way it is.
5. My sort of proposal: building an alternative family-safe network upon the existing protocol. Put regulations into this new thing, leave the old one alone.
6. Family-friendly computing needs a whole new paradigm, as I see it. First, put aside the 'personal computer' as a basic unit. All terminals on the famnet will be shared, household ones. Like a a game console that sits in the living room. No personal accounts. No private email that the superuser parents can spy on, just no (fake) privacy at all. A radical re-imagining is needed!
7. Or let some some corporation take care of it for you. Block all sites except Facebook.
Except 7. Facebook is a different problem ;)
Yeah, Facebook is a bad example of a family-safe network. But it has some probably-desirable aspects. A central authority that sets rules and enforces them, one place you can send complaints to. And it has aspects the net's openness too, anyone can make a page. But non-curated mass-broadcasted user content is too much openness for a truly all-ages network.
And I'm inclined to prefer a more decentralised system. One that lets groups of families, churches, schools, etc. to self-govern their networks.
My wife and I have a young daughter, and we can't see any reason to control what she does online. Bigger picture: kids don't really need to be protected from the world. They need to be taught right and wrong and how to protect themselves, but it's an enormously bad idea to try to sanitize the world to be more suitable for kids, instead of raising kids that are suitable for the world that actually exists.
The big problem is: how far do you extend the block?
I mean, if you let me write the blocklist I'd put the Daily Mail on it (persistent racism, homophobia/transphobia leading to suicide, and the sexually exploitative "sidebar of shame" commenting on women's bodies). I can't imagine getting universal support for that opinion. Other people might go in the other direction and demand that all material that even mentions homosexuality be banned.
If I had kids, I'd definitely want to block them from reddit and 4chan until at least mid-teens. I note that, on my EE mobile phone, there is some URL filtering that blocks NSFW subreddits (and also a few random blogs for no discernable reason). But it only works on http, not https, making it kind of a figleaf.
Second real, difficult to address problem: use of social media for bullying. This includes nonconsensual circulation of nudes (tricky one: should be severely punished, but not by putting kids on the sex offender registry).
I went to school in an era when, if you wanted to get adult material off the internet, you had to wait for the guy who had the modem to download it to floppy disks and circulate it in the playground. Now consider trying to block "samizdat" porn on SD cards.
(Also, wasn't there a thing on HN a while back about attempting and failing to automatically detect people building penises in LEGO's MMO?)
This is something. Therefore, this has to be done.
Before internet porn became a thing, we were warned by various people about the harm that pornography does, and in particular, how it increases the incidence of rapes and sexual assaults, and is bad for the status of women in society. It was being proposed that it be banned outright.
Now that pornography is widespread, and free, has there been an explosion of rapes and sexual violence?
The UK Government which is allegedly proposing this is led by a woman. So are the governments of Scotland, Germany, Norway, and various other countries. I expect the United States will soon have a president who is a woman. I don't think the status of women has suffered.
The UK Government now has its work cut out mitigating the harm caused by the EU referendum vote. It should be concentrating on that and mitigating its impact.
This is not a gender issue (there may be gender issues, but this is not one of them).
Should we ban porn mags too? Or should we ban urban areas? Or regulate how you legally can dispose of porn-mags? I've also accidentally seen people being too drunk, and people having heart attacks. As a kid.. how should we protect people from seeing things? it's the wrong line of thinking.
About what exactly? What is this massive harm being done to children if they see a pair of boobies? Where are these people that at one point saw something disturbing on the internet and became fundamentally broken as a result. Is there anyone struggling to be "well adjusted" because they watched Faces of Death when then were under 18?
I just can't wrap my head around this "something must be done" worry. It is so vague, so undefined, and such a pessimistic view of people in general.
And what's to prevent the same sort of "mentally broken" person who would host a website with NSFL images, from simply printing them off and dropping pages on the street? How were you planning on preventing your child from picking up a piece of paper on a street corner with NSFL images?
We all want to protect our children from the "real world" for as long as possible. But at some point they need to learn to cope with the fact that this world is full of disgusting people and actions.
Picking it up first and putting it in the bin? I've done this with porn and with images on cigarette cartons.
Not always possible, but just because there are problems with "real" life doesn't mean we shouldn't remove problems from online life.
Online life magnifies niches that in the offline world would be hidden away - that can be good but also means exposure to things that one is unlikely to ever be exposed to in the real world.
One can go on the web property of respected international media companies and be exposed to content that a person IRL would never share with you for fear of it ending in arrest or destruction of their public character.
I've seen far worse things online (mostly by "choice", curiosity can be a bad thing) than would ever be printed by a locally identifiable company.
Are you planning on hovering over your children 24/7 for the rest of their lives? Because you can't protect them. And ruining all of society in order to delay exposing your child to difficult things for, at best, a couple of years, is ridiculous. If you don't want your children seeing NSFL things on a computer, don't let them use a computer.
As an adult I've seen things that have screwed me up, for more than just a few days. As a child I see those things either passing one by or being far more severe; both options are open depending on the particular nature of the content.
> If you don't want your children seeing NSFL things on a computer, don't let them use a computer. //
So people should only use computers if they want their children to see NSFL things?
There are alternatives top that position.
Personally with my [pre-teen] children I allow them to use computers with whitelist settings or with direct oversight - this in response to access to porn with our eldest child.
In physical daily life people would laugh at you for claiming that I'm a helicopter parent - I've been "told off" in public a couple of times for letting kids "too much freedom", but once they're wise to roads, sensible with new people, aware they can be injured then they're pretty safe around the general population as a group. Online you don't have the public available to help, children don't have their normal senses of danger and wariness that they build up from bumps, scrapes and bruises.
For sure, as teenagers they'll chase after "interesting" content both of a sexual and gore-ish (and ...) nature out of curiosity, but I'm not going to abandon them to that in the same way I'm not going to drop them off to play in a crack house.
The attempt to equivalise published porn that you saw as a child I'm guessing >15 years ago [?] with the crudest of online content available now is damaging. I too saw porn as a child of a similar age, softcore images of airbrushed men/women, and wouldn't shirk at my kids seeing the same; it's not like they don't know what naked people look like. NSFL content available online, both porn/gore/other, is an entirely different category and warrants a completely different approach to 'normal' sexual imagery IMO.
How can you judge what will 'well-adjust' someone? What does well adjusted even mean and how could viewing an image prevent someone from becoming it?
I think the blocking should be on your side. The Internet is meant to be free. Want to keep porn away from yourself or kids? Install an extension, or get one of those services that automatically blocks it.
The same way, we should block on device/user level. Afraid your kids will watch it on their phones? Okay, cool, let's provide that kind of blocking at a cellular provider level or even at a phone level (I'm sure Safari or Chrome could implement blockers). We should blacklist rather than whitelist.
I think the best way to deal with "accidentally" viewing something is require a "popup" (think modal rather than traditional popup) that asks you if you are 18 or above and warn you of the content which a ton of sites already do. Or implement a simple HTTP header that tells your browser that you're accessing a site that's not safe for minors.
This is the crux of your argument and is vaguely worded. Saying 'not going to help' is not mutually exclusive with 'not going to hinder'. I'd like to see a proof of a stronger condition than 'not helping', for example 'actively harming' before you are justified in calling for action. Your have not provided any sources to back up your claims.
This argument frustrates me because even if uncensored internet access is mentally harmful for a child, the assumption that the correct way to address this is censorship, to me, smacks of denial. Censorship only works on the naive.
> How do we solve the problem?
Accept that uncensored internet access in a 21st century western society is unconditional, and display appropriate parenting skills to teach your children to mentally cope with anything they might encounter. 'Worked on my machine'.
The worst of the worst content perverting a well-adjusted life come from popular, generally SFW, mass-media outlets. If the goal of web filtering is for a well-adjusted life, put the firewall in front of sensationalism, fear-mongering, outrage-bait and hate-mongering.
Or, in other words, block all blogs, news, and clickbait sites. Porn can get through though. Sure it's taboo, but society as a whole is much better at understanding it does not represent reality.
How accidental is it really?
All the major search engines and social networks have some sort of "safe search" filter system. The porn sites submit themselves and are listed in parental blocking tools to limit Internet access.
The answer is, honestly, it isn't accidental. People have tools already to handle this situation in a variety of ways and simply choose not to exercise their free will to utilize them.
It is as "accidental" as being offended by walking into an adult toy shop.
> Whilst there are privacy concerns regarding any ID situation, nobody seems to be trying to solve the problem in other ways, short of limiting internet access (which causes other outcries).
Private, cheap solutions exist already. Why is its the government's job to force you to use them? Why don't you use them willingly?
> (For the moment, as a parent, my young daughter doesn't get any unaccompanied internet access - I am thinking of my child)
https://blog.opendns.com/2010/06/23/introducing-familyshield...
https://www.netnanny.com/features/porn-blocking/
https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.php?threads/care-to-recomm...
http://pornblocker-app.com/
https://www.nofap.com/forum/index.php?threads/good-porn-bloc...
Use a parent control app + family shield DNS.
I'm uncertain why you believe the government would do a better job and honestly, I'm concerned you think that would be the case given the financial incentive in this case clearly works correctly in favor of the porn blocking companies. (i.e. There is no money to be made circumventing them to show porn to people who can't buy adult products. Even the ad revenue is worthless because your advertisers can't sell them anything.)
> Edit: It's interesting to note diminishing points for a post that asks how to solve a problem. Obviously some people feel very strongly that even questioning the situation is wrong.
Honestly, if you are not willing to exercise your own free will to provide safeguards against accidents, why should the government do so?
It isn't like these people are posting public billboards at the side of the road that are impossible to avoid.
Please don't let your squeamishness for your children's sake crap over everyone else's freedom to not be put on a leakable list that can be used to further erode our privacy for decades to come.
Now you might say "but buying booze has an id check: surely this is the same!". To that I say:
- Buying booze is not something you can be blackmailed or shamed about, except in very specific circumstances
- When I buy booze I flash an ID that the human can look at and trust, and then they promptly forget who I am when they serve the next person. I'm not sure if that's either implementable on the internet, or even desired.
Citation needed.
But I might be missing something. Perhaps a negative effect in academic studies, or maybe working life was shown by a number of conclusive studies as in recent years? Am I missing something?
We need more empathy, more listening, more communication - not less.
If past behaviour is any predictor of future behaviour, your data is going to be exploited by private citizens as well. What could go wrong?
«The case exposed inadequate safeguards against abuse, including warnings to staff not to use the databases created to house these vast collections of data to search for and/or access information ‘about other members of staff, neighbours, friends, acquaintances, family members and public figures’. Internal oversight failed, with highly sensitive databases treated like Facebook to check on birthdays, and very worryingly on family members for ‘personal reasons’.» – https://medium.com/privacy-international/press-release-new-c...
https://theantisocialengineer.com/imessage-preview-problems/
This straw man the_mitsuhiko setup with brexit dunderheads that "trust their [UK] government so much" is a fiction that exists inside his/her head; a sad self-delusion people indulge to demean things they don't like.
So... only .co.uk, or full 3/4 of the internet, including Tumblr?
This is, of course, is a question for what counts as "operating in Britain". A site that is running on servers in Britain? A site that is owned by a British company? A site that happens to be available on the greater internet?
Gosh, countries and borders became relics when the internet got spread wide enough.
/going rather offtopic afterwards
What's also not good is how ugly the internet became. Even in the 90s it was rather easy to stumble upon unexpected material; a prime example would be if you'd searched "Spice Girls" somewhere in ~1996 on Altavista - the results were definitely not showing the pop band.
I'm well aware how formerly extreme things, like in fashion or in porn is slowly merging into the mainstream, and so the dark pits of the internet are becoming more accepted. It's also true that bullying, tweet wars, doxing, etc, due to the lack of critical mass of internet users, were not present, and that they are actual, existing issues which should be addressed, but no one knows, how.
So no, I'm seriously against a porn database; it's not helping anything, not solving any real problems. The "protect the children" is bullshit; I'm guessing many who are supporting the idea would get a heart attack should they learn how aware "kids" are compared to them, and this is not just due to the internet. These people are the same by the way who grew up in the 70s...
Anyway, there are problems which needs attention and regulations, but that's not porn.
This not a really good analysis.
In Europe, the state is responsible of guaranteeing that the basic Human Rights are protected for all of its citizens. Than includes the right to education, health care, proper nutrition, shelter, security, etc. In general, the state does not intervene in private matters as far as this does not jeopardize the former. It's for a reason that laws about same sex marriage, soft drug legalization, etc. are passed in Europe decades before than in the US.
In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe.
No, it's not. What are you talking about?
The US is more like Western Europe, in fact the US is probably even more liberal than Western Europe, when it comes to porn. The UK is puritanical all by itself, and closer to, say, Saudi Arabia.
Here in the US, we produce all kinds of porn. California (LA mainly) used to be the hub for it, but it's spread out from there and now it's being made all over; you can find people looking for porn performers on any city's Craigslist now. We don't have any kind of "great firewall" to protect us from porn. We don't have proposals to make citizens get "ID cards" to view porn online. We don't have weird anti-porn laws against things like "face-sitting" (remember the flap in Britain a few years ago about that? They had women sitting on men's faces in front of government buildings to protest the ruling), or any other regulation on what kinds of positions are allowed to be shown in porn. It's pretty much totally unregulated over here. The industry does some internal self-regulation, but it's not government-imposed, and there's lots of small, independent producers (basically anyone with a camera) who aren't part of that.
Don't lump us Americans in with British prudery. We have some prudishness problems in parts of our society in "meatspace", but on the internet, it's the Wild West.
Broadly, UK law is restricted to UK companies for material which is illegal to post. So libelous sites hosted outside the country aren't censored, because the libel isn't 'located' in the UK (yes, this is a tortured analysis).
But the UK has more recently established a China-style firewall that restricts access to sites hosted anywhere, based on where you view from. Originally, it was implemented to block access to torrent sites. And of course, at the time everyone swore "it's just the torrent sites, there will never be a slippery slope!"
But now it would age-gate pornography viewed from any UK IP address. Well, the content they can find anyway - they'll have to either run a blacklist (catching only large, paid sites) or a blocking filter with a whitelist (blocking all kinds of legitimate content - usually this ends up blocking sexual health sites). And yes, Tumblr is hopeless, there's really no way to know what a given page will have on it.
So it's the authoritarian, cut-off-access bit, but it still won't work.
... then, as of a couple of years ago, they started using it to block torrent sites. So it goes.
Certainly puts things into context don't you think.
Same goes for porn BTW, or anything that you want to restrict or regulate.
Or heck, just strong-arm them into adopting think-of-the-children laws one way or another.
How many would you send?
So if you're in the UK and you want to use a VPN to access adult content (but you don't want to distribute copyrighted movies and music), the USA is an excellent VPN host country to use.
If the UK uses drones on the USA, the results will not be pretty for the UK. The UK will be squashed like the little bug that it is to us.
And given our near-religious devotion to freedom of speech, we're not going to be "strong-armed" into adopting such blocking either.
It seems the motivating factor, ostensibly, is to protect children. However, the primary concern of those who don't like this seems to be with leaks and possible ensuing shaming. So, if the stigma attached to watching (non illegal) porn is done away with, the fear of leak becomes irrelevant. If protecting children is paramount then society must do away with silly witch hunts and being so anal (no pun intended).
While we are at it, why restrict to porn and why not extend to all things abusive to kids, including violence, racism, stupid stunts and pranks etc referenced by many other posters? Seems porn gets targeted almost always! imagine if porn were a person in the west, they would have sued the heck out of everyone.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/1052...
A bit more paranoid. If they do this tracking for porn, maybe in the future they add other types of content they want to track. I know it sounds silly but it's not like the data is going to go away and likely will only ever increase the amount of tracking. Sadly I know many people who see no issue with this.
At that time, I was probably listed as requested access to mature content; reasons were not required but a few years ago they were already asking for identification, eg. passports.
What's frightening is how silent everyone is about this.
This is a slippery slope that one should not enter. If your kid encounters porn then banning porn will not fix the kid. Educating will fix your kid...
The responsibility to block this content should be with the parents and the free market. As a parent I can already purchase content filtering services. The UK government is meddling in an area it doesn't need to, with potentially disastrous consequences, presumably for PR purposes.
An example of this was the ICRA/PICS labeling system. Super easy to implement and self-regulate and hardly anyone implemented it.
But certainly a trend and perhaps an excuse to tax and track people more. Still without such laws we would not of got a beer like this: https://www.brewdog.com/item/61/BrewDog/Nanny-State.html
Which sums things up about as well as any.
I am certain outlawing base primal urges, like the right to ingest what one desires into one's own body makes such primal urges even more favorable, often to the point of detriment to the State who then have to feverishly invent something inverse to people's actual needs like Alcohol, or bromides like Sugar to pacify their citizenry.
Taxing soft drinks is no different. Soft drinks are making the whole population (not just children) obese, so discouraging people from consuming them improves public health.
This isn't a parenting issue any more than having your local health department do free STD screenings is. It's a public health issue, which affects people of ALL ages. It's entirely appropriate for the government (at whatever level) to enact policies to try to improve public health, whether it's positive (STD testing, free condoms) or punitive (taxes on undesirable things). It's entirely valid for a government to have extra taxes on things which cause disproportionate costs to society, such as alcohol, cigarettes, and soft drinks, and to attempt to encourage positive behavior (such as how many US states have lower or zero sales taxes on (some) groceries, in order to reduce the burden on the poor and encourage people to prepare their own low-cost food instead of eating fast food).
If you want to complain about the State interfering with parenting and being a nanny, the laws in some US states basically forcing parents to be "helicopter parents" and forbidding children from walking around outside without adult supervision should be your target.
Fundamentally, my belief is that the government has a responsibility to provide for the general welfare of society, but in order to do so it needs to use evidence-based thinking. It also needs to balance this responsibility with the human rights of its citizens and the desire for freedom. There's mountains of evidence that tobacco is extremely bad for public health, and there's plenty of evidence that alcohol is also bad (except here, it seems to be OK and harmless in small quantities, like a glass of wine with dinner, but is a real problem when someone is addicted or drinks and drives), so regulating and taxing these things is justifiable. There's plenty of evidence now that soft drinks are associated with obesity, so the same applies here. There's zero evidence that having kids walk around by themselves at the age of ~8-10 is associated with a statistically significant risk of kidnapping, so there's no justification for the helicopter parent laws. And there's zero evidence that marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine or heroin, or any more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, so there's no justification for criminalizing it instead of just regulating it the way we do those two things.
There only way we can realistically rehash the debate on pornography and entertain the idea that sufficient controls don't exist and are in some cases not practical or reasonable is by being intentionally obtuse and disingenious.
The idea that we can even consider implementing an adult-id for an entire population before considering its use for more effective democracy is telling of our current priorities and the complete reduction of the enlightenment of western democracy to a crude form of corporatocracy and control systems.
To access .xxx, you would submit your name, address, proof of age to whomever runs the regime and be given access. Sharing pornography should be a crime, especially if shared with minors. In a perfect world... Since we don't live in a perf3ct world, I'd be happy to see a forced TLD. Violators lose rights to any and all domains in perpetuity and are forbidden to start new ones. A 1M fine should suffice.
It's a proven fact pornography harms everyone involved. Men who are chronic users suffer impotence issues with real women. Pornography demeans women and lowers them to the status of sex machines, there only for the enjoyment of men. Women that are lured into the industry suffer horrendous self-esteem issues, die young, suffer from diseases, some fatal, and are reviled if/when they escape the industry. Not a good scene no matter how you slice it.
I'm all for regulating the industry if and when practices get distorted, same as any other industry dealing with humans. But if we ban porn for being generally harmful to its actors we should also ban:
-American football
-Boxing
-Extreme Sports
-..
And feel free to eventually add in everything someone doesn't like, as anything can be shown to be harmful in some extent.
You and people like you are free to avoid pornography if you so choose, but don't try to impose your idiocy on everyone else.
No it's not.