Before anyone gets too excited about this because "won't someone please think of the children", remember that government policies never stop where they end. Governments want to be able to track everything single thing you do and "let us spy on you because of DUH CHILDREN" is always their first go-to excuse.
...remember that government policies never stop where they end. Governments want to be able to track everything single thing they do and "let us spy on you because of DUH CHILDREN" is always their first go-to excuse.
Thank you. I thought I was going to have to jump on this and shit talk government age verification, because there are some people here who do let their emotions get the best of them on this issue.
I don't get how anyone can defend it. They'll say things like 'oh, it doesn't affect you, you're not a child.' Wrong. This law gives the government the right to demand identification from you, an adult, before you're allowed to access a website. It's utterly terrifying. Obviously children shouldn't be watching porn, but this is not the way to do it.
My go to example is, they can move it pretty easily to any other currently or future age-gated activity. Guns being a big one. Conceivably, this could slide pretty quickly to stopping people from accessing online gun/militia content. Considering they're trying to push the purchase age up, too, if they ever succeeded, they'd have some level of precedent from stopping legal adults from accessing 2A content.
Handing even more power to the government in regard to the internet is an incredibly retarded idea.
Just having the law creates opportunities for blackmail. Even if you've never visited the porn site, the fact that they are legally required to have a list of everyone who visits makes your addition to that list more credible.
Eventually that database will be leaked as a "perverts database" by "ethical hackers" with sympathies toward feminism. The precedent has already been set with the hacking of the Ashley Madison website.
With the assumption as always being that those children are now 100% protected from whatever evil they are trying to banish, and not themselves only slightly inconvenienced in their pursuit of it.
The UK is proposing not just photo ID but also live, repeated identity facial recognition from 2025 to verify that person matches the photo ID with safeguards in place to prevent trickery. Which would require cameras in a range of devices. And not just for porn but for anything not "safe for kids". Who wants multiple cameras in their home that could be used for surveillance just so you can have the freedom to view porn, gamble, watch an 18 movie, play an 18 video game or post a comment on a website?
truly the foundation of every nation: pornography, gambling, sexy movies, and videogaming...
we agree that this ability to demand ID will be misused soon, that much is obvious. but, with all due and sincere respect, get a fucking grip, this rhetoric is pathetic and just makes us all look like uppity, porn-addicted children.
Then maybe the porn sites should have spent some of their money coming up with a more robust solution than asking "are you over 18" with unlimited chances to pick the "correct' answer.
And while I certainly take advantage of the fact things are as lax as they are, I also know I can't even buy an R-rated (possibly even PG-13) movie from the bargain bin at Walmart without an ID check; and that discrepancy always strikes me as a bit absurd.
Yeah, but you can enter Walmart, you can pick up and look at the R-rated movie cases, etc.
The internet is its own beast, and it's hard to do an exact analogy. For starters, you're not buying porn, you're viewing it. There's no explicit transaction, and the government is now trying to patrol and control who can even enter the site. Which again, would be fine in theory, if I trusted the government. But they've shown time and again they want to control everything, perhaps especially the internet.
Barring someone from one site can easily snowball into the people in charge controlling access to all sites. If we set the precedent that the government can ask you for your ID to access a website, the slope isn't so much slippery, as just a cliff. It's a short step to not only all manner of thought policing, but also the end of internet anonymity.
I believe the law relates to making it available to minors for viewing, not just selling. Which is why on occasion leftist teachers get charged with showing porn to their students.
But even putting that aside for the moment, what's the R&D budget for these sites for implementing anonymous "proof of age" systems? Are they funding grad students/PhD candidates in this area? Offering grants? Are they interested in solving this problem at all, or are they simply using "it's impossible" as an excuse and counting on the government's general disinterest in this matter?
I don't like government getting involved in this either, but them getting involved is inevitable when the industry itself doesn't offer an acceptable solution on its own. Nor does it help when the industry practically brags about statistics relating to the average age of kids when they first view porn (which is well under 18).
And how does the Government know who's viewing it at that time? How easy would it be for an account to be compromised or handed over to a child?
That was the question asked by UK lawmakers so the UK is likely in 2025 to implement both age verification and live identity verification - their favourite methods will be both Government photo ID and webcam/phone face ID to verify it is you viewing the content. Safeguards to prevent people putting a photo up to the camera or passing the device to someone underage will be put in place.
And it won't just be for pornography, strictly it applies to any content deemed not "safe for kids". And if it succeeds in the UK, the US and other western countries will follow suit.
Pornhub’s homepage now displays a message to North Carolina users explaining the company’s decision to stop operating in the state — just as it has in all other states that passed similar age verification legislation.
Good I hope they do that in any country/state which does this shit, so these idiots get voted out. And no idea how pornhub thinks how device based adult verification should happen, that would literaly require a chip in your pc or an external ID reader and the chip could probably be tracked by most websites then and the ID reader would also cost money. If parents allow their kids to browse the internet unsupervised to watch that stuff its their problem not the governments. And then I rather get a vpn and pay monthly so I dont have to give ID to every adult site and can also safely use torrents.
If the UK sets the precedent with the Online Safety Act, not just Government photo ID but live, repeated facial recognition checks via a webcam or smartphone to ensure the person is who they say they are from 2025. Safeguards will be put in place to prevent people putting a photo in front of a camera or just handing a device over to an underage person once the initial check has been done.
It's also not just going to apply to pornography but anything deemed not "safe for kids". The inconvenience of having to repeatedly check your identity to play an 18 rated video game is going to lead to console manufacturers bringing back the likes of Kinect and mandating the PlayStation Camera so you don't have the inconvenience of having to repeatedly verify your ID via a smartphone to continue playing the game. Then again, who wants a camera in every device that could be used for surveillance inside the living rooms and bedrooms of every private home?
In terms of VPN's, they're on borrowed time. Several countries have banned them and won't allow payments by either payment processors or transferring fiat currency to crypto. The Labour Party planned to implement an amendment in the Online Safety Bill to ban them but it didn't happen. Labour looks very likely to win the next General Election so will be able to implement a new law banning them and any funding mechanisms.
And the Conservative party with Labour support look likely to eventually go down the road of banning pornography and nudity outside of the bedroom/bathroom outright. The current Health Secretary was recently on BBC Radio 4 declaring a porn pandemic in society and showing her desire to ban it for women's and children's safety. Labour agrees with that stance.
Even if they make vpns not work, most countries still only block sites via dns, so unless they block sites some other way. It should be quite easy to still visit sites which wont comply with these ridiculous demands like face cams lol. And plenty of sites you usually cant even find with google anymore because of copyright stuff. Like planetsuzy.org.
But the UK is a good example of peak clownworld hopefully the rest of the EU will not be that retarded.
Banning vpns doesn't work as it is core tech on how banking networks work. They will not migrate to any "state approved" tech as banking tech is so ancient that it will throw a hissy fit if you even dare look funny at the ancient server in the corner. Same with banning encryption because storing CC info in plain text is a wonderful idea.
It's likely they'll ban residential VPN use outright and business VPN use will be restricted to businesses and corporations which have strictly enforced policies on Internet usage which will certainly ban 18+ material.
But of course, don't underestimate the ineptitude of politicians and their inability to understand the technology. They tend to react to knee jerk lobbyists with an agenda.
You cannot regulate vpn traffic as it just looks like normal encrypted traffic. The only reason that sites can detect a vpn is being used is because the traffic comes from a known vpn host. Any system can function as a vpn with few lines of code. They had more success banning alcohol than they will ever have with banning vpns
How would they enforce it? The traffic looks identical to normal traffic so you cannot know from an ISP perspective. man-in-the-middle attack wouldn't work as VPN connects directly to the VPN server and has its own certificates and a country like Russia will not collaborate with US government for something that may harm their own interests. So the law cannot be enforced and is a dead law from the start
Well, we have precedent, so, you know, those questionable websites that feature... republicans... we've got to make sure we have a list of those types, just in case, you know, so ID is necessary.
Good, we have to actually use Government power to help our cause. Right wingers are seemingly terrified of using the power they have to influence society, if everyone did it we'd have won a long time ago.
Before anyone gets too excited about this because "won't someone please think of the children", remember that government policies never stop where they end. Governments want to be able to track everything single thing you do and "let us spy on you because of DUH CHILDREN" is always their first go-to excuse.
Thank you. I thought I was going to have to jump on this and shit talk government age verification, because there are some people here who do let their emotions get the best of them on this issue.
I don't get how anyone can defend it. They'll say things like 'oh, it doesn't affect you, you're not a child.' Wrong. This law gives the government the right to demand identification from you, an adult, before you're allowed to access a website. It's utterly terrifying. Obviously children shouldn't be watching porn, but this is not the way to do it.
My go to example is, they can move it pretty easily to any other currently or future age-gated activity. Guns being a big one. Conceivably, this could slide pretty quickly to stopping people from accessing online gun/militia content. Considering they're trying to push the purchase age up, too, if they ever succeeded, they'd have some level of precedent from stopping legal adults from accessing 2A content.
Handing even more power to the government in regard to the internet is an incredibly retarded idea.
The funny thing is they'll never push for any kind of photo ID to vote. That's the one line in the sand for them.
Whoa that's racist bro. Black people are too stupid to get a photo id. /s
Just having the law creates opportunities for blackmail. Even if you've never visited the porn site, the fact that they are legally required to have a list of everyone who visits makes your addition to that list more credible.
Eventually that database will be leaked as a "perverts database" by "ethical hackers" with sympathies toward feminism. The precedent has already been set with the hacking of the Ashley Madison website.
With the assumption as always being that those children are now 100% protected from whatever evil they are trying to banish, and not themselves only slightly inconvenienced in their pursuit of it.
If North Carolina's rationale is anything like the UK's, it's not just about protecting children but protecting women's safety too.
The UK is proposing not just photo ID but also live, repeated identity facial recognition from 2025 to verify that person matches the photo ID with safeguards in place to prevent trickery. Which would require cameras in a range of devices. And not just for porn but for anything not "safe for kids". Who wants multiple cameras in their home that could be used for surveillance just so you can have the freedom to view porn, gamble, watch an 18 movie, play an 18 video game or post a comment on a website?
truly the foundation of every nation: pornography, gambling, sexy movies, and videogaming...
we agree that this ability to demand ID will be misused soon, that much is obvious. but, with all due and sincere respect, get a fucking grip, this rhetoric is pathetic and just makes us all look like uppity, porn-addicted children.
OK, groomer.
Then maybe the porn sites should have spent some of their money coming up with a more robust solution than asking "are you over 18" with unlimited chances to pick the "correct' answer.
And while I certainly take advantage of the fact things are as lax as they are, I also know I can't even buy an R-rated (possibly even PG-13) movie from the bargain bin at Walmart without an ID check; and that discrepancy always strikes me as a bit absurd.
Yeah, but you can enter Walmart, you can pick up and look at the R-rated movie cases, etc.
The internet is its own beast, and it's hard to do an exact analogy. For starters, you're not buying porn, you're viewing it. There's no explicit transaction, and the government is now trying to patrol and control who can even enter the site. Which again, would be fine in theory, if I trusted the government. But they've shown time and again they want to control everything, perhaps especially the internet.
Barring someone from one site can easily snowball into the people in charge controlling access to all sites. If we set the precedent that the government can ask you for your ID to access a website, the slope isn't so much slippery, as just a cliff. It's a short step to not only all manner of thought policing, but also the end of internet anonymity.
I believe the law relates to making it available to minors for viewing, not just selling. Which is why on occasion leftist teachers get charged with showing porn to their students.
But even putting that aside for the moment, what's the R&D budget for these sites for implementing anonymous "proof of age" systems? Are they funding grad students/PhD candidates in this area? Offering grants? Are they interested in solving this problem at all, or are they simply using "it's impossible" as an excuse and counting on the government's general disinterest in this matter?
I don't like government getting involved in this either, but them getting involved is inevitable when the industry itself doesn't offer an acceptable solution on its own. Nor does it help when the industry practically brags about statistics relating to the average age of kids when they first view porn (which is well under 18).
And how does the Government know who's viewing it at that time? How easy would it be for an account to be compromised or handed over to a child?
That was the question asked by UK lawmakers so the UK is likely in 2025 to implement both age verification and live identity verification - their favourite methods will be both Government photo ID and webcam/phone face ID to verify it is you viewing the content. Safeguards to prevent people putting a photo up to the camera or passing the device to someone underage will be put in place.
And it won't just be for pornography, strictly it applies to any content deemed not "safe for kids". And if it succeeds in the UK, the US and other western countries will follow suit.
It's already here.
https://cleanbrowsing.org/
The tools are all there, nobody wants to use them because
A: Puritans can no longer pearl clutch because there is an actual solution
B: politicians can't trojan horse digital id
C: coomers gonna coom
D: parents would rather complain to daddy government than actually protect their children.
Good I hope they do that in any country/state which does this shit, so these idiots get voted out. And no idea how pornhub thinks how device based adult verification should happen, that would literaly require a chip in your pc or an external ID reader and the chip could probably be tracked by most websites then and the ID reader would also cost money. If parents allow their kids to browse the internet unsupervised to watch that stuff its their problem not the governments. And then I rather get a vpn and pay monthly so I dont have to give ID to every adult site and can also safely use torrents.
If the UK sets the precedent with the Online Safety Act, not just Government photo ID but live, repeated facial recognition checks via a webcam or smartphone to ensure the person is who they say they are from 2025. Safeguards will be put in place to prevent people putting a photo in front of a camera or just handing a device over to an underage person once the initial check has been done.
It's also not just going to apply to pornography but anything deemed not "safe for kids". The inconvenience of having to repeatedly check your identity to play an 18 rated video game is going to lead to console manufacturers bringing back the likes of Kinect and mandating the PlayStation Camera so you don't have the inconvenience of having to repeatedly verify your ID via a smartphone to continue playing the game. Then again, who wants a camera in every device that could be used for surveillance inside the living rooms and bedrooms of every private home?
In terms of VPN's, they're on borrowed time. Several countries have banned them and won't allow payments by either payment processors or transferring fiat currency to crypto. The Labour Party planned to implement an amendment in the Online Safety Bill to ban them but it didn't happen. Labour looks very likely to win the next General Election so will be able to implement a new law banning them and any funding mechanisms.
And the Conservative party with Labour support look likely to eventually go down the road of banning pornography and nudity outside of the bedroom/bathroom outright. The current Health Secretary was recently on BBC Radio 4 declaring a porn pandemic in society and showing her desire to ban it for women's and children's safety. Labour agrees with that stance.
The UK never fails to be peak clown world.
Even if they make vpns not work, most countries still only block sites via dns, so unless they block sites some other way. It should be quite easy to still visit sites which wont comply with these ridiculous demands like face cams lol. And plenty of sites you usually cant even find with google anymore because of copyright stuff. Like planetsuzy.org.
But the UK is a good example of peak clownworld hopefully the rest of the EU will not be that retarded.
Banning vpns doesn't work as it is core tech on how banking networks work. They will not migrate to any "state approved" tech as banking tech is so ancient that it will throw a hissy fit if you even dare look funny at the ancient server in the corner. Same with banning encryption because storing CC info in plain text is a wonderful idea.
It's likely they'll ban residential VPN use outright and business VPN use will be restricted to businesses and corporations which have strictly enforced policies on Internet usage which will certainly ban 18+ material.
But of course, don't underestimate the ineptitude of politicians and their inability to understand the technology. They tend to react to knee jerk lobbyists with an agenda.
You cannot regulate vpn traffic as it just looks like normal encrypted traffic. The only reason that sites can detect a vpn is being used is because the traffic comes from a known vpn host. Any system can function as a vpn with few lines of code. They had more success banning alcohol than they will ever have with banning vpns
If the state wants to ban or limit their use, they will and they have other options to use.
The stupid laws needs to go and the idiots that put it in place exposed for being cunts.
It isn't even a law in one country or state.It's across all of them.
How would they enforce it? The traffic looks identical to normal traffic so you cannot know from an ISP perspective. man-in-the-middle attack wouldn't work as VPN connects directly to the VPN server and has its own certificates and a country like Russia will not collaborate with US government for something that may harm their own interests. So the law cannot be enforced and is a dead law from the start
Well, we have precedent, so, you know, those questionable websites that feature... republicans... we've got to make sure we have a list of those types, just in case, you know, so ID is necessary.
Jews and coomers kvetching lol. Porn isn't protected speech. In fact, pornographers should be given hefty prison sentences.
Obviously this will not work, and maybe it will backfire against the liberty of millions. The only solution is outlawing pornography.
Good, we have to actually use Government power to help our cause. Right wingers are seemingly terrified of using the power they have to influence society, if everyone did it we'd have won a long time ago.