Even if the short term outcome is good (fuck PornHub, they're evil, it would be great if they left every state), this whole "internet ID" thing - regardless of context - is a terrible fucking idea. And something we've generally been against for over a decade. They just tacked "anti-porn" and "think of the children" onto it, and this time some people are buying the schtick.
There are two big points I like to bring out when this conversation comes up. One, to the people who say "well, if you're not a child, what's the big deal?"...yeah, adults have to prove they're not children. i.e. you, a legal adult, have to provide ID to access a website...because the government said so. "Slippery slope" doesn't even begin to describe it; what an utter disaster.
Two, if we're policing context that isn't suitable for a group, why not apply it to other things? "Limited scope" and "government control" generally don't go hand in hand. They've been trying to crack down on militia content, for example. They've been trying to raise the gun purchasing age to twenty-one. It's a short hop from ID to access porn to blocking legal adults (18-20) from accessing basic firearm sites with zero extremist content or link to extremism.
No matter how you feel about porn, or porn companies, the idea of the government requiring you to ask for permission to access information/content on the internet is the absolute death of any pro-freedom or anti-government movements.
I'm casually listening to the radio and right now, I just heard a segment "can we protect children from 'harm' on the Internet". They're not just targeting pornography. Activists for online safety in the UK if they get their way would love the idea of locked down devices and a national Intranet where everything is licensed and deemed safe for children by Ofcom while the gateways to the Internet are monitored and regulated in the same way Border Force do with physical border crossings (not that it stops migrants getting in).
Sadly, these activists are the ones who are invited into Parliament and have the ear of the main party leaders while civil liberty campaigners are dismissed as threats to children.
I hate how some people are falling for this.
Even if the short term outcome is good (fuck PornHub, they're evil, it would be great if they left every state), this whole "internet ID" thing - regardless of context - is a terrible fucking idea. And something we've generally been against for over a decade. They just tacked "anti-porn" and "think of the children" onto it, and this time some people are buying the schtick.
There are two big points I like to bring out when this conversation comes up. One, to the people who say "well, if you're not a child, what's the big deal?"...yeah, adults have to prove they're not children. i.e. you, a legal adult, have to provide ID to access a website...because the government said so. "Slippery slope" doesn't even begin to describe it; what an utter disaster.
Two, if we're policing context that isn't suitable for a group, why not apply it to other things? "Limited scope" and "government control" generally don't go hand in hand. They've been trying to crack down on militia content, for example. They've been trying to raise the gun purchasing age to twenty-one. It's a short hop from ID to access porn to blocking legal adults (18-20) from accessing basic firearm sites with zero extremist content or link to extremism.
No matter how you feel about porn, or porn companies, the idea of the government requiring you to ask for permission to access information/content on the internet is the absolute death of any pro-freedom or anti-government movements.
I'm casually listening to the radio and right now, I just heard a segment "can we protect children from 'harm' on the Internet". They're not just targeting pornography. Activists for online safety in the UK if they get their way would love the idea of locked down devices and a national Intranet where everything is licensed and deemed safe for children by Ofcom while the gateways to the Internet are monitored and regulated in the same way Border Force do with physical border crossings (not that it stops migrants getting in).
Sadly, these activists are the ones who are invited into Parliament and have the ear of the main party leaders while civil liberty campaigners are dismissed as threats to children.