Any thoughts on the porn ban?

Seeing as porn is cancer..

Just for clarification monkey, is that you agreeing with the statement?

Saskia. Your questions

Why are you so keen..

Why are you so averse...

I don't believe that I have shown keenness or aversion to anything like what you have described. In fact you seem to be attributing opinions and ideas to me.

I am glad that you agree that porn is a cancer and that we both apparently have the same aims - to kill it.

Seeing as porn is cancer
Government porn ban is like treating lung cancer with a leg cast and a crutch.
Sure it's visibly doing something, but ultimately it's useless and does nothing to treat the cause or ease the symptoms.

damaging, not digging

HorsewithnoFrills

Yes, I do agree, but my feelings about porn are completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion, namely, that the government have introduced legislation which is intended to protect children from accessing it, but which will, in fact, simply divert them to nastier and more digging forms of it.

Now a couple of questions for you:

a) why are you so keen to support something that will make it easier for children to access extreme porn, torture sites, drug dealers, as well as making it more likely they will be exposed to grooming and bullying?

b) why are you so averse to parents taking responsibility for their the protection of their children about this issue, when it is completely uncontroversial that they do so in other areas - you know stuff like road safety, safety around water and electricity?

..It's not enough to send a signal..

I think that the signal, the message, however we decide to communicate it should be what the OP said:

Porn is a cancer. That'll do.

saskia do you agree that porn is a cancer? (Not just for kids but everyone)

if we currently had a rule that you had to prove you were 18 to access porn online - would you argue for the removal of that?

If it functioned in the way this law does, then yes, I would argue that it should be removed because it would not be fit for purpose. It would be easily circumvented either by readily available technology, or by the use of sites and services which fell outside this legislation. I would also argue that a law which exacerbated a situation it was intended to ameliorate (as this one does) has no place on the statute books and should be revoked.

t may be imperfect, but it’s a strong signal that this is not a neutral activity and it should be age restricted. I wouldn’t argue to remove it if we had it and would look with suspicion on anyone who did.

It's not enough to send a signal, it has to be the right signal, not one that causes more harm than good.

And I look with suspicion on anyone who supports legislation which drives children towards darker and nastier corners of the internet. Why would someone do that?

Its not going to stop determined teenagers or adults who are net-savvy, but it will make it much less likely to be accessed by young children or people that arent determined, which is the point. Noone is banning it. Theyre just putting laws in place to attempt to protect young children from early exposure to misogynistic and violent material, which is at public health crisis point, what with 8 year olds having porn addictions and the huge rise in child on child sexual assaults.

You know, even with rape and murder being illegal, determined people still do it. Doesnt mean the ban is useless

I think that following France's lead and banning smartphone use for under 15s during school hours would help a little. Depending on school policy kids have to leave smartphones at home or have them switched off during school hours. Smartphone use during lessons was already banned and I think UK schools should stop this too. My kids at secondary are expected to take photos of the board, log into apps on their phone or tablet... It removes the problems arising from the filming and photographing of fellow pupils.

Does Pornhub or any other site mentioned so far on here pay tax to the uk govt.?

Not as far as I know.
MindGeek, which owns the biggest porn sites, is based in Canada and pays taxes there.

Was looking where Pornhub is based and found an article about pornhub helping users in India get around the Indian ban

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/porn-ban-pornhub-mirror-sex-websites-block-india-a8609071.html%3famp

And Pornhub launching a VPN

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/5/24/17382144/pornhub-launches-vpn-vpnhub

Could one of the experts please answer me this:

Does Pornhub or any other site mentioned so far on here pay tax to the uk govt.?

Can governments really clamp down on organized crime?

It should be their aim. And if at first they don't succeed..

I think too many people are arguing that because this ban can be circumvented then it’s worse than having no ban. But think if it were the other way round - if we currently had a rule that you had to prove you were 18 to access porn online - would you argue for the removal of that? Would you argue to remove the age restriction? It may be imperfect, but it’s a strong signal that this is not a neutral activity and it should be age restricted. I wouldn’t argue to remove it if we had it and would look with suspicion on anyone who did.

Censorship of child pornography has been largely successful (aside from the dark web) because it has been an effort supported by almost every country on the planet against something viewed as socially abhorrent by almost everyone in society. It is a success hard won at huge cost to the individuals working to maintain it and great expense to the governments funding it, but we should rightly hold it up as an example of what can be achieved.

I fail to see how we can hope for a moment to achieve the same with more general pornography without both multinational (every nation) support and funding which would have to be vastly in excess of everything directed at child porn.

Pirate software and media is a good example of something very readily available online to all despite a reasonably concerted attempt by almost the whole world to ban it.

First attitudes to pornography have to change across the world, then there is a chance for regulation to be somewhat successful at obtaining the resources required to enforce. I fear the legislation we see at present will at best be counter productive.

Feel free to point out where I've said anything like that.

Maybe while you're doing so you could also answer how the porn block helps these women?

Pornm and prostitution do have similarities, especially the exploitation of vulnerable women. Now explain how the porn block helps those women..

It's a terrible idea. It's not going to stop anyone from accessing porn, it will encourage extreme/illegal sites and practices, and it has the added bonus of being yet another excuse for people's personal data to be stored.

They require the protection off the state, don't you think?

Then make it illegal for children to have smart phones. And then start fining/prosecuting parents and shops who provide children with them. That would go a long way to dealing with the problem this la is trying to fix and would sort a number of other issues. I’m not sure this is the level of state intervention you’re looking for. I don’t think it is going to be a very popular move.

data capitalism is just another form of global finance that extends 'free' goods to people but to the detriment of society. Do you think these people are giving all this free stuff away out of the goodness of their hearts? They're making money - out of marketing sexist, evil smut to people, getting children addicted while they're young
Incidentally I agree with this entirely.

Either we accept that things can and should be removed/blocked - or we don't.
That's your false dichotomy. There is no either/or.
It's a question of degree. We could, in theory, police everything, but as I have pointed out (and other posters have too) this is incredibly difficult. By difficult I mean labour intensive and hence expensive.
China, which has almost unlimited resource to throw at this type of thing, still doesn't manage it. North Korea doesn't manage it.
So it's pragmatism not defeatism.
The degree to which we choose to spend money on this is governed by the electorate, who seem to be to the right of both of us on matters of public funding for just about anything.
I don't like the fact that porn has become the beast it now is, that it forms such a huge percentage of web traffic, that it ruins so many lives, has so much money, and is so difficult to police. But I acknowledge those things are all true, and I can look at this poorly thought out law and decide that it is a bad idea without being a fan of porn.