To think face scanning for age verification for porn is a great idea?

[AdamRyan]

The Government are considering how to prevent children from accessing porn and are looking into face scanning technology.

I think this is a good idea as we already use facial recognition for verification on banks etc and if people are adults they should not feel embarassed about their choice to watch porn so no problem.

Privacy campaigners are worried about potential for blackmail though. Wish they were as worried about men illegally uploading films of their OHs having sex with them....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67615719

IABU - I think porn doesn't need age verification/existing verification is good enough

IANBU - this is a good idea

Ministerial meetings are a matter of public record so if that's the case you'll have no problem showing where and when the Minister for Technology and the Digital Economy or DCMS Secretary of State were lobbied by porn companies.

It was put back in during the brief period when Chris Philp was rising through the Tory ranks quickly and he wanted to do something to help raise his profile a bit. Politicians like announcing a thing to fix a thing and they don't particularly care if it actually works. See also Rwanda and the small boats.

Of course they are. No ministers ever fail to record their meetings or what was discussed

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/10/30/why-did-boris-johnson-meet-evgeny-lebedev-twice-in-days-before-first-covid-lockdown-with-no-civil-servants-present/

Agree 👍. It's not just the issue of porn when it comes to the use of mobile phones in school (and then unregulated use in the home). You also have issues around bullying, extremism etc.

I'm not sure what exactly you think the link you sent proves. The list of meetings is published monthly. If ministers were meeting porn companies then you could point to it easily.

In any case, why precisely do you imagine a government amendment to a Bill, which requires collective agreement across Cabinet and writeround agreement from each government department as well as Parliamentary approval would be made solely to placate the porn industry? And if "big porn" is so influential to British political discourse why did the entire government then have some sort of Damascene conversion and suddenly realise the error of its ways?

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-porn-block-ban-scrapped-delay-id-proof-age-websites-351348
Successful lobbying by social media firms meant sites, such as Twitter, Instagram and Reddit would be exempt from the proposed laws.

Good point actually. You could just use an IP from a country with no restrictions. Some sites can detect VPNs so maybe they'd block them but it would add layers of complexity.

Why would they block them, though? What's in it for them, as opposed to just closing the UK hosting and the UK-registered business (if they have one), and just moving the domain to point at an overseas datacentre, where they don't have to sacrifice any traffic at all?

This is what everybody saying "Oh, but <supermarket X> has facial scanning..." doesn't understand - facial scanning is a net positive for supermarkets, because it saves them time and money. There is literally no upside to doing this for porn sites; they're not regulated in the UK, and there's absolutely nothing to stop them pointing a .uk domain at overseas hosting and skirting the requirements altogether. That would make zero difference to their traffic and revenue, and there would be no legal implications, as opposed to the massive dropoff in traffic and revenue from staying and complying with potential legal liability if it doesn't work in all cases.

It's as though these people have just discovered the Internet.

Since you quoted me in this reply, I feel obliged to highlight that I haven't the slightest concern about privacy or blackmail, and have never made any point about that aspect of facial recognition software or age verification, so the entire latter half of this post, and your link, is of no relevance whatsoever to any of the points I have made. You are seemingly trying to convince me of something I have never expressed any concerns about, which is just odd...

I have also made no claim about tech requirements being impossible, merely that the UK government can not impose legislature upon entities and sites which are entirely outwith UK jurisdiction.

The point about not blocking 100% is fair enough, but again, when it is only likely to block a small fraction of one percent in any case, you have to ask what the point of it is, especially when the remaining unblocked content will be as simple and easy to access as it ever was.

You might think it's a good idea, that's also fair enough, and I'd go as far to, and already have tacitly agreed that it's a great idea in principle, however, being a pragmatist I also think that in practice it will be a complete and utter waste of time, and therefore, is complete folly and not worth proceeding with.

I'll build the system for 37 billion.

Hang on! So the government is ok with random adult websites having your face scans (if you’re into visiting these kind of sites) but not for age testing migrant men pretending to be children.

It's a quick march to thorough identity verification on the Internet - and a complete loss of anonymity. Weirdly we are kind of in step with EU censorship crap. It's probably why Musk bought Twitter, to try and flog a global ID system, for a small monthly fee. Made a bit of a pig's ear of that.

The Internet is a brilliant tool that can be used for good and for bad, depending on your sensitivity and proclivity. Makes perfect sense for school kids to carry a calculator and encyclopedia everywhere. They may have their heads in their phones, but doesn't mean they aren't being social.

I haven't even got a camera on my laptop. Or a computer that can do Zoom!

Look, I'm not a big fan of banning stuff.

I've always been a Libretarian - Do as you please;

'As long as it hurts no-one'

And there's the fucker.

As I've got older, I have realised that many things hurt everyone

I have looked at the BMJ report and it doesn't seem to be saying what you think it is saying. I can't find anything about injury. You say 'it has been linked to porn' but the report says "evidence about the influence of pornography on anal practices is thin" and says it is a 'simplistic explanation'.

I'm not interested in depictions of anal sex which is why as I said I would gravitate towards Japanese porn rather than American porn if I was going to take an interest in it.

Apologies, I linked the wrong BMJ report

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/doctors-reluctance-to-discuss-anal-sex-is-letting-down-young-women/

The one I did link literally says within a couple of lines porn is the reason most teens say they tried anal, so you are being rather disingenuous saying its a "simplistic explanation". When the authors say that, they mean there is other context that gives a fuller explanation (such as teen boys being coercive), not thar porn isn't a factor.

The safety of children online is more important than my privacy. Most of the actual resistance though is porn consumers who want to put their own desires ahead of children's safety which is why we're still stuck with being able to prevent children from gambling but no from accessing explicit content.

The safety of children online is the responsibility of their parents, not the government to police.

You have no evidence of that. I strongly believe that the resistance is mainly down to -

(1) Genuine, non-porn-specific beliefs that adults should be free to do what they want
(2) People who know that the technical solutions will not work, so oppose them on very logical grounds
(3) People who know that easier things to be banned are incredibly widespread, so their gut feel says that there is no way of banning porn / stopping children accessing it

I think you missed one dave
4) concern that any measures might expose mens viewing habits or make it harder for them to access porn.

Given the disproportionately high numbers of male posters who come onto threads like this to explain why it's completely impossible to restrict porn in any way, its clearly a topic a lot of men have a vested interest in. Other topics on the safety of children and women don't seem to attract male posters attention in the same way.

I genuinely don't think that is a big issue. It might be part of it, but I honestly don't believe that it is the main issue, because I don't think that any sensible man thinks that there is any chance at all of restricting porn online in any meaningful way so there is no fear of that.

If anything one might expect porn obsessed men to advocate FOR RESTRICTIONS in order to make it look like they're the good guys, whilst knowing nothing will change however much they virtue-signal.

Can I just make something clear? The vast majority of porn is absolutely horrible and deeply harmful to men who watch it, but even more harmful to women in it or kids watching it. Massively reducing porn consumption would be great. Stopping worst 99% of porn would be great, and stopping the rest would be good. Kids never seeing porn would be great. On the other hand, as I keep saying, when government has zero control over the growing of, distribution of, sale of and consumption of a smelly organic product called cannabis, how the hell you think computer files can be policed I will never know.

The other report you linked to says nothing about pornography.

"Young women cite pleasure, curiosity, pleasing the male partners and coercion as factors." Nothing about pornography.

So it seems that lots of teenage boys are saying that porn is the reason why they wanted to try anal. It sounds to me that they would like to blame someone or something else for their selfish desires.

One reason why porn is a 'simplistic explanation' is because porn might influence people's choices, but people's choices influence porn. If there was a new fashion for BDSM for example as with the book Fifty Shades of Grey
then there would be more BDSM videos on places like PornHub..

When I try to look at the actual study which is here Young women and anal sex | The BMJ it seems that I can't because I would have to pay to see it. Which is ironic when you consider the subject of this thread. I don't intend to subscribe for a minimum of £173 but I can read enough of it to see that they consider television shows such as Sex and the City and Fleabag to be more of a problem.

Can you imagine what would happen if you told people they weren't allowed to watch Sex and the City or Fleabag because it causes women to be injured?

Although I can't read the study I have found that I can read responses to the study by health professionals. Two paragraphs are especially interesting.

"Overinterpretation of weak evidence informs statements that can be perceived as fear mongering. For instance, the association between anal sex and alcohol use is based on findings from a study in the US of men and women living with HIV, which cannot be easily generalised (ref 8). Stating that anal sex is associated with greater faecal incontinence in women compared with men is based on a descriptive study of ultrasonographic features of the anal canal (ref 13) and a cross-sectional study in which the adjusted odds of incontinence were higher in men reporting anal intercourse (OR 2.8) than in women (OR 1.5) (ref 12)."

and this

"There may be potential physical trauma from anal sex, and anatomical differences could play a role, but there is a risk of trauma from all sexual intercourse. Evidence that anal sex is more ‘dangerous’ in women is lacking; one quoted study shows the impact of anal sex on faecal incontinence was greater in men [1]; another does not describe higher risk in women [2]. The editorial lacks advice about minimising risk, such as using lubrication or condoms, a missed opportunity to offer practical advice."

supine
(of a person) lying face upwards.
failing to act or protest as a result of moral weakness or indolence.

69
I think we know what that means.

"I can read enough of it to see that they consider television shows such as Sex and the City and Fleabag to be more of a problem." That is a lie.

So, your position here is "anal sex is good, teach kids all about how to do it safely, nothing to see here."

I believe that you are a man - like me - and I find it somewhat distasteful that you should come onto a feminist forum, mainly occupied by women, and basically tell them that they shouldn't worry about something which undoubtedly harms some women in one way or another. I mean, if you want to spend time online normalizing anal sex and encouraging women to do it, then aren't there better places than here?

Most of the people who have contributed to this thread believe that a greater threat to women is the potential loss of anonymity on the web. I'm not encouraging anybody to have more anal sex, it isn't something that interests me at all. What does interest me is someone trying to create a moral panic which will result - intended or not - in the loss of civil liberties.

You write that I have told a like. If you go to the page that I linked to the first paragraph mentions pornography and mainstream media. The second paragraph says this

"Individual motivation varies. Young women cite pleasure, curiosity, pleasing male partners, and coercion as factors. Up to 25% of women with experience of anal sex report they have been pressured into it at least once. Hit television shows such as Sex and the City and Fleabag may unwittingly add to the pressure, as …"

I am unable to read further unless I subscribe. So it is possible that the study goes on to discuss the influence of pornography at length. I doubt it though.

I chose the name SuePine69 at a time when I was commenting on threads about sex work. Obviously it isn't my real name. It amused me that some people might think that I'm a sex worker (I'm not, by the way).

You have lost the argument and you are resorting to making false allegations about me personally. You have accused me of promoting anal sex and of being a man. I would like to question your motives. Are you an Evangelical Christian? Or perhaps you are a follower of Sheila Jeffreys of some other Radical or Revolutionary Feminist? Because that's what you sound like.