To be pretty annoyed/creeped out by this incoming internet age verification thing

[Fragmentedbrain]

Kids are as good as anyone at VPNs. It's just going to open adults up to blackmail and state control.

Also if you don't want your kids looking at adult material maybe don't let them have a smartphone until they're 16.

Why are you taking it so personally OP? If you want to look at porn just do the extra steps.

Because I don't want to live in an environment that is destabilised by the effects this will have.

It is depressing that prudes will lead us down this path because they can't understand different sexualities. So they try to win by shaming people into silence. I don't particularly care for porn I can't get beyond how silly it is (and someone I vaguely know became a porn actor and I would NOT like to stumble across them in the nip). But the whole it's demonic ban it and ban anything adjacent to it thing just makes me think some women don't like sex and don't want anyone else to like it. And, more importantly, they're willing to sell basic freedoms down the river to make sure other people can't enjoy it freely.

Dude, the fact you're repeatedly calling women who aren't into porn names, shows that this is absolutely about your porn use.

No matter what else you try to pad it out with.

"Dude" I don't have a problem with porn and I find it bananas how many women think they would leave their partner for "using" porn. Porn is provided by the NHS for semen sample/donation purposes. Are all those IVF babies sullied generational trauma victims?.is the NHS supporting sex slavery?

If I liked it I would say so because... There's nothing wrong with liking it and I do think trying to shame people for liking it is insecure and vindictive. And, again, doing so when there is a significant social price well beyond the world of sex is totally messed up.

You're the one calling women repressed and prudes.

OP I find it so weird that you assume this is to do with women being repressed prudes. I enjoy sex very much indeed and I think everyone of every type of (legal) sexual preference should get as much of it as possible. But that is really, hugely different to the argument that children shouldn’t have access to every kind of porn at any time. Can’t you see that ?

It doesn't have to stop all children to be of value. And (men's) privacy isn't king.

There is a fairly significant difference between security services monitoring people who are already a concern, the illegal content they access, and spaces where dangerous people and groups coalesce and exchange ideas or formulate plans, and what we have right now which is a reactionary, authoritarian government censoring and monitoring people who wish to access content which is not only perfectly legal, but by use of a medium which is also perfectly legal.

Starmer's Labour are already abusing anti-terror legislation to attempt to silence any group that causes potential embarrassment to the State, we really shouldn't be encouraging them to begin censoring legal content on the internet because that will inevitably lead to a China-like situation where anything remotely critical of the State is then considered fair game for blocking. Thankfully ISP's largely want no part of State internet censorship because any who comply stand to lose significant custom compared to those who resist, and we can still make use of VPNs, however, once UK Government figures out what VPNs are actually about I suspect they'll embark on a crusade against those as well.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX it’s interesting that you use the term ‘Starmer’s Labour’ as if to suggest a kind of awful autocracy like ‘Hitler’s Germany’ or ‘Stalin’s Russia’. You may not like Starmer (I’m not his biggest fan either) but he’s a pretty mild character, some might say that’s his flaw. His leadership certainly doesn’t herald heavy handed state control. It’s more like traditional British bumbling and compromise.

Starmer's Labour are already abusing anti-terror legislation to attempt to silence any group that causes potential embarrassment to the State

All governments do that.

Is age verification on gambling sites internet censorship?

Not sure about that. He seems quite keen on more state control.

I think it's a good thing. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Verification and validation are not censorship, anymore than asking someone to buy a book is.

I'm not a massive censorship fan - quis ipsos custodiet cusodes ? and all that. But classifying, labelling, sorting, arranging ... seems fair enough.

@EasternStandard more state control of what? All states control lots of things. It’s what makes a state civilised. That’s why we have democratically elected councillors, MPs and governments. They all control our state. That’s what we democratically agree is their job. What’s the alternative? Feudalism? Governance by the church?

It’s silly to use the term state control as if it’s sinister. Anyone who uses it in that way sounds ignorant and immature. It reminds me of the way teenagers in my time used to refer to anyone (parent, police, teacher) who had any kind of rule as a ‘fascist’

The last two certainly have, since the legislation being abused came about because the last lot were too intellectually challenged to figure out how to deal with JSO any other way.

And no, I don't accept that all governments abuse anti-terror legislation in the exact same way.

I use the term "Starmer's Labour" purely because the Labour party has gone through so many iterations over the past 30 years that it no longer resembles the Labour Party of Corbyn's time, which didn't resemble the Labour Party of Blair's time, which didn't resemble the Labour Party of Kinnock's time, etc etc, so simply using "Labour Party" doesn't express the fact that it has become something unrecognisable compared to what it was previously.

Despite the fact they've leapt at the chance to fill the centre-right void vacated by the Tories since Brexit, even most pre-2019 Tories would be utterly appalled and ashamed by Starmer's authoritarianism. It's abundantly clear he sees censorship and oppression as perfectly justifiable tools to deal with dissent. Not just public dissent, but within his own party. 11 Labour MP's suspended, whip withdrawn, or effectively ejected by the party in little over a year, for nothing worse than voting against government policy which punishes the poor and disabled, a LABOUR PARTY persecuting the poor and disabled, and one which has such an enormous majority that a handful of dissenters barely matters in any case. He's a thin-skinned, reactionary, authoritarian twit.

I can remember the RIPA being introduced and promises that it would be carefully used. Until councils discovered they could use it to fine people for putting bins

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jun/23/localgovernment.localgovernment1

More local authorities than the government I admit

So was Bibby Stockholm and the Rwanda Plan. Labour reversed those.
Don't forget Starmer requested access to our icloud accounts. One can only imagine why....

What? I haven't heard this
I despise Starmer but this seems... potentially slanderous at least.

State control of individuals. Through digital means.

Do you remember the Canadian protests? And access to banks.

People seem very keen to trust the state, it might not always be aligned with their views.

ETA just read the rest of your post, I feel similarly re your phrasing tbf

If you put controls on phones and PCs some kids will get round them.

Then of course the holes will be reported and the OS suppliers should patch them, and the circle goes on. That's how it works for hacking etc.

It has to be a dynamic process that is constantly under review. That's why government action is often pointless. Because it moves so slowly in a world where tech moves quickly.

I mean hardly a week goes by without some sort of massive data leak being on the news.

And the government no doubt on these issues telling everyone their data is safe and a data breach is never going to happen.

You'd have to be a total idiot to believe that.

Ah well - let’s give up on all regulation then

Hitchens razor can save you hours on MN ....