Porn age checks - Surely a good thing?

[Vimtolady]

Just read a ‘debate’ on the BBC News website about the pros and cons of age verification of porn websites. Weirdly I was verified for the first time myself last night (I am a porn user but not all the time) so was interested to read it.

j get that it was a debate but I honestly don’t see how anyone could object. Last night I wasn’t expecting to be verified but the process was simple, took about a minute and I don’t think I’d have easily been able to circumvent it. Obviously there are security concerns but no more so than with any other website.

I think these checks are great! My eldest DC is 13 so probably getting to (or at) the age when porn might become interesting to her, and this would make it much more difficult to access which would doubtless be a good thing, no?

Does anyone disagree?! I’d be interested to hear arguments against because I can’t really think of any and that makes me suspicious I’m being narrow minded.

Anyone who starts calling anonymous posters men to try and invalidate their opinions is already losing...

There are widely reported instances of sites being blocked which shouldn't be. Including sites related to Jeremy Corbyn's new party....

(Seperate note but making porn and prostitution illegal would only drive it more underground and even less regulated and put people in even more vulnerable positions...)

While the headline sounds good there are aspects of the online safety bill that are ominous and ripe for misuse.

I for one am against the requirements they are trying to put on WhatsApp and similar apps - which if it goes in will see whatsapp and signal exit the UK.

There are lots of ways the government is overreaching at the moment imo - inc ability to access people's bank accounts.

But it is all rolled in on the back of something that sounds like it is trying to do good.

This seems related ...

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/08/humans_outperform_ai_models_brand_safety/

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/11/wikimedia_foundation_loses_online_safety/

The recent figures showing the significant decrease in people accessing the biggest porn sites show the rules are having some effect, but as many people have said , this is more than just limiting access to porn for those under 18, it’s how you limit access to harmful material and predatory behaviour on sites like Snapchat, instagram, Facebook etc,

Is that figures from UK IPs?

Because if it is... that's the VPNs

Right lol. Within the first three days of this new law the company Proton VPN saw a 1800% increase in sign ups from the UK. Men aren't suddenly sainted lilies with alabaster brows who have given up wanking forevermore.

Most probably is,widely reported that the amount of UK visits to most popular porn sites are down by around 45%, it would be good to think the vpns are being used by adults, but realistically the kids will be using them too

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-real-moral-panic-isnt-porn-its-losing-access-to-it/

Excellent piece by Jo Bartosch on this overreaction to the OSA.

That article only talks about porn, and doesn't mention the over reach of the act. With sites dealing with things like self harm now needing age verification etc.

It's a bad piece of legislation as it's censorship of the Internet wrapped up in a veneer of trying to protect kids from porn.

The best way to protect kids is to educate them. Explain what they see isn't real, the difference between porn and real life.

This act will just make some parents assume their children are safe and won't choose to have those difficult conversations

Plenty of us women have installed VPNs as well because the laws are poorly planned and effecting so much

No

The issue is that the law is being dressed up "protecting kids from porn" and using the guise of morality when it's far more insidious than that

Quite the opposite. She claims the people opposing the OSA are "perfectly in tune with tech giants whose profits rely on unfiltered traffic", yet hasn't stopped to consider the fact that the majority of the tech giants aren't actually complaining about this.

Compounding that oversight, she then fails to ask why they aren't complaining, when her entire theory is based on it.

For some reason, nobody else seems to be asking that question either. Very few are asking who conceived this law, who wrote the majority of it, or why they suddenly bowed out a few months before it was presented to Parliament either. Answer those questions, and the picture quickly becomes one of large amounts of money...and nothing to do with protecting women and children.

As for the idea that only men are using VPNs so that they can have a good shuffle, that's rubbish. I've had to resort to using VPNs for a number of sites in the last week just to be able to do my job - none of which contain adult or illegal content, but all of which are protecting themselves because this absolute shit-show of a law considers them to be high-risk.

An empty-headed peice by someone who doesnt even understand the basics of what they are writing about.