Any thoughts on the porn ban?

[Lula1998]

Hate the Tories but I think this is the one thing they've done that I agree with. I know kids can get round it with VPNs etc, but some of the younger ones won't. Porn is a cancer imo.

You really haven't listened to any of the educated arguments laid out on this thread.
There's a good video that explains much of what has been said that is well worth a watch.

I know you want something done and this feels like it is doing something, but you refuse to recognise that it actually makes the situation worse.
Doing something is not always better than doing nothing.

We have to make the internet safer for kids and we have to reduce the production and usage of porn. Blocking porn sites achieves neither of these things.

As I have already asked before, I presume, as the internet cannot be regulated, that no attempt should be made to remove child porn?

As you say..it can be regulated, so all those people trying to take it down should just not bother. Right?

*cannot be regulated

As you say..it can be regulated

It can't be regulated as you seem to think of regulated.

I don't know how to explain it.

Try this. Using Child porn as worst example.

Take PornHub, arguably the biggest porn site online. They're a business, they employ staff, there's a boss and it relies on ads to pay them. Someone decides what to feature and what to not feature. There is also a massive community of amateurs uploading their own videos.

Pornhub won't host CP because it would negatively.impact their business, advertiser's would pull out, profits would drop.

PornHub is curated by its staff.

Follow me so far?.

Porn hub is WHSmith. I know it's a hard image but stick with it.
PornHub as WHSmith is on the High street of the internet. Along with Amazon, Tesco Groceries etc. All porn sites run for profit are high street shops.

So in your mind picture a town with a high street, it has WHSmith or Pornhub, Waterstones, Amazon, Tesco etc etc.

Is that the only place.in a town you can buy things? Yes?.. no..

Down the pub there a bloke called Dave and he sells dodgy gear from his bad.
Aka "The Black Market"

Porn hub isn't available in the black market, they're a business and need to make money.

So we have Dave, selling dodgy gear in a pub. Cops can arrest Dave, but Terry is in the pub next door. Cops arrest Terry, nevermind, the Sunday carboot is tomorrow and there's plenty of stalls selling knocked of adidus and Nyke.

This black.market exists on the web as well. It's called the Dark Web. It's bigger than the high street and it exists in millions of computers around the world. There you can find Guns, CP, slaves etc etc.
And just like Dave, Terry, dodgy Carbooters, it's impossible to police because one Dave will be busted but hundreds upon thousands more will appear.

Does that make any sense?
This one block, any porn block, will affect the high street and just push buyers to Dave and the carboot..

Is that any clearer?

How do we know that all the people in the videos uploaded to Pornhub by amateurs are over 18? How do Pornhub know?

How do Pornhub know?

You just really don't like research do you?

Porn hubs amateur contributions are monitored and only verified accounts can upload. To get verified you must send PH selfies holding screen name and then follow that up with credit card details, passport details, driving license. It's a safe and secure verification process that does it's best to ensure everyone in the community is there by choice and is over age of consent.

And how do they know that the women are not trafficked? If they are trafficked then Pornhub the legal porn site and the gang trafficking the women are effectively working together in a joint stock company. Both make the other money. So this distinction between lawful porn and the black market no longer applies.

Porn hubs amateur contributions are monitored and only verified accounts can upload. To get verified you must send PH selfies holding screen name and then follow that up with credit card details, passport details, driving license.

Just Googled and apparently that isn't true. It's just like YouTube. Anyone can upload.

In a society this networked, parents are no longer able to exercise that level of control.
Sorry, this might have been from 5pm, but it's bull.
Parents choose to not exercise that level of control. Parents feel guilty for having so little time with their children, guilty that their offspring don't have the newest gadgets, guilty they don't understand the technology, guilty that they themselves would rather be on social media or playing viral games, guilty that their kids might feel left out of online banter, guilty that they can't face getting all their fellow parents to buy-in to a tech ban for all their children - it's not easy at all. To stand up against the digitalisation of childhood is very difficult. But it's still absolutely a choice, posters have already explained about children only allowed to be online in supervised areas like the living room being a good start.

This isn't giving in to market forces, expecting tech companies (and/or the govt in conjunction with tech/porn companies) to do the parenting for you is giving in to market forces.

And a smartphone ban at school would also be useful - all phones locked in boxes until the end of the day cuts out break times as porn viewing windows. Still not 100%, the journey in and home is still a window.
Spending money and time on educating children that porn is harmful (age-appropriate "fight the new drug" content) is worthwhile.
This law is pretty poor and won't achieve what it is intended to. There's no way that means posters here are dismissive of the harm that porn does.

How do Pornhub know?
Why are you trying to get anyone to defend Pornhub?
How exactly do you think we can block Pornhub?
What laws would you write to make the content illegal?
How would you police this? Would you have censors watch porn all day?

This isn't like banning a VHS tapes or raiding a sex shop and closing it down because it sells under the counter tapes.

www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona
Here's an article about people paid to review dodgy content on mainstream social media. It takes its toll. Imagine how many of these people we would need to police porn content, and imagine having to do that for a living.
Ever met a police officer who deals with images of child abuse?

I suppose you think people just choose to accept 100 per cent subprime mortgages and therefore banks should not be regulated by the state? I am tired of these neoliberal arguments; they take no accounting for the complexity of reality. They extend moral responsibility to everyone except the people making the money immorally. In this case, they do not account for the children who are unable to make informed decisions and many of whom do not have responsible parents. It's all very well saying kids should have responsible parents, but the world being as the world is, it is inevitable that some will lack them. They require the protection off the state, don't you think?

FlyingOink are you saying that the authorities should not try to remove child abuse material from the internet? Seriously?

Subprime mortgages and the banking system are unrelated to this discussion no matter how much you try to shoehorn them in.
As for not accounting for the complexity of reality, that is exactly what I am doing. This isn't victim blaming. However sometimes even victim blaming has some sense to it - if you walk around a Brazilian favela dripping in gold you will get robbed; it's not your fault, it's the robber's fault - but you haven't exercised any caution or awareness. Parents should exercise caution and awareness and illegal content should be removed (and producers prosecuted). The latter is harder to achieve than the former but I haven't ever suggested we don't bother going after criminals.
It's not an either or thing.
This law will not prevent children or adults accessing porn. It may encourage illegal content to become more widely available. I don't suggest we encourage 12 year olds to smoke but the increase in tax on cigarettes now means one pack in three in the UK is smuggled or counterfeit, and there are organised crime implications to that.
Do you think that means I support organised crime and smuggling, or simply that I acknowledge it exists and that the situation is more complex than it seems at first?

I am clearly well to the left of you so we'll have to agree to disagree.

The banking system is totally key to this; 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. Then they bleed you of your data and sell it on. So this is about economics. All these companies exist above all else to make a profit.

Parents should exercise caution and awareness and illegal content should be removed (and producers prosecuted).

Hey - hang on. I thought the internet couldn't be policed! If it is possible and desirable to regulate it by removing illegal material, then surely a lot more of it can be regulated too? Either we accept that things can and should be removed/blocked - or we don't. Which is it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

So you are against criminalising prostitution GoodyMog? The Nordic law has been better for women.

You cannot stop porn or prostitution through having wet-liberal 'conversations' and 'educating' people - you do it with the law. All great changes - for women, blacks, workers, whoever - have been achieved through Law.

It is the only language these people understand.

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?