Article I've spied today
www.ft.com/content/5b0b84c1-3edf-4286-9b02-b35835a90bb1
French Pornhub case shows how hard it is to regulate the internet
The challenge over privacy demonstrates that implementing new safety laws is not always straightforward
In October, a French court decided that a constitutional challenge raised by the controversial website Pornhub may proceed against a law which allows the blocking of porn sites that fail to prevent access by children. In 2020 the government amended the criminal code to specify that the use of age declaration tools (“click here if you are over 18”) will not be sufficient. New legislation empowered France’s online content regulator, Arcom, to seek blocking orders against websites that don’t implement robust age gating.
But at present there is no age verification technology that French authorities consider both effective and privacy preserving. Arcom is supposed to publish guidelines on compliant tools, but hasn’t. However, it served enforcement notices last year against five free-to-view porn sites, including Pornhub, giving them 15 days to replace their age model, or risk being blocked. The websites’ lawyers claim that attempts to engage in discussion were ignored. The sites took no action and so blocking proceedings were initiated.
Like it or not, it is understandable that faced with the choice of adopting ineffective age verification tools that might compromise user privacy, or being blocked, Pornhub’s owner MG Freesites opted to challenge the law. The court agreed that there was a question to be tried and the challenge is proceeding. And so, more than two years after the French law was toughened, a pressing social problem persists.
The article them talks about the conflict between privacy and Internet surveillance concerns, whether the tech is available and effective and anti abuse campaigners which doesn't show clear signs of resolution.
This is really the nub of it for me. I don't know that you can regulate the internet in the way campaigners would wish. Multiple accounts are always ahead of the game unless you use draconian measures which are vulnerable to hacking and discourage participation as a result
MN is the test case for this in many ways - women don't want to use their personal details to identify an account that might ultimately be traceable back to them. If faced with a choice of ID linked participantion or self exclusion out of fear of reprisals, a certain significant % would disengage. Its why MNHQ itself has always taken a fairly fuzzy approach on this one and stuck up for the value of anonymity as being powerful in good ways not just harmful ways.
I genuinely don't know what the solution is, but I do have doubts over regulation and feel the more narrow it is, the more likely it will actually work in practice rather than be gamed.