Porn Pass (age verification in the UK)

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

The law itself is kinda rediculus already. They are already overstepping their bounds in my mind so them doing it again wouldn't be so weird. The slippery slope fallacy implies that a minor incident will lead to a much more extreme version of that which is why it's a fallacy. An extreme version would be the joke posted in this thread talking about all the license you need some of which are ridiculous. Now being worries that the UK is trying to regulate the internet and this law would be a step a huge step in setting a precedent for such laws is 100% justified. They have been trying to pass laws to regulate the internet for awhile now and allowing something like this to pass wouldn't be a good thing. Slippery slope may be a fallacy but there are also legal  precedent that have had implications that are more profound than people realize. Anyways my point being that saying that the government being involved in regulating the internet is a bad thing and that although it might porn now it could be something else the government find unsavory.

I think you might have missed the fact that the law has been in place for many years and is based on good science. It is not about controlling the population because they want to be dictators. There is no slippery slope argument in what they are doing.  There are many studies that show the effects of pornography on developing brains.  So please stop trying to derail this thread with ideologies about development that you clearly do not understand.   

 

5 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Because God forbid parents actually educate their children on these topics, explain things, and help their children understand.

 

For a second I forgot that the only thing people are more afraid of than sexuality itself is educating about sexuality.

 

Your assuming all parents can be perfect parents and incorporate technology into the lives of young children without issues arising.

 

The whole idea of a system like this is to pickup where a parent/technology fails.   You can't point at parents and claim they should be 100% fail safe as parents, that just won't happen, you may as well argue seat belts should be optional and drivers should just take more care.     The fact is the Internet and technology that brings all of this content into the live of younger people (under 12) is here and it has come so fast our society is not able to cope, hence why the government (mainly the UK) is struggling to find a solution.

 

If there is a legitimate reason this sort of system shouldn't be in place I'd like to hear it.  But simply slamming parents or complaining about big brother when it is clear they are going to lengths to avoid any sort of identification issues is moot.

[sof006]

This is dumb, won't work. 

[Thaldor]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your assuming all parents can be perfect parents and incorporate technology into the lives of young children without issues arising.

 

The whole idea of a system like this is to pickup where a parent/technology fails.   You can't point at parents and claim they should be 100% fail safe as parents, that just won't happen, you may as well argue seat belts should be optional and drivers should just take more care.     The fact is the Internet and technology that brings all of this content into the live of younger people (under 12) is here and it has come so fast our society is not able to cope, hence why the government (mainly the UK) is struggling to find a solution.

 

If there is a legitimate reason this sort of system shouldn't be in place I'd like to hear it.  But simply slamming parents or complaining about big brother when it is clear they are going to lengths to avoid any sort of identification issues is moot.

 

Probably no one is assuming parents being perfect or perfect fail safes. Just normal older common sense says that parents as matures should teach their kids about this stuff. Not slam it to childrens faces but teach them when they found out about the things. This starts to sound very much like the discussion about violent games/movies: "because they see violence in games and movies, they become violent and have wrong image of the world", while we all know this is BS just from that if it was so we would have a lot more shootings and if not that everyone would be running around eating white pills and trying to eat other humans after eating a banana.

 

Yeah, I'm slamming modern parents who try to pad the world of their children like they were some kind of balloons that pop from the first thorne they meet in the life. Parents who very much are alive today even when they have had, with very good probability, life that wasn't this padded. Very much everyone has learned words like "pussy", "fuck" and "dick" far before even knowing what they mean, probably first new words learned when starting elementary school and running around saying them because new and cool. Probably quite many have done something that could be later in life called "sexual" at very young age without knowing anything about what they are doing and what is the meaning of it. Parents who think their children cannot learn the same reality what they have learned that what is shown in movies/games/comics/books/porn is just a "faitytale".

 

There has been systems like this in the past and still working and every single one of them, that I know, have been misused to drive propaganda. China and North-Korea are the tip of the iceberg and more like extreme examples. Finalnd has childpornography filter since a long time and when someone took a better look at it, oh no Finland, over half of the blocked sites weren't even porn and even if some of them had had porn in them in the history, there was still a lot of sites that had had nothing to do with pornography or childs ever, they were just blocked because someone wanted them to be blocked. And as a cherry on the top, the guy who revealed this got his own site, where he revealed this, added to the blocked sites and sued because he revealed that what was once very stritcly ment to be a system to block CP was misused to block something else also. Also this kind of system could draw many more countries to do the same and probably we all know by now that there's a lot of countries that you don't want to start censoring internet.

 

Making a 100% safe system that could never be misused is even a legal and practical hell that wouldn't work ever or impossible. There could be a database of sites in the system, but what stops some one government employee to add site X to the database and basicly censor it away? Proofing of every added site? Probably, but practically adding thousands of sites would take years maybe tens of years and when the initial work would be done, there would be thousands of sites more to add. having a court order to block a site? Look at the copyright trolls like Maverick Eye and ACS:Law, they could get hundreds of thousands personal informations from the courts because they could just ask thousands of them with a single case and judges weren't going to go through those to pick only the ones that were actually big scale pirates. And what about VPNs and other services that probably go through the system like hot knife goes through butter? You gonna ban them also just to save kids from seeing porn at the time when VPNs start to be as common as other browers than Explorer just because there's so much watching eyes in the internet? Good luck with that one.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I think you might have missed the fact that the law has been in place for many years and is based on good science. It is not about controlling the population because they want to be dictators. There is no slippery slope argument in what they are doing.  There are many studies that show the effects of pornography on developing brains.  So please stop trying to derail this thread with ideologies about development that you clearly do not understand.   

 

 

Your assuming all parents can be perfect parents and incorporate technology into the lives of young children without issues arising.

 

The whole idea of a system like this is to pickup where a parent/technology fails.   You can't point at parents and claim they should be 100% fail safe as parents, that just won't happen, you may as well argue seat belts should be optional and drivers should just take more care.     The fact is the Internet and technology that brings all of this content into the live of younger people (under 12) is here and it has come so fast our society is not able to cope, hence why the government (mainly the UK) is struggling to find a solution.

 

If there is a legitimate reason this sort of system shouldn't be in place I'd like to hear it.  But simply slamming parents or complaining about big brother when it is clear they are going to lengths to avoid any sort of identification issues is moot.

This was the same country that tried to ban porn they deemed unsavory. They have been pulling for the regulation of the internet for awhile so don't compare this to a slippery slope when there is clear evidence to support the government trying to abuse this type of regulation. 

[suicidalfranco]

UK: quick to restrict porn access cause think of the children, slow as hell to stop a gang of child molesters cause it's most probably the victims fault.

 

 

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

 

Probably no one is assuming parents being perfect or perfect fail safes. Just normal older common sense says that parents as matures should teach their kids about this stuff. Not slam it to childrens faces but teach them when they found out about the things. This starts to sound very much like the discussion about violent games/movies: "because they see violence in games and movies, they become violent and have wrong image of the world", while we all know this is BS just from that if it was so we would have a lot more shootings and if not that everyone would be running around eating white pills and trying to eat other humans after eating a banana.

When ever someone says it's the parents job and dismisses everything else as moot you  then have only an argument for parents needing to be perfect.   As far as video game arguments go, you have to remember we are only talking about minor's.  when people start talking about video game violence causing violence it is the erroneous connection between young adults and violence.  I don't think it is fair to try and dilute what is actually a well researched area of childhood development by adding in debates that aren't exactly related.

 

Quote

Yeah, I'm slamming modern parents who try to pad the world of their children like they were some kind of balloons that pop from the first thorne they meet in the life. Parents who very much are alive today even when they have had, with very good probability, life that wasn't this padded. Very much everyone has learned words like "pussy", "fuck" and "dick" far before even knowing what they mean, probably first new words learned when starting elementary school and running around saying them because new and cool. Probably quite many have done something that could be later in life called "sexual" at very young age without knowing anything about what they are doing and what is the meaning of it. Parents who think their children cannot learn the same reality what they have learned that what is shown in movies/games/comics/books/porn is just a "faitytale".

To be honest I don't see how any of that relates to this. But there is a fair amount padding that is unhealthy I would agree.

 

Quote

There has been systems like this in the past and still working and every single one of them, that I know, have been misused to drive propaganda. China and North-Korea are the tip of the iceberg and more like extreme examples. Finalnd has childpornography filter since a long time and when someone took a better look at it, oh no Finland, over half of the blocked sites weren't even porn and even if some of them had had porn in them in the history, there was still a lot of sites that had had nothing to do with pornography or childs ever, they were just blocked because someone wanted them to be blocked. And as a cherry on the top, the guy who revealed this got his own site, where he revealed this, added to the blocked sites and sued because he revealed that what was once very stritcly ment to be a system to block CP was misused to block something else also. Also this kind of system could draw many more countries to do the same and probably we all know by now that there's a lot of countries that you don't want to start censoring internet.

I do believe that is taking unrelated countries agendas to further a personal fear.  It is also a slippery slope argument.  When you have governments abusing power you attack the government, if the tool they are using serves no other purpose then you attack that too.  But attacking a tool because the user is breaking the law or becoming draconian/dictatorial is like blaming the screwdriver because the mechanic was overcharging you for a service.

 

Quote

Making a 100% safe system that could never be misused is even a legal and practical hell that wouldn't work ever or impossible. There could be a database of sites in the system, but what stops some one government employee to add site X to the database and basicly censor it away? Proofing of every added site? Probably, but practically adding thousands of sites would take years maybe tens of years and when the initial work would be done, there would be thousands of sites more to add. having a court order to block a site? Look at the copyright trolls like Maverick Eye and ACS:Law, they could get hundreds of thousands personal informations from the courts because they could just ask thousands of them with a single case and judges weren't going to go through those to pick only the ones that were actually big scale pirates. And what about VPNs and other services that probably go through the system like hot knife goes through butter? You gonna ban them also just to save kids from seeing porn at the time when VPNs start to be as common as other browers than Explorer just because there's so much watching eyes in the internet? Good luck with that one.

If we want to use the fact that nothing is 100% safe or perfect as an argument to not do anything then let's abolish all laws and live life were only the truly fittest/smartest survive.   Or we could accept that society has problems and we are community that must endeavor to ensure it's survival.

 

15 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

This was the same country that tried to ban porn they deemed unsavory. They have been pulling for the regulation of the internet for awhile so don't compare this to a slippery slope when there is clear evidence to support the government trying to abuse this type of regulation. 

And now they aren't.   But just because they did in the past doesn't mean what they are doing now is just as bad.  It's a different approach to a similar problem.

[billstelling]

Porn, what a joke. Pretty much for suckers who can't find anyone to be with them. So funny.. I prefer real people. Rewind is as easy as a slap on the ass..

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When ever someone says it's the parents job and dismisses everything else as moot you  then have only an argument for parents needing to be perfect.   As far as video game arguments go, you have to remember we are only talking about minnor's.  when people start talking about video game violence causing violence it is the erroneous connection between young adults and violence.  I don;t think it is fair to try and dilute what is actually an well researched area of childhood development by adding in debates that aren't exactly related.

 

To be honest I don't see how any of that relates to this. But there is a fair amount padding that is unhealthy I would agree.

 

I do believe that is taking unrelated countries agendas to further a personal fear.  It is also a slippery slope argument.  When you have governments abusing power you attack the government, if the tool they are using serves no other purpose then you attack that too.  But attacking a tool because the user is breaking the law or becoming draconian/dictatorial is like blaming the screwdriver because the mechanic was overcharging you for a service.

 

If we want to use the fact that nothing is 100% safe or perfect as an argument to not do anything then let's abolish all laws and live life were only the truly fittest/smartest survive.   Or we could accept that society has problems and we are community that must endeavor to ensure it's survival.

 

And now they aren't.   But just because they did in the past doesn't mean what they are doing now is just as bad.  It's a different approach to a similar problem.

They tried to do something that was bad and decided to try and find another way to do it. I don't see how that isn't a bad thing. I mean they tried to ban what they thought was unsavory porn and now they are trying to make you pay to unblock porn all together so them just never unblocking the sites they deem unsavory even after you pay isn't a stretch at all. I mean when is it ok to speak out against laws that have the potential of abuse? Before they are put into law or after when it is much harder to fix. I am unsure how you can just brush off the relevance of them trying to ban what they deem as unsavory. It is quite relevant and just because it failed doesn't mean they aren't trying to still push for that. 

[Noctus]

On 14/05/2018 at 11:07 PM, Memories4K said:

I love the UK

 

On 14/05/2018 at 11:42 PM, TheSLSAMG said:

Her Majesty's Royal Mail Worker "Welcome m8, need to ship a package?"

Smut Enthusiast "No m8, I need the pass"

HMRMW: "The pass?"

SE: "Yeah, the pass m8."

HMRMW: "You mean the porn pass?"

SE: "ʸᵉᵃʰ"

HMRMW: *rings bell hung from ceiling* *on top of lungs* "OI M8, THIS BRUV'S GOTTA GET A PASS TO HAVE HIMSELF A WANK!"

 

On topic, I'm mixed. I get why they're doing it, but I'm a small government guy and the idea of the government giving out codes so I can watch porn is overreaching.

As hilarious as the above 2 quotes are..... that's england ! 

4 hours ago, aezakmi said:

Almost choked on my dinner at that. Top keks 10/10 

[Thaldor]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

When ever someone says it's the parents job and dismisses everything else as moot you  then have only an argument for parents needing to be perfect.   As far as video game arguments go, you have to remember we are only talking about minor's.  when people start talking about video game violence causing violence it is the erroneous connection between young adults and violence.  I don't think it is fair to try and dilute what is actually a well researched area of childhood development by adding in debates that aren't exactly related.

What I have read about the subject (not much but the area of children and pornography has been discussed on the few open university courses I took psychology when behaviorism was a subject) and mostly it uses same arguments as the game/movie violence example. The more you learn about psychology the more you understand how little the whole area is actually researched because even when there's hundreds of papers how something affects something, there's other hundred of papers why they are wrong and they are both considered to be right. Banduras experiment is hold as a corner stone of behaviorism and observation learning (child watches violence -> child becomes violent), but then there's literally hundreds of papers and experiments showing that social learning changes everything (child watches violence but adult tells the child it's not ok -> child doesn't become violent). Who do you trust more depends on your opinion, who you want to trust more and who you want the others to trust.
 

Quote

 

To be honest I don't see how any of that relates to this. But there is a fair amount padding that is unhealthy I would agree.

 

I tried to point out that people who are up to this are deciding to take something away from their children that was "available" for them and that probably didn't really change anything. Instead of taking a magazine from the forbidden uppest shelf or finding a magazine from a garbage bin, it's now done with the PC/phone/tablet that was bought to the kid.

 

Quote

I do believe that is taking unrelated countries agendas to further a personal fear.  It is also a slippery slope argument.  When you have governments abusing power you attack the government, if the tool they are using serves no other purpose then you attack that too.  But attacking a tool because the user is breaking the law or becoming draconian/dictatorial is like blaming the screwdriver because the mechanic was overcharging you for a service.

If every other coutry that has censored internet has misused that system, why do you think UK is any different?

 

I took Finland as an example, because I followed that case quite closely and it was extremely funny to see Finnish officials to squirm around when asked direct questions. Finland is also very good example, because we have internet censorship which has been misused and at least now we are the most uncorrupted coutry in the world and our law is quite well know to be extremely thight. UK is around as uncorrupted as Finland, if our country misused that kind of power, do you really think your country will do any better?

 

It's far more easier not to give a lighter to a pyromaniac than extinguish the fires that pyromaniac lights with the lighter.

Quote

If we want to use the fact that nothing is 100% safe or perfect as an argument to not do anything then let's abolish all laws and live life were only the truly fittest/smartest survive.   Or we could accept that society has problems and we are community that must endeavor to ensure it's survival.

Or then you can just give the lighter to the pyromaniac and let everything burn. System that basicly censors the internet, may it be removed with money or not, is so huge machine of government power that you could very well compare it to a nuke aimed at the people and saying "if you don't play nice...". Once there's the legal work done, law has been made and system is running, it's very trivial to give a little "polish" to the law to make "adjustments" to the system especially if the system proves to be success.

 

Of course this is again slippery slope argument, but at least it's an argument and not something like a gateway theory. Which is far more better because it's based on something quite concrete (unlike gateway theories which are all more or less asking from a drug addict if he/she has ever smoked tobacco and as almost everyone has smoked or tasted -> Smoking leads to drug use) like examples of other countries misusing systems censoring the internet and what the government of UK has thought earlier.

 

And I don't see why UK should build this kind of system to "ensure it's survival as community", because the system has so many flaws and so huge potential to be misused while you really can't go wrong with better education and parenting.

 

And now that it came to my mind, how far this system is reached? Only the porn sites? What about Wikipedia articles about porn and seuality? Is something like Deviantart considered pornoghrapic site because you can encounter stuff from artistic porn to very mildly sexual stuff? How about Google image search that can bring up quite controversal stuff even with the safe search turned on? Or audiobook sites / fan-fiction sites where you can find stuff that can be considered very much porn in the form of a book? There's quite many levels on which a child can encounter material that can be considered to be pornography. Where the lines is drawn and how solid that line is, are both very important questions which left open leave a big loop holes.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

They tried to do something that was bad and decided to try and find another way to do it. I don't see how that isn't a bad thing. I mean they tried to ban what they thought was unsavory porn and now they are trying to make you pay to unblock porn all together so them just never unblocking the sites they deem unsavory even after you pay isn't a stretch at all. I mean when is it ok to speak out against laws that have the potential of abuse? Before they are put into law or after when it is much harder to fix. I am unsure how you can just brush off the relevance of them trying to ban what they deem as unsavory. It is quite relevant and just because it failed doesn't mean they aren't trying to still push for that. 

They have tried several times to implement some sort of block, but not censorship that prevents. I have been and  opponent of previous systems and I am a proponent of paying altogether.   This is not a law that is intrinsically open to abuse for what it is,  you must remember all laws are open to abuse,  what has to be decided is if the system has any merit in it's own right, not if you believe they will do something further on down the line and use it nefariously, that is a slippery slope argument, that is the same argument people used to try and stop same sex marriage, if we allow it next we will have to allow pedophilia and marrying animals.  Please.  if they try to use it the wrong way then make your argument.

 

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

What I have read about the subject (not much but the area of children and pornography has been discussed on the few open university courses I took psychology when behaviorism was a subject) and mostly it uses same arguments as the game/movie violence example. The more you learn about psychology the more you understand how little the whole area is actually researched because even when there's hundreds of papers how something affects something, there's other hundred of papers why they are wrong and they are both considered to be right. Banduras experiment is hold as a corner stone of behaviorism and observation learning (child watches violence -> child becomes violent), but then there's literally hundreds of papers and experiments showing that social learning changes everything (child watches violence but adult tells the child it's not ok -> child doesn't become violent). Who do you trust more depends on your opinion, who you want to trust more and who you want the others to trust.
 

 

There is a wealth of research on the subject. This is as subject I have been heavily involved with in my last 6 years working in early education, being a parent and social worker for preteens over the last decade including running youth oriented services (camps and day activities). 

 

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

I tried to point out that people who are up to this are deciding to take something away from their children that was "available" for them and that probably didn't really change anything. Instead of taking a magazine from the forbidden uppest shelf or finding a magazine from a garbage bin, it's now done with the PC/phone/tablet that was bought to the kid.

The thing is this isn't about taking away, this is about preventing in the first place.   And even if it was about taking content away from kids who have been watching it the research is pretty clear on that too.  Any effects (good bad or indifferent) reverse in the absence of such content.

 

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

If every other coutry that has censored internet has misused that system, why do you think UK is any different?

 

Yes, because it is not fair to judge anyone on what others have done.   You judge each regulation and law on it's own merits, not on what dictators do in other countries.

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

I took Finland as an example, because I followed that case quite closely and it was extremely funny to see Finnish officials to squirm around when asked direct questions. Finland is also very good example, because we have internet censorship which has been misused and at least now we are the most uncorrupted coutry in the world and our law is quite well know to be extremely thight. UK is around as uncorrupted as Finland, if our country misused that kind of power, do you really think your country will do any better?

 

If you have a problem with your goivernment misusing it's power then you have a problem with your government.

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

It's far more easier not to give a lighter to a pyromaniac than extinguish the fires that pyromaniac lights with the lighter.

Or then you can just give the lighter to the pyromaniac and let everything burn. System that basicly censors the internet, may it be removed with money or not, is so huge machine of government power that you could very well compare it to a nuke aimed at the people and saying "if you don't play nice...". Once there's the legal work done, law has been made and system is running, it's very trivial to give a little "polish" to the law to make "adjustments" to the system especially if the system proves to be success.

Again the UK government is not taking porn away, they are not taking anything away.  Not sure why people keep coming back to this argument.  It's not censorship for "everyone" it's only age verification for underage content.

 

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Of course this is again slippery slope argument, but at least it's an argument and not something like a gateway theory. Which is far more better because it's based on something quite concrete (unlike gateway theories which are all more or less asking from a drug addict if he/she has ever smoked tobacco and as almost everyone has smoked or tasted -> Smoking leads to drug use) like examples of other countries misusing systems censoring the internet and what the government of UK has thought earlier.

Gateway arguments need to be founded on statistically sound evidence not easily explain correlation.

 

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

And I don't see why UK should build this kind of system to "ensure it's survival as community", because the system has so many flaws and so huge potential to be misused while you really can't go wrong with better education and parenting.

Again you are going back to the "this system has flaws" argument.  Again, not all seat belts work so you go speeding without one everyday.  You can really go wrong with parenting. I am not sure if you are aware of this but  95% of child abuse is at the hands of family.  That's predominately sexual abuse.  It is going to get really difficult to go much further down this path because in typical LTT fashion the parenting card has been shown and to counter all the ideals everyone has,  I am going to have unleash literally decades of education and experience.

 

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

And now that it came to my mind, how far this system is reached? Only the porn sites? What about Wikipedia articles about porn and seuality? Is something like Deviantart considered pornoghrapic site because you can encounter stuff from artistic porn to very mildly sexual stuff? How about Google image search that can bring up quite controversal stuff even with the safe search turned on? Or audiobook sites / fan-fiction sites where you can find stuff that can be considered very much porn in the form of a book? There's quite many levels on which a child can encounter material that can be considered to be pornography. Where the lines is drawn and how solid that line is, are both very important questions which left open leave a big loop holes.

What?  It hasn't reached anywhere, it is a suggestion.  And there is a big difference between allowing your government to censor porn from kids and allowing them to try and prevent people from accessing Wikipedia/art.  That's just stretching logic way too far.   A child can go into any school library and get medical books and books on sexuality. with pictures.  It's not  some grand conspiracy.   Nude art has been around for centuries (actually it has been around since humans worked out how to paint on rocks). If they wanted to stop it they would have already.

[Kamjam21xx]

Wow this sure is a popular thread

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Wow this sure is a popular thread

 

These topics always make for popular threads.  People tend to conflate several different issues making for heated debate.

[LAwLz]

Some random thoughts:

1) Are there any definitive studies that shows accidental exposure to porn having a detrimental effect on children? And I would not classify for example interest in sex at a younger age as detrimental because I don't believe there is anything wrong with sex, assuming all the people involved understand it.

Are the studies well accepted or are there controversies surrounding them? Not all studies are unbiased and accurate (just look at the "vaccination causes autism" "study" for an example).

 

 

2) If we assume that porn is harmful and things has to change in order to limit exposure, where do we draw the line? Straight up porn sites are obviously bad, but what about media which contains elements of these things without having it has their primary focus? What about books that contains these forbidden themes? And before you think the idea of a "book license" which lets you read books is silly, please bear in mind that the UK already has a ban on literature which contains themes such as rape or incest.

What about music that contains these things? Should there be a music license for that?

 

 

3) Where is this heading? It's easy to dismiss something as a slippery slope fallacy, but not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies. Here we have a clear path we can follow and the goal is fairly straight forward.

• First the UK geared up for what's essentially the great firewall of China, except in the UK. It does inspection of all traffic and classifies it into different categories.
• Then they introduce an optional, opt-in filter so that parents can easily call their ISP, or change the settings in their router to have porn blocked. So far so good.
• Then that filter got expanded to include other things too, such as drugs, dating, file sharing, gambling, "obscenity", "hate", fashion and beauty, hacking, and so on.
• Next the filter went from opt-in to opt-out. So now the default was that the things listed above, as well as other things, were blocked. In order to view any of these categories users would have to actively go and change settings in their router or call their ISP to have it unblocked.
• This next step is that you can't easily just unblock it. You have to provide identification and pay money to have it unblocked.

What's that smell? Is someone boiling frogs? It certainly smells like it.

It is not unreasonable to expect a full ban on some of these things.

 

Also, please keep in mind that the UK government has been trying to pass laws censoring certain political ideas for a long time. A few years ago Theresa May proposed a "Extremist Disruption Order" which would give the government power to censor anything they labeled as "extremist" from posting on social media, broadcasting or protesting, even if the content itself was completely legal and non-violent.

 

Those legitimations would be a massive step towards the UK being as oppressing and restrictive as the Chinese government when it comes to Internet freedom.

 

 

4) Where does the responsibility of the government end and where does the responsibility of the parents begin? It must at some point, or else we will end up with cameras and listening devices inside our homes, making sure parents are only saying government approved things to their children in their own homes.

I think it's good that the government handles some things for children, but once it starts restricting completely legal activities for other groups I think people should question the purpose. Is this legislation really here to protect children, or is it here to restrict peoples' freedoms?

Because controlling what people can do for entertainment is a massive amount of power. It's something several dictators and other oppressive forms of government has abused a lot. 

[Kamjam21xx]

I think we should just open up pa doras box and leave people alone lol.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Some random thoughts:

1) Are there any definitive studies that shows accidental exposure to porn having a detrimental effect on children? And I would not classify for example interest in sex at a younger age as detrimental because I don't believe there is anything wrong with sex, assuming all the people involved understand it.

Are the studies well accepted or are there controversies surrounding them? Not all studies are unbiased and accurate (just look at the "vaccination causes autism" "study" for an example).

 

Not accidental exposure, single experiences on their own only tend to show the same response one might get from a new experience or startle and they effect everyone different.  I have personally seen smaller children visibly shaken because they saw two nude people "hugging".  From all that I have read there is no long term studies on this and I doubt we will ever see any.    The effects that are noted are from repeated exposure before the child is ready to receive such information. 

 

Given the size of the read I have extracted the key parts:
 

Quote

In a review of published research concerning the effects of pornography on minors, the authors note that the research is overwhelmingly negative, as well as overwhelmingly heterosexual and assumes heterosexuality (Peter & Valkenburg, 2016).

 

From: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people/part-b-review-literature

 

There is a wealth of information, there are some really positive things to it too, but they are more realated to older viewers (16+), and the research can't specifically identify the personality type that is effected the most, meaning they can only look at the overall and averages for deterministic conclusion.

 

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

2) If we assume that porn is harmful and things has to change in order to limit exposure, where do we draw the line? Straight up porn sites are obviously bad, but what about media which contains elements of these things without having it has their primary focus? What about books that contains these forbidden themes? And before you think the idea of a "book license" which lets you read books is silly, please bear in mind that the UK already has a ban on literature which contains themes such as rape or incest.

What about music that contains these things? Should there be a music license for that?

You don't need to try and draw lines anywhere, that is why it is age related and not genre related.   It is simply porn as defined is not best viewed by minors (being people under 12 (but the point at which the effects become less damaging and more positive is very blurred).

 

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

3) Where is this heading? It's easy to dismiss something as a slippery slope fallacy, but not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies. Here we have a clear path we can follow and the goal is fairly straight forward.

• First the UK geared up for what's essentially the great firewall of China, except in the UK. It does inspection of all traffic and classifies it into different categories.
• Then they introduce an optional, opt-in filter so that parents can easily call their ISP, or change the settings in their router to have porn blocked. So far so good.
• Then that filter got expanded to include other things too, such as drugs, dating, file sharing, gambling, "obscenity", "hate", fashion and beauty, hacking, and so on.
• Next the filter went from opt-in to opt-out. So now the default was that the things listed above, as well as other things, were blocked. In order to view any of these categories users would have to actively go and change settings in their router or call their ISP to have it unblocked.
• This next step is that you can't easily just unblock it. You have to provide identification and pay money to have it unblocked.

What's that smell? Is someone boiling frogs? It certainly smells like it.

It is not unreasonable to expect a full ban on some of these things.

Don't let them boil frogs and judge every action on it's own merit. 

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Also, please keep in mind that the UK government has been trying to pass laws censoring certain political ideas for a long time. A few years ago Theresa May proposed a "Extremist Disruption Order" which would give the government power to censor anything they labeled as "extremist" from posting on social media, broadcasting or protesting, even if the content itself was completely legal and non-violent.

 

Those legitimations would be a massive step towards the UK being as oppressing and restrictive as the Chinese government when it comes to Internet freedom.

So vote the fuckers out.  It seems in it's current presentation any further restrictions would have to be a new law, as this current system doesn't actually prevent anyone from seeing anything unless you are underage. 

[asus killer]

i hate nanny states and if a child is able to go and see porn on the web that's bad parenting more than internet's fault. But more than that trying to control the internet is stupid and pointless and only reveals the ignorance of the ones trying to do it.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i hate nanny states and if a child is able to go and see porn on the web that's bad parenting more than internet's fault. But more than that trying to control the internet is stupid and pointless and only reveals the ignorance of the ones trying to do it.

So how do you propose keeping developmentally under prepared children from accessing porn while still allowing them to have their phone and internet access for all the other things. Are you suggesting I should prevent my child from accessing all the current social norms on the internet and the wealth of other good information that is on their and make them social leper just because you don't think it matters?   I am afraid your comment does not indicate a ignorance on the part of policy makers, but an ignorance on your part.  There is a huge problem with how fast technology is changing the world and the effects it is having and how we should be dealing with it.  It does not just come back to parents every time.  

 

 

[asus killer]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So how do you propose keeping developmentally under prepared children from accessing porn while still allowing them to have their phone and internet access for all the other things. Are you suggesting I should prevent my child from accessing all the current social norms on the internet and the wealth of other good information that is on their and make them social leper just because you don't think it matters?   I am afraid your comment does not indicate a ignorance on the part of policy makers, but an ignorance on your part.  There is a huge problem with how fast technology is changing the world and the effects it is having and how we should be dealing with it.  It does not just come back to parents every time.  

 

 

i'm talking about education and you about some way to lock a phone, to "protect them from the internet"

 

What is the point in this? can't a curious child see it on a friends phone, on a magazine, on tv, on a video file some friend passed him in a usb stick, use some free vpn on is pc... must i go one? If the only option is to "protect them" then lock the kid in a room and throw away the key.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i'm talking about education and you about some way to lock a phone, to "protect them from the internet"

 

What is the point in this? can't a curious child see it on a friends phone, on a magazine, on tv, on a video file some friend passed him in a usb stick, use some free vpn on is pc... must i go one? If the only option is to "protect them" then lock the kid in a room and throw away the key.

That is the problem, it is so easy to attain these days.  There have only been two times in history when humans have developed technology that had such an impact that people could not keep up and had no way to combat the negative components.  The first one was trains which led to a spike in child labor, adoption killings and mass job migration, the other was the internet.  

 

No one here is seriously suggesting that this is a fix all measure, nothing is. But it is getting to be a tired argument that just because something can't be completely fixed doesn't mean we shouldn't try and do something for at least the majority that would benefit.  It was only 15 years ago that rape porn and bestiality were very rare, even for those consenting adults who were allowed to buy it.  The best you could get where your old mans stick mags and maybe a VHS from the kids next door (usually tame as fuck by today's standards too).  Nowadays any child with an internet connection can find it with little parents can do (I am a tech savvy parent) and short of buying specific hardware filters, installing net nanny software and looking over their shoulder,  there isn't really a lot you can do.   And trust me, once you start installing all those programs and looking over their shoulder you start introducing new issues into their development. 

[asus killer]

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That is the problem, it is so easy to attain these days.  There have only been two times in history when humans have developed technology that had such an impact that people could not keep up and had no way to combat the negative components.  The first one was trains which led to a spike in child labor, adoption killings and mass job migration, the other was the internet.  

 

No one here is seriously suggesting that this is a fix all measure, nothing is. But it is getting to be a tired argument that just because something can't be completely fixed doesn't mean we shouldn't try and do something for at least the majority that would benefit.  It was only 15 years ago that rape porn and bestiality were very rare, even for those consenting adults who were allowed to buy it.  The best you could get where your old mans stick mags and maybe a VHS from the kids next door (usually tame as fuck by today's standards too).  Nowadays any child with an internet connection can find it with little parents can do (I am a tech savvy parent) and short of buying specific hardware filters, installing net nanny software and looking over their shoulder,  there isn't really a lot you can do.   And trust me, once you start installing all those programs and looking over their shoulder you start introducing new issues into their development. 

I kind told you what i think works best, educate them, talk to them.

The morw you make something a taboo the more appeling it is for a kid.

 

You think this will work, i think its absolutely pointless. It's not a question of doing something or doing nothing, its more doing something for doing something even if it actually amounts to basically nothing. In my oppinion of course.

 

You will never go back to the no internet days, but the solutions for the internet problems seem all to come from a pre internet mindset.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

I kind told you what i think works best, educate them, talk to them.

The morw you make something a taboo the more appeling it is for a kid.

Education is generally best, but this is not something you can educate.    We cannot educate children to be able to deal with that experience.    The best you can hope for is to educate parents how to best prevent it from being a problem, but like this, that is just one part of a hopeful solution.

 

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

You think this will work, i think its absolutely pointless. It's not a question of doing something or doing nothing, its more doing something for doing something even if it actually amounts to basically nothing. In my oppinion of course.

I do not think it will work perfectly, I think it will have an effect, and I think using it along with other programs like educating parents about technology and also developing better routers/modems with better parental guards will help even more.  There will never be a single solution to the whole problem, but even if you can prevent future problems occurring from it,  that is a worthwhile goal.     Societies are constantly bombarded with issues of this sort of ilk.  There are programs running out there that only have effect rates around 20%, things like AA and drug rehab programs.  Would you not run them just because they are only 20% effective? or are those 20% worth it. 

 

Make no mistake, I don't think this is foolproof, I have said from the onset it has many work around's and it shouldn't cost anyone.   but just because a certain number of kids will find a way around (likely by the time they are that clued in watching porn won;t be quite the issue people make out), doesn't mean the whole things is flawed.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Not accidental exposure, single experiences on their own only tend to show the same response one might get from a new experience or startle and they effect everyone different.  I have personally seen smaller children visibly shaken because they saw two nude people "hugging".

People visibly shake just from seeing two nude people "hug"? Sounds like there is something more at play there, or else our entire society would be fucked. People don't get scared for life from seeing some nudity once or twice.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

From all that I have read there is no long term studies on this and I doubt we will ever see any.    The effects that are noted are from repeated exposure before the child is ready to receive such information. 

It is worrying that there are no long term studies yet we are acting as if there are. I'm not saying we should ignore everything until it becomes a problem, but before we start restricting peoples' freedoms in the name of "protecting the children", we need to gather evidence that the laws being passed will actually protect children.

 

I will also question what qualifies as "before the child is ready". Biologically speaking, children are ready for sex in their early teens, sometimes sooner. So is the "before the child is ready" based on social or biological qualifications? Because right now there is a massive gap between the two.

 

 

I am currently reading the study you linked but I can already tell that it is extremely biased because it classifies watching porn as inappropriate and dangerous. It also includes "racist or sexist content" into the stats which muddles the conclusion. It seems like the study was made with a predefined conclusion in mind.

 

Even the part you cited is based on ideas such as having multiple sexual partners being bad, despite it being mostly based on old-fashion morals stemming from religions, rather than any kind of logic or science.

In order words, some of the studies which found "negative effects" of watching porn, actually found things like people who watch porn are more likely to have one-night stands rather than committing to a single partner. This is why I am very against any kind of research which uses generalized and non-specific terms to classify something as good or bad. 

 

What I would like to see is a large scale, long term study which is unbiased and only interested in what potential effects, good or bad, that exposure to pornography has on different age groups. I know that is a very big ask, but if we are going to pass laws which restricts individuals freedoms because we "want to protect the children" then there should be science backing it up, not just assumptions which might be completely wrong (or even the opposite of what is true).

 

Another problem with these studies is that they often do not take into consideration proper sex-ed, as well as what negative effects treating sexuality as such an extreme taboo might have. Would the same exposure to porn have the same effect on a child that grew up with proper sex-ed and in a household where sex was no well-kept secret that was never talked about, compared to let's say someone following Sharia law where sex before marriage is punishable with 100 lashes and exile?

It's very easy to mix up cause and effect if you are not taking these things into consideration. Are children exposed to porn being scared (assuming they are) because of the porn itself, or because of what they have been taught about it?

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

You don't need to try and draw lines anywhere, that is why it is age related and not genre related.   It is simply porn as defined is not best viewed by minors (being people under 12 (but the point at which the effects become less damaging and more positive is very blurred).

But you do have to draw the line. If we discover that things like hip-hop music videos are also found to have similar effects as porn, do we introduce hip-hop viewing licenses? Right now the line is draw at pornographic websites, but that will probably change (just like the porn filter changed to include a lot of other things including certain political views and critique).

Assuming this is actually in order to protect children, surely it would be weird to not change where the line was drawn assuming other evidence appears that the line is not in the right place?

But since the line is already infringing on peoples' freedoms there need to be a discussion of what is and isn't acceptable risks, as well as how much of a nanny state is necessary.

 

To take it to the extreme, if it is found that being exposed to swearing is bad for children, to what lengths should the government intervene to make sure children don't hear swearing? Right now they are doing it by age restricting media which contains it. Should the next step be outright banning it unless you have a swearing license? Maybe install microphones into peoples' homes and fine them if they swear where a child might hear it?

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Don't let them boil frogs and judge every action on it's own merit.

No, that is not how boiling a frog works. The entire point of boiling a frog is that people are less resistant to small changes. Taking away a large portion of someone's freedom is seen as something worse than taking away the same amount of freedom, but in 5 smaller steps.

In the UK the porn filtering system has been changed something like 4 times already, and each time it has become more forceful and censored more things.

If we judge each change individually it is not that big of a deal, but once you combine them it is very scary and intrusive.

 

What you have to look at is the cumulative result, not each individual change.

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

So vote the fuckers out.  It seems in it's current presentation any further restrictions would have to be a new law, as this current system doesn't actually prevent anyone from seeing anything unless you are underage. 

Voting doesn't work because all parties are interested in controlling the citizens to some degree. It also assumes that people know what is best for them, which is not always the case.

 

But the even bigger reason why voting won't work is because you can't make a decision on who to vote for just factoring in a single question. We'll have an election in Sweden this year, and I agree with some things and disagree with some things from each individual party. No matter who I vote for, I will essentially be voting for some changes I disagree with. There is no party which I think holds the right position for each question. I therefore have to choose which party I agree the most with (or think is the least awful). A lot of people do the same. So people who are against this system might still vote for the government who suggested it, because that government is seen as better in other areas.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

People visibly shake just from seeing two nude people "hug"? Sounds like there is something more at play there, or else our entire society would be fucked. People don't get scared for life from seeing some nudity once or twice.

You'd be surprised how often minors have reactions like that to all sorts of things we consider everyday. I am not talking about being scarred for life I actually said:

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

single experiences on their own only tend to show the same response one might get from a new experience or startle and they effect everyone different.  I have personally seen smaller children visibly shaken because they saw two nude people "hugging".

 

At no point did I even mention long term effects.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is worrying that there are no long term studies yet we are acting as if there are. I'm not saying we should ignore everything until it becomes a problem, but before we start restricting peoples' freedoms in the name of "protecting the children", we need to gather evidence that the laws being passed will actually protect children.

They are not acting as if they are, you asked about accidental exposure, that is not the same as ongoing exposure.  There are no long term studies on accidental (limited) exposure, ther is a wealth of studies on ongoing exposure.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I will also question what qualifies as "before the child is ready". Biologically speaking, children are ready for sex in their early teens, sometimes sooner. So is the "before the child is ready" based on social or biological qualifications? Because right now there is a massive gap between the two.

You have been reading my posts yes?  I did actually mention in the post you quoted that most of the research indicates from about 12 on.  Obviously (or maybe not) that that changes with the individual with some not being ready until later but most being mostly ready by 16.  Keeping in mind that much of the older research was carried out on older porn which was quite sterile by today's standards.  Much less exposure to rape and brutal/submissive porn. 

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I am currently reading the study you linked but I can already tell that it is extremely biased because it classifies watching porn as inappropriate and dangerous. It also includes "racist or sexist content" into the stats which muddles the conclusion. It seems like the study was made with a predefined conclusion in mind.

It is not Biased, it is a meta analysis, it references the research that you can read for yourself. The bit I highlighted was from a 20 year meta study covering adolescences.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Even the part you cited is based on ideas such as having multiple sexual partners being bad, despite it being mostly based on old-fashion morals stemming from religions, rather than any kind of logic or science.

None of this is based on religious doctrine or old fashion ideals.  It is purely all derived from published research. 

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In order words, some of the studies which found "negative effects" of watching porn, actually found things like people who watch porn are more likely to have one-night stands rather than committing to a single partner. This is why I am very against any kind of research which uses generalized and non-specific terms to classify something as good or bad. 

You have a degree in this?  You seem to be doing an aweful lot of dismissing and most of it isn't even regarding the core issues surround minors and exposure to porn.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What I would like to see is a large scale, long term study which is unbiased and only interested in what potential effects, good or bad, that exposure to pornography has on different age groups.

I just linked you to a very large meta analysis that cites 20 year meta studies into the effects of porn. What more do you need, something that you can agree with perchance?

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I know that is a very big ask, but if we are going to pass laws which restricts individuals freedoms because we "want to protect the children" then there should be science backing it up, not just assumptions which might be completely wrong (or even the opposite of what is true).

 

Another problem with these studies is that they often do not take into consideration proper sex-ed, as well as what negative effects treating sexuality as such an extreme taboo might have. Would the same exposure to porn have the same effect on a child that grew up with proper sex-ed and in a household where sex was no well-kept secret that was never talked about, compared to let's say someone following Sharia law where sex before marriage is punishable with 100 lashes and exile?

It's very easy to mix up cause and effect if you are not taking these things into consideration. Are children exposed to porn being scared (assuming they are) because of the porn itself, or because of what they have been taught about it?

 

You do realise that you are insinuating that 20 years of peer reviewed research (that you haven't actually read mind you) has somehow overlooked too much to be maintain any relevance?

 

 

 

I understand people have issues with this. It is not an easy topic to understand.  I have been in a field that has required me to be aware of this for more than a decade now. I have read more articles on this than I care to remember.   The biggest problem here is that the science (the actual research) points to a reality that no one wants to be real. Sorry, but when all the best research of the day says no you have two choices, bury your head in the sand or get a phD prove it wrong with more research of your own.