UK Online Safety Bill

[Ignorant]

You know within all the sources I posted, you missed the most important evidence, that being, what the young people experienced and how they say they were harmed.

The protection of children trumps everything else.

I didn't miss the survey, I ignored it because, well, it's a survey. Self-reporting is unreliable. People don't know what's good (or bad) for them, young people in particular, and especially when it comes to complex self-reflective psychological questions. They would answer more based on their biases than reality. For example, presumably a group of young people who grew up in a sex-negative environment (e.g. Christians) would answer that porn harms them, whereas people who grew up in a sex-positive environment wouldn't.
 

Whether you are convinced or not, parents and organizations have persuaded the government to start online protection of children. So the people have spoken and the government listened, and sprung into action.

Does that mean it's the correct course of action? Democratically elected governments are fallible, obviously. Just look at the US right now.
 

The protection of children trumps everything else.

It would be trivially easy to make the argument that the internet itself is harmful to children. Porn, it turns out, is the least of our problems when it comes to kids online. The harmful effects of social media, for one, are much more scientifically established and almost certainly much greater. Do you think we should implement age verification in order to get online at all?

[quintessentone]

I didn't miss the survey, I ignored it because, well, it's a survey. Self-reporting is unreliable. People don't know what's good (or bad) for them, young people in particular, and especially when it comes to complex self-reflective psychological questions. They would answer more based on their biases than reality. For example, presumably a group of young people who grew up in a very sex-negative environment (e.g. Christians) would answer that porn harms them a lot, whereas people who grew up in a very sex-positive environment wouldn't.
 

Does that mean it's the correct course of action? Democratically elected governments are fallible, obviously. Just look at the US right now.
 

It would be trivially easy to make the argument that the internet itself is harmful to children. Porn, it turns out, is the least of our problems when it comes to kids online. The harmful effects of social media, for one, are much more scientifically established and almost certainly much greater. Do you think we should implement age verification in order to get online at all?

I'm not a tech person so I don't know all the ins and outs of the matter. You are right, children are harmed in many ways, not just online. Perhaps there are several remedial measures that need to be taken, one being teaching children how to protect themselves 'out there'.

[Ignorant]

Well the thing is, whatever you are gaining in reduced harm to children, you are also giving something up (online privacy). The question is: Is the sacrifice worth it?

I think not. It's not that I particularly care about online privacy though I do care about it, it's more that I don't think this measure A) works, or B) is necessary.

There are other ways to reduce children's exposure to porn or to mitigate its harmful effects. For one, parental control tools make it fairly easy to block specific websites. The best thing to do though is to give children proper sex education where they are explicitly taught that what is shown in porn is not real. But of course, Christians don't want that. They don't want to ever talk about sex, and no one should talk about it to their children (this sex-negative attitude is actually likely to be much more harmful in children's sexual development than porn). Their position in this is nakedly ideological, not practical. It's not about protecting the children, it's about imposing their worldview on everyone else. Like it always is.

As for why the measure doesn't work: People who want to watch porn will find it. Period. If you want them to stop finding it, you have to get significantly more restrictive (for starters you would have to ban it for everyone, not just children) and even then you have your work cut out for you.

You might say it could realistically prevent children running into porn accidentally. But children don't run into porn accidentally on Pornhub. That happens mostly on social media websites and that comes back to my earlier point: If your kid is on social media, porn is the least of your problems. (If you're interested in that, I recommend the documentary "Social studies").

[Unknownparadox]

We are allowing this?
Online censorship and control by another name.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Tt9mWa-r6Bw?s...Bk3h5UZaMF

[Video: https://youtube.com/Tt9mWa-r6Bw?si=OM4TaMBk3h5UZaMF]


**Mod. Edit and Note -- Firstly, I embedded your video for you. Secondly, in future, minimalistic opening posts will be removed, no questions asked.**

Considering you can spend a decade in prison there for protesting, or be gagged in court so you can't defend yourself. This is no surprise.

It's the parents job to ensure the safety of their child. Evident by the fact, if your child gets hurt or hurts other, you will be answering a lot of questions, and will most likely find yourself in court if not in jail.

Children do not need full internet access in order to get a education, it's your job as a parent to see to it they don't have it. Just like it's your job as a parent to see to it, they don't have access to drugs and alcohol, or guns, or bomb making materials, or 55 gallon drums of poison. It's also your job as a parent to remember where you left your kid.

[quintessentone]

Well the thing is, whatever you are gaining in reduced harm to children, you are also giving something up (online privacy). The question is: Is the sacrifice worth it?

I think not. It's not that I particularly care about online privacy though I do care about it, it's more that I don't think this measure A) works, or B) is necessary.

There are other ways to reduce children's exposure to porn or to mitigate its harmful effects. For one, parental control tools make it fairly easy to block specific websites. The best thing to do though is to give children proper sex education where they are explicitly taught that what is shown in porn is not real. But of course, Christians don't want that. They don't want to ever talk about sex, and no one should talk about it to their children (this sex-negative attitude is actually likely to be much more harmful in children's sexual development than porn). Their position in this is nakedly ideological, not practical. It's not about protecting the children, it's about imposing their worldview on everyone else. Like it always is.

As for why the measure doesn't work: People who want to watch porn will find it. Period. If you want them to stop finding it, you have to get significantly more restrictive (for starters you would have to ban it for everyone, not just children) and even then you have your work cut out for you.

You might say it could realistically prevent children running into porn accidentally. But children don't run into porn accidentally on Pornhub. That happens mostly on social media websites and that comes back to my earlier point: If your kid is on social media, porn is the least of your problems. (If you're interested in that, I recommend the documentary "Social studies").

Yes, children do run into porn accidentally because those types of sites make it very easy to get on for traffic and money.

[glen200376]

That's just one source, just because their base evidence is not conclusive and think they need to turn to sexual violence to make their case does not mean that it is not harmful to children, or those that watch porn then perceive others' as sexual objects or worse.

There are many other sources which prove, without a doubt, the harm it causes to children.

"Sharpe listed a number of harmful effects of online pornography on children, including: depression, extreme social anxiety, inability to form relationships, body dysmorphia, lack of sleep, poor concentration, and brain fog."

BBC highlights the harm of porn on children - The Christian Institute

"Sex is broken now."

"The ‘benchmark’ CCo report, ‘Sex is kind of broken now’, is based on a survey of 1,020 sixteen to 21-year-olds conducted prior to 25 July — the deadline for some of the largest pornography sites to introduce age-verification checks to identify under-18s."

"Based on analysis carried out by digital data company Similarweb, the Financial Times recently reported that “Pornhub, the UK’s most-visited adult site, experienced a 47 per cent drop in traffic between July 24, the day before the rules came into force, and August 8”. Other pornography sites, it said, had also seen a dramatic fall in traffic over the same period."

Children’s tsar: ‘Porn age verification needed now more than ever’ - The Christian Institute

So it would appear 47% or more of Pornhub UK's drop in traffic were likely underage kids.

Ive-seen-horrible-things-Online-Safety-Report-October-2024.pdf

If everyone bothers to read the above link it is made clear it is the citizens asking for these protections.

It's ironic that you use the BBC as a source.They've got a right brass neck considering for years they have promoted and employed all sorts of sexual degenerates.They have told us these are good wholesome family entertainers.
Now they produce that article,excuse me while I mop up the piss that just escaped my urine.
No surprise that you take their rubbish in like soup.

[UltraBudgie]

It's ironic that you use the BBC as a source.They've got a right brass neck considering for years they have promoted and employed all sorts of sexual degenerates.They have told us these are good wholesome family entertainers.
Now they produce that article,excuse me while I mop up the piss that just escaped my urine.
No surprise that you take their rubbish in like soup.

Attacking the source is such a cheapass tactic. Especially when done inaccurately. It's a BBC Radio interview they're referencing, not the BBC's own research. For fuck's sake (haha!). Exactly 30 seconds of searching required to find the source material:

Interview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0027430
Interviewee's Website: https://rewardfoundation.org/

You're welcome.

[Kwaka]

I know the UK bill is coming to Australia soon. With Prince Charles now the head of state as Albo goes to China... Feels like Australia is getting the Joe Biden treatment.

I am not fully against Known Your Customer regulations, Would you let someone into your house that you do not know? Facebook in the UK already has the through police for wrong think  for a while. Not that bad here yet as long as one keeps it civil.

As for the kids, Youtube already works hard at it. Have to sign in if you want any M or R rated movies. Why was Nivida so quick to be one it? Has that surveillance vibe.

[Oldcarpy2]

"It's ironic that you use the BBC as a source.They've got a right brass neck considering for years they have promoted and employed all sorts of sexual degenerates.They have told us these are good wholesome family entertainers.
Now they produce that article,excuse me while I mop up the piss that just escaped my urine.
No surprise that you take their rubbish in like soup." 

You don't mellow with age, do you?

The sources are there.

[UltraBudgie]

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3909/s...s/10027478

As predicted, an amendment passed last week to protect children by ensuring that anonymizing VPN services must follow proper identity verification procedures.