this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
421 points (98.8% liked)
World News
32377 readers
480 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I was wondering their reasoning, here:
Basically, they don't disagree with mandatory verification, they just wish for it to do so in a way that doesn't violate the privacy of adults legitimately accessing the content.
Their suggestion for this is:
Essentially, do age verification on-device, and have the device send the okay to view signal to the site. This is something websites cannot implement on their own, until device/os developers implement such. I agree this is a good solution, but I think it'll be difficult to push tech companies to do this without further legislation.
I think it might be good to seek the EU to require tech companies to implement such a on-device feature, which will naturally roll out to all tech devices.
Edit: these quotes are from the porn company, not the court.
Such an on-device feature would either be trivial to break (if it's an ordinary API) or be impossible to implement in an open-source browser and OS (if it's some locked-down DRM-like thing), and the latter is not privacy-preserving because proprietary software tends to be spyware.
If these moralizers would just shut up, go away, and stop trying to ruin the Internet, that'd be great.
The whole internet censorship doesn't make any sense to begin with. We already have decades of free online porn and everyone is fine. Why would we try to limit porn usage online now? It's a cry for regulations from overprotective nannies. These blocks don't work anyways as it just needs one single kid with access to porn and they'll share it with the others. To believe we can control that is crazy.
No tool in the world will block new sites emerging not yet added to the filter or people from installing an uncensored browser.
I agree with your main points, but I don't think that just because something has been the status quo it doesn't deserve scrutiny. There are those out there who feel that this is an issue. For them, the best time to explore it is now. At this point it's futile, but I think it's important that we re-evaluate our laws and policies when there's a group asking for it. We just need to make sure the people making the decisions at the end of the day are competent...
This group has been demanding the censorship of porn, consequences be damned, for decades now. They have failed thus far, and the sky has not fallen as a result, so it's pretty clear that it's safe for society and the courts to continue to dismiss their irrational hysteria.
Personally I believe that there should be at least some attempt to protect kids from seeing adult content online. Ideally of course it'd be parental responsibility, but having some sort of system in place would be good. I think the tech around porn as it currently exists is deeply harmful, both for children and for women. I'm not against porn as a thing, but like.... come on, we can't just be spreading around videos without any sort of filters and removing it from the control of the people featured in the video.
There's not a good technical solution for these problems just yet it seems. I think the idea of age verification on-device, and then sending an 18+ or minor flag to apps/sites/etc. would be a good solution. We already click on a "I'm 18+" button, and this is functionally the equivalent but having age verification going on completely offline. Yes, people could bypass that with technical knowhow, but the point isn't to stop adults, it's to largely prevent kids from seeing this stuff.
It should be up to the parents. If they give a shit then they should deal with it. If they don't then whatever. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide and regulate it because they're going to do a poor job creating the rules, and probably some conservatives are going to have things blocked that aren't porn and are helpful to some kid's sexual education because they're regressive.
That sounds like the real motivation for this nonsense: not to protect kids from harm, but to protect their parents from the responsibility of properly educating them.
as people say for hate speech laws: "if you aren't wanting to show children anything sexual, then there shouldn't be a problem. what do you wish to show kids that you think may be considered sexual?"
naturally gov overreach is a concern even for speech but that doesn't stop people from trying to regulate speech.
I think ultimately though with the system in place mentioned, it wouldn't completely block access to educational materials as parents could easily show that stuff to their kids if they so choose.
You severely underestimate kids' technical know-how. If it can be broken, they will break it.