Slightly sidestepping the issue of needing an ID for porn in the first place, though, I wanted to comment on the extreme shortsightedness of any sort of ID verification laws (most specifically, financial KYC laws) that require that each individual company verify and store your identity documents themselves. This is quite simply a data breach hackers dream. For example, when Stripe released their Identity product, which captures ID images and selfies, people were at first surprised that the businesses needing ID verification had full access to the ID images (after all, this is contrary to their credit card processing services where businesses never can get access to full credit card numbers, which is great as it keeps those businesses out of the most arduous requirements of PCI rules). But Stripe explained they had to give every end-business access to all the full image data for regulatory compliance reasons.
It would make much more sense to rewrite the regulations so that 99% of companies would never need to store identity verification info themselves, but could just delegate that to an approved provider who has much more stringent security checks (or better yet, allow people to cryptographically sign info to prove their identity without giving up their whole passport image, but that's a ways off). I'm not saying this would solve all issues (big companies get hacked, after all), but I hope by now we've put to bed the idea that companies, generally, can secure their data against determined hackers.
This can be solved in a zero-knowledge way, and the government should commit to open source here. You don’t want the government seeing the sites you visit; the government should just issue a token associating the attestation (age, work status, whatever) with your private key. I think the details end up being non-trivial but it should be doable.
I've made a testnet version that uses a basic ZK circuit to provide anonymity. [1]
There's so many holes to my approach though with overlapping renewals, dual citizenship, etc. If governments simply provided this service it would be great.
Passport NFC chips get close. [2] They contain the passport data signed and there's a project to extract those details into a ZKSNARK proof which is awesome but this doesn't prove that the person holding the passport is the person verifying like Stripe Identity does with the photo check. And it requires the nfc reader hardware, but that's not too bad for a requirement.
Maybe something like risczero could prove that a phone photo matches the passport photo using ZK but it seems like a big project.
[0] https://coinpassport.net/docs.html
This is what France's government is working on if i understand correctly what i'm hearing (i'm working for the private sector right now, so i'm not as well informed as i should be on those kind of things). Not really a fan, but i note when they're doing good shit, and on that they're on point.
I don't mind a zero-knowledge age verification, i will strongly oppose anything else (with both money and time).
I am curious how this would work - for example I want to check someone's ID, how could I take a pic with a phone and run it to prove it's real - but the gov have no idea that I ran the ID check?
Wouldn't their system know that I, my ip, browser fingerprint, checked ID X at y:yy time and likely the location?
I have a great app idea that would be useful if there really is a way to check these things zero knowledge.
Do not lock up adults on the Internet. Rather, keep the kids in the nanny's care in their own device context rather than on the wider network.
People who don't know history repeat its mistakes.
That's... well, not the point of the laws, but inseparable from them; the point is to build a database (distributed, when the information isn't also reported to the government at time of collection) which the government can access at need;
The government can try accessing porn sites themselves to see if the sites are in compliance. The same way we do, well, everything.
That it isn’t designed this way shows the incompetence of the regulators and their disregard for public safety and free society.
And hopefully it doesn’t need to be pointed out but none of this actually protects children. This is abuse of power for the purpose of puritanical guilt tripping.
The interesting part might be tracking the real people across websites, at least such websites that require this level of identification.
Keys and IDs in Wallet get expanded support. Users can use their ID in Wallet for apps requiring identity and age verification. To ensure a private and secure experience, only the necessary information required for the transaction will be provided to the app, and the user can review and consent to share it using Face ID or Touch ID.
In the more extreme sense, the complexity and security hurdles really make this something only the largest multi-billion dollar corporations could do. European countries really seem to do a good job of re-enforcing existing American monopolies while hamstringing their own economy and the freedom of the internet as a whole. I don't know if this is intentional (regulatory capture) or just based on a very superstitious understanding of computer science and mathematics (see the recent encryption debacles.)
Apple has gotten a free pass for security & privacy, so far, by mostly producing secure(ish) devices, at least relative to the competition and give the never solved problem of keeping an always-on always-connected device that can receive messages from anyone in the world secure. However, as Apple's only remaining growth area is advertising their privacy reputation is going to diminish. Apple's leadership over the next decade or two will determine just how quickly that erodes. Definitely not a company I would want to be reliant on ID verification.
The problem here is you're missing the point of the people making these laws. This is a feature, not a bug to these people. They want to punish you for stepping outside of your cis normative + 2.5 kids relationship that good 'religion of their choice' people do.
But I don't think you needed to go down the religious-norms path to get there. It's not really fair. I think you could easily substitute items from the other side and end up in the same place.
The point is that the government wants all this information for the same reason they want to spy on our chat communications and all the rest - they want to control us with it.
I would have loved if Stripe signed the results so that it could be more decentralized and anybody could verify with their own stripe account and have it be comparable to others.
I'm sure this data would never fall into the wrong hands or be misused :-)
Ireland has a long history of data scandals. One that springs to mind is illegally keeping phone records for years (knowingly in violation of EU law) then illegally accessing them (in violation of Irish law) and then using them in multiple murder convictions, including the very sketchy conviction of Graham Dwyer [0].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/apr/05/mobile-phone-dat...
In the US, as I understand it, if the cops violate the rules about gathering evidence then the conviction can be quashed. It's not so automatic over here. So his appeal has been rejected, and no one is upset about that apart from him.
As another example, in 2016 or 2017 the Irish police (Garda Síochána) installed a tracking device on a suspect's vehicle. Data collected from this was used in evidence some years later[0]. The suspect's vehicle had left the jurisdiction (crossed the non-border into Northern Ireland) while being tracked, and the Gardaí used this data which they are not allowed to do. So what was done? Well, the judge ruled that the Gardaí hadn't intended that, so it's ok, the data - including data collected outside the jurisdiction - is admissable. "Lol, lmao" added the judge. I know, I know, I can hear an alarm in your head going off as you read this, so I'll throw you another detail you'll love: this was heard in a non-jury court, yeah, that's right a court of three judges, none of this twelve of your peers nonsense.
It's all sounds a little less precise than you might like, a little more like muddling through than the 'majesty of the law' vibe. And it kinda is. Mostly works though.
[0] https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/tracker-device-planted-o...
The US has done things like this for generations, the 'red scare' is a perfect example of the state creating lists of people's political and personal preferences and using them against them. Knowing the list exists and you could get on it my standing too close to those thoughts not approved was used as a force to keep people only thinking 'good thoughts'.
Examples include knowingly illegal phone record collection and use in dubious murder cases [0], using medical and school records to pressure parents of disabled children to settle court cases against the state when most vulnerable (and lying about it until caught) and secretly recording all calls to police stations including non-emergency numbers likely to catch whistleblowers [2].
That doesn't include all the private sector scandals, like data breaches that went uninvestigated and unpunished.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/apr/05/mobile-phone-dat...
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dossiers-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_phone_recordings_scandal
At the same time, offering Youtube Shorts in the same service under the same domain is like "cabinet next to their bed with cigarettes, snickers bars, and painkiller pills" as a sibling comment aptly put it.
- https://letsblock.it/ and Ublock Origin
- The Unhook plugin for Firefox
- Blocking channels on my YouTube account when I see something inappropriate
- Adguard Home also blocks certain channels
to try to moderate the YouTube content for my kids. It's not perfect, but it does get rid of a lot of garbage (like YouTube Shorts).
It blows my mind that they’re willing to pollute their brand and value for such a clearly awful, addictive feature. So short sighted. If anyone here is still a Google employee, I implore you: leave. Your talents could be used so much better when directed by people who are a little less greedy
Here's a Survey of WorldWide Censorship, specifically the chapter on internet[0] to get you up-to-date. There's also the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) [1] which deals more with infrastructure blocks.
There's also the more subtle kind, called "fact-checking" which on the surface does a very good job shielding us from the conspiracy theorists[2]. Don't misunderstand, on the surface this is a noble task, but it is still a filter of information that you did not employ yourself, and one that you have no means of controlling or influencing. You will only see what they left out: If you are not accepted by these gate-keepers you are silently excluded by most big media outlets. Here are eg. the organizations that Facebook trust to fact-check[3]
There's a really large machinery operating worldwide these days. Or, specifically, a whole lot of different machines. I'm not saying this to spead FUD, just FYI.
[0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-...
[1] https://explorer.ooni.org/findings
[2] The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (just one example): https://efcsn.com/
[3] https://www.facebook.com/formedia/mjp/programs/third-party-f...
I'm not sure that this is true. It doesn't sound true.
Most of the time, unless you yourself don't eat snickers bars non-stop while chain-smoking, your children won't, too. Children do what their parents do, not what their parents tell them to do.
Then there's the enforcement model to consider. Maybe it's just an option consumers have available for purchase at their own discretion. Or maybe vendors would be banned from knowingly selling non-kid-friendly devices to minors, and/or parents would be banned from allowing their kids to own non-kid-friendly devices.
If this is the direction society wants to go in, it shouldn't impose on anyone other than parents and children. Current legislation and proposals narrowly target one specific use case (porn), and do so in a kludgy way that's effectively just banning its use without a VPN. Instead, this approach would provide a general framework for filtering kids' interaction with technology.
For example, some states might use it to ban social media and AI chatbots for children, at least in their current forms. I could imagine an alternative AI chatbot service being allowed which shared the history with parents and teachers, so as to deter cheating, and to provide an opportunity for human adults to add context or corrections to any misinformation. I could also imagine allowing more limited social networks that segregated schools or classes into their own private bubbles, wiped content at the end of each school year, blocked posting images/videos without parental approval, used uncomplicated news feed algorithms, and gave teachers and staff reddit-style moderation power.
Personally, I'm not sure how much I like this, vs simply leaving the parenting to parents. Maybe it would be less bad than alternatives, but it's also dangerously close to a ban on general-purpose computing[1]. We'd have to remain vigilant to ensure that governments didn't use it as a foothold to start cracking down on adults' use of computers and the Internet in the future.
This leaves them totally exposed if school gives them a chromebook or anytime they're in range of another open network.
Besides, the effects of this content are society wide. You can be the one parent who keeps your kids away from dangerous content, but if all their friends don't, they will be influenced by them.
> Parents can easily control which parts of the internet their kids have access to,
Oh, that said, the specific technical way they want to implement this is awful. Making or even allowing individual porn sites to administer the ID system is horrible. Have they never heard of Oauth? There should be a "adultidcheck.gov" type central government service that handles this.
Friendly reminder that prior to the popularization of the internet 20-30 years ago, there was absolutely no equivalent situation where you could have the kind of anonymity the internet provides. It is not any kind of natural right. If you wanted to send or receive information it had to be done in some physical way, so your identity could not really be hidden. Privacy, yes, anonymity, no.
What? You could buy books/magazines with cash. There were literally laws preventing porn rental shops from keeping records on their customers. No one had any idea what you watched on your television or listened to on the radio. There were (are) ham radios. You could record your own tapes, print your own magazines/pamphlets/books, put up your own flyers/posters. There are analytics on every single one of the modern equivalents of these things now, in fact I think you probably have to admit the point of the web has become to add analytics to stuff for advertising.
The era we're living in now is the least private, least anonymous era ever, it just doesn't feel that way because there's a huge inequality in who we're exposed to. In other words, some people argue that in village or tenement life there wasn't a lot of privacy, but that was maybe 40 people knowing when you had sex. Anyone with your smartwatch data has that info now, which a lot more than 40 people; they just don't live anywhere near you (well, probably not anyway).
As a mid-thirties millennial, I saw the transition. Kids shared paper pornography in the 90s, and had access to the most extreme and anonymous version of the early internet. I don't think either inflicted the kind of widespread harm mass surveillance proponents would suggest.
> Friendly reminder that prior to the popularization of the internet 20-30 years ago, there was absolutely no equivalent situation where you could have the kind of anonymity the internet provides.
It also wasn't possible for every action and thought a person had to be monitored by governments and corporations. We've gone way too far in our assault on privacy and desperately need to claw rights back.
Parents can easily control which parts of the internet their kids have access to
Re:”naked people”, I think that’s doing disservice to the proponents of these controls (who I vehemently disagree with, ofc); the modern porn landscape has problems with non-consensual videos (see: Pornhub & GDP), extreme content (violence, CNC), and really harmful stereotypes about gender roles. It’s much more than just “healthy human sexuality” as many people on here seem to assume.
I think the only workable solution is a) better parental controls by default on the client level, and b) better educated and supported children. Children are smart, they know sex exists, and they know it’s something they don’t care at all about - they can be our allies in this fight.
If this move is to prevent teenagers with a motive from accessing porn, then: HA
I suppose children should have access to a better quality of porn. The stuff we have now is probably harmful to watchers of all ages in varying degrees. That said, I don't think society will ever be liberal enough to have a kids section on porn sites.
> better parental controls by default on the client level
Having parental controls on by default would be a reasonable solution to this issue.
> they know it’s something they don’t care at all about
Is this a typo? Children go on porn sites because they want to watch porn. That's why I did it. If children didn't want to watch porn, they wouldn't. I don't think the sex itself is something they need protecting from. Just the addictive qualities that are present in both porn sites and the wider internet.
> better educated and supported children
Better educated and supported parents would also help.
Children used to go out, do things, come home. Now children have zero privacy. Into the teen years, they can't get into trouble, learn, socialize, etc. They just sit at home because their parents are constantly watching their GPS location and reading their texts.
Is porn worse than the damage done by the mistrust?
It’s actually pretty hard to do lockdowns because there’s been so much consolidation. Many parents can turn on the built in controls, but then they face problems like “do you block YouTube entirely, even though their homework will include links to things like videos from NIH hosted there?”
The big problem isn’t that kids could innocently find sexual content but also that grownups will try to trick them into engaging with things for a variety of reasons. This is different from letting your kid have free rein of the public library because the library didn’t have some guy recruiting for a political movement putting books in the children’s section and the librarians wouldn’t let that creepy dude hang out there.
This came up at a school party recently where multiple parents of first graders were talking about how quickly YouTube will go from auto playing LEGO and Minecraft videos to some pretty unhinged stuff.
This seems much easier to police, gives 80% of what the legislators are trying to achieve, and doesn't require entrusting KYC to a bunch of dodgy websites.
Sure, it won't block VPNs and there would be problems at the start while things migrate, but if realistically your goal is to keep kids off adult websites then it's at least more reasonable than this proposal to entrust the parents/guardians with some amount of responsibility to make sure the safeguards can't be circumvented on their kids' devices.
Current mainstream porn sites curate off the most hardcore stuff quite well. The dark web versions that will pop up due to draconian KYC will definitely not have such curation.
In it's extreme form, a sufficiently motivated teenager built a homemade neutron source[1] therefore we shouldn't control nuclear material. I just don't think this argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is valid. Is there a better way of reformulating it?
1. Silverstein, K. (2005). Radioactive boy scout: The frightening true story of a whiz kid and his homemade nuclear reactor. Turtleback Books.
Having second hand access and having direct access to a market are entirely different things. The fact that the secondary access might in some cases exist is not an excuse to punt on the actual primary problem.
> The dark web versions that will pop up due to draconian KYC will definitely not have such curation.
If we measured legislation by it's ability to perfectly secure a market, we would have no legislation at all. Fortunately, we can measure the positive impacts of things and compare them, and I suspect, that there are actually significant positive benefits to creating some form of limiting legislation here.
It's also the case that draconian KYC implementations aren't the only way to solve this problem, in this case, I believe it's lazy or ideologically possessed politicians who want to use this as an excuse to implement these laws for other purposes.
We don’t need stupid headlines to make this idea sound dumber, and kinda distracts from the real issue of biometric verification for websites being a stupid idea.
The linked article from Irish Examiner has a more accurate title:
> Porn sites may require passport details in order to stop children from using them
Even if the big sites farm this out to third parties, unscrupulous imitators could harvest personal info on an enormous scale for sale on the dark web.
Like, I'm an Irish citizen (a former coworker recently took a job with the body responsible for this policy), and I have no idea what the intent is here (apart from the general think of the children stuff).
Submitting one's identity documents to access such websites is of course very easily avoided, by simply choosing not to consume pornographic materials online.
Anyone who breaches that website's database (whether an inside job or not) is now going to learn not only what videos RandomUser782 has watched but also who they are, where they are, their birthdate, and what they look like; and if they chose to prove their identity via driving licence, also, their home address.
If this doesn't strike you as completely fucking nuts, I don't know what to say.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...
* https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
Throw some <meta> tags in and browsers can parse: then have a password-protected "filter controls" area in settings (and perhaps a GPO for corporate environments).
I would think that the porn companies throwing some money at web browser developer resources to implement this wouldn't be a bad idea. Every time this idea comes up (again) they can point to it and say "we did our part, now it's up to the parents" (or whatever).
This is the national internet regulator proposing that it would require that everyone, adult and children alike, would upload their state ID and live selfies, to porn sites to have biometric processing of their facial images performed. Resulting, amongst other things, in an effective register of porn preferences for adults and a collection of selfies of children kept by the porn sites for six years[0]
Anyone see something slightly worrying here? Anyone? Just asking rhetorically.
[0] TFA
[1] Not only porn sites, but any site which allows you to post a video (TFA)
One concern is that there are tech-illiterate people who fall victim of such an ID system and don't use a VPN to bypass it. I don't have numbers/stats, but I imagine a good chunk won't be using VPNs.
There is also another concern I have; that this verification database could be breached and people's 'preferences' are exposed. The only way to avoid such a breach is to not collect such data in the first place.
You can tell me that it will be difficult to enforce such a ban - but then it turns us all into criminals - all the better to control us.
"We don't normally enforce this law, but in your case we'll make an exception."
This is within the EU, so obviously what would be asked is an EU id.
There isn't one. Ireland also doesn't have a national ID program, so effectively for most people their passport or driver's license are the only forms of government ID they _might_ have. But even then it's not mandatory to have either.
A friend was talking about how their US friend got given a sex offence label due to downloading a zip of porn that unknown to them contained some CSAM. Lost their job and worse.
You didn't know is no defence in some jurisdictions. You personally can't check images or image collections for legality, so the risk is real.
Time for a rewrite.
A few years ago a hospital even let a woman with a miscarriage die because they didn't want to intervene.
They were legally unable to intervene, without risking prosecution. Yes, it was entirely insane. And that case was a major reason that the constitution was changed to prevent this ever happening again.
This is 100% nothing to do with Catholicism, just standard moral hand wringing around what might happen to kids.
They should have done so anyway, obviously. There's no chance they would have been prosecuted for it. Not with all the uproar. I walked in the candlelight demonstrations too.
> And that case was a major reason that the constitution was changed to prevent this ever happening again.
Only after a referendum which the church opposed, and it's still one of the most restrictive countries in terms of abortion.
Nowadays if you speak to any child psychologist about it it's obvious that kids get exposed to it really early(in the UK it's estimated that nearly all kids below age of 10 will have seen some kind of sexual material already) and they do it regularly.
It really isn't comparable to what we(pre-internet people) had and what's happening to kids right now.
I also want to make it completely clear I'm 10000% against this insane idea proposed here. Just pointing out that it isn't even remotely the same as us watching a random VHS tape.
I am just doubtful that you can obtain any significant limiting by gatekeeping mainstream porn sites, kids will show each other porn in Signal rather than telling each other "visit www.lots-of-porn.xxx", but it won't change much.
I'm afraid it's one of those cases where we can't put the djinn back in the lamp.
1. Minors will attempt to access porn sites
2. They will be faced with the picture validation
3. Some of them will try it
4. They will theoretically fail the validation, but the porn site will still be required to keep the data from the attempt.
But don’t worry, porn sites must also run a biometric analysis on the images sent to check if the user is 18+!
I guess the opt out would be to not use those platforms, but that seems unlikely.
It's interesting how quickly the EU went from a Trade Union to a Government consisting of states.
However, I don’t get going after porn before going after casinos. Casinos ruin lives and wreck economies far worse than porn could ever hope to. Going after porn before casinos feels like going after kitchen knives before AR-15s.
It's none of their business though. Porn doesn't harm people. And they're not getting rid of it anyway. Just like nobody's getting rid of torrents.
> Porn doesn't harm people.
How long until you have to scan your ID before connecting?
Sigh.
This (unfortunately) has nothing to do with the far right, it's a government of centre right parties who don't (yet) understand what a terrible idea this is.
I hope this journalist never has to do any actual critical thinking. It goes without saying that obviously children wouldn't upload selfies if they're under 18 and that's the purpose of KYC.
...
> Also, these restrictions won't just limit and record access to porn sites. They can be applied to any sites which contains material the Commission decides may be legal, but on the other hand, oughtn't be seen by children. In other countries, this has been the kind of legal provision which has seen libraries restricting access to books involving LGBTQ+ themes, racial justice themes and anything else you could imagine the Burke family objecting to.
Protecting children is the emotional wedge for introducing age verification requirements. Video sites are the wedge into all internet sites. The legislators' emphasis on porn is a wedge into any speech (including otherwise legal speech) the government claims is harmful for children. That government-mandated age verification would protect children is an assumption, full of uncertainty of the beneficial first-order effects and full of ignorance (willful blindness?) of the obvious detrimental second-order effects. Mandatory age verification requires mandatory data collection, and strangers are going to read that data: some first-party websites will be forced to collect more information than they currently do; third-party websites involved in the collection and verification processes will collect data as well; and the government will get information about the citizens' internet habits from websites. Adults will lose their privacy because people who have no business knowing their internet habits will know them.
Children will lose their privacy, and more. They will grow up learning that it's normal to give their personal information (including but not limited to relatively immutable biological details such as faceprints) to strangers. They will grow up learning that it's normal for the government to know every website a person visits online. The offline analogue is for the government to know every building a person visits offline. No matter how noble the current government's current intentions may be, a stranger has by default no right to know that much about a person's life.
Movie theatres can show childrens' films and adult films. The movie theatre doesn't have to store anything about age other than "minor" and "adult". Libraries and bookstores can contain childrens' books and adult books. Malls contain stores for many audiences. Clothing stores have sections for children's clothes, modest adult clothes, and risque adult clothes. You know what the normal way for a child to visit many such buildings is? A caretaker (maybe a parent, but not every child has a parent) brings the child and supervises. On the other side of the equation, it would not be normal for a mall to collect people's ages at the mall entrance (the adult-only stores inside being a different story).
A website should have the option to verify age, and the alternative option to require no more than a self-reported "are you at least 18? yes no". Government-mandated age verification is burdensome to small websites, especially small platforms for user-generated content. If a website could choose to remove potentially harmful content instead of verifying age, then the burden would still be too large for small websites. Might as well not host user-generated content at all. Large internet companies like Google and Facebook would eat the costs either way. Small websites would have to rely on third-party age verification services. Software for age verification will be predominantly proprietary or not available to the general netizen or both, so the average person won't be able to know how much information the websites collect and store. What's more, lawyers and judges in privacy-related or accuracy-related court cases (especially regarding biometric verification) will have a hard time examining the software.
Making every website collect information the way a bank does is applying a hammer to problems that are not nails. Don't make the entire internet a bank. And as Mike Masnick wrote, "The Internet Is Not Disneyland; People Should Stop Demanding It Become Disneyland" [1]. "Are you at least 18? yes no" paired with proper parenting/caretaking can go a long way. Proper caretaking is not simply knowing what the child does on the internet. It's knowing that the child might visit the internet while the caretaker is occupied. It's teaching the child early on that not all websites are for children. It's setting up parental controls while understanding that parental controls are imperfect, like one slice of Swiss cheese [2]. You are a Swiss cheese layer. By teaching your child what to do if they stumble upon the wrong websites, you will be turning your child from a hula hoop into their own Swiss cheese layer. When you find out that your child stumbled upon porn, you can talk to your child about the incident. As a caretaker, damage control is a necessary part of determining healthy boundaries. Additionally, I don't expect the damage to a younger child from accidentally viewing porn to be as proportionately severe as the damage to an under-21 college freshman from drinking alcohol at a party. You can't talk brain damage from drugs out of someone. But I'm assuming that you can talk the harm from an accidental porn incident out of your child.
I like the idea posed by mjevans [3] to make websites respond to a self-reported "kid mode" - as a header in a web request, I presume - by redirecting to a child-friendly site. Websites could also respond by serving only content manually confirmed to be child-safe according to the website's interpretation of the law's definition of child-safe. As part of supporting the "kid mode" header, the website would have to respond with a "kid mode" confirmed. Parental controls on the device would include the "kid mode" header in all web requests whenever kid mode is on. If the website doesn't return the "kid mode confirmed" header then the parental controls can cancel the website visit. Adults would simply leave kid mode off for themselves. The burden on websites (learning how to send a 301 redirect status code at the simplest) would very low, and would avoid the data collection and other privacy problems of age verification.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/09/20/the-internet-is-not-disn...
Will they make search engines provide relevant porn results for me then? I have to wade through thousands of irrelevant and disgusting stuff that doesn't fit my porn needs.
They (the Irish state - ministers, elected officials) shall do it forst and publish it. Then we will follow suit. /s
Why not just make everyone live stream their wank? /s
I don't know what a reasonable solution is. We forbid selling alcohol & cigarettes to people under a certain age because we deem it unhealthy for children's development, but we don't have the tools to do that for internet porn on a societal scale. Is digital ID the right solution here? Is there a better way to do this? The HN mentality is to tear down digital walls, and is it even possible without seriously harming the open web or personal privacy & security?
Without porn you would have been addicted to lingerie catalogues and failing that of course real p*y in the form of endlessly chasing girls and or prostitutes bringing financial ruin upon yourself.
Porn is just how sex drive manifests itself for men (we are visual creatures) in a frictionless world where there are 5bn cameras in our pockets.
There is no shame in going down because of sex drive, it has been engrained in our brains during the past 100 million years