Lembot_0004@discuss.online
on 24 Aug 10:37
nextcollapse
Stop ministers making laws to… why the fuck they even do this bullshit? They are a government, they know everything about everyone even without such primitive control methods.
The people pulling the strings have obviously decided that internet freedom is a threat to them and they’re taking (global) action to ensure their supremacy.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world
on 24 Aug 10:51
nextcollapse
Yeah, it’s just all these children with their bank accounts paying for their VPN subscriptions doing it all… Do they think we’re that stupid? Don’t answer that. 😔
thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works
on 24 Aug 14:45
collapse
If only there was some way the government could have predicted this would happen and maybe not rushed a poorly thought out law in the first place!
maybe then they would not have:
forced big tech companies to withdraw service to the uk
forced uk-based small forums and message boards to close
given free vpn providers tons more data to sell
reduced the overall cyber resilience of the country by forcing people to choose between giving photos of their passports to some weird online service or signing up for a free vpn which sells their data, may inject their own unregulated adverts etc
reduced uk based advertising effectiveness and thus investment and marketing spend
pissed everyone off while doing it, scoring yet another win for the far right
Well, hold your beer because Brazil is just passing a similar law at this moment. Expect other countries to follow.
ICastFist@programming.dev
on 25 Aug 17:58
collapse
It’s happening due to a big child sexualization/adultization scandal that took forever to blow up^[While instagram itself has some “moderation”, they’ll happily turn a blind eye to anything that could hurt engagement. 10yo girls doing extremely sexual dances with pornographic music in the background? Boost that shit, look at the engagement!!! Tiktok is equally at fault for the same reason. This shit has been going for years and predates Hytalo and Felca.]. When the deputies came up with a law that was ready and just sitting in a drawer, my mind immediately went “Oh, fuck”. I still gotta read it, because it was approved recently.
MyDogLovesMe@lemmy.world
on 24 Aug 10:51
nextcollapse
Ya! Let them watch all that violence on Netflix instead!
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
on 24 Aug 13:53
nextcollapse
Seriously though. We’ll legislate anything to keep them from seeing stuff they might reasonably expect to see and do one day and glorify things nobody should ever see or experience in person.
Quazatron@lemmy.world
on 24 Aug 16:10
nextcollapse
I’ve always been fascinated by the lengths puritans will go to prevent kids from seeing mammary glands, while simultaneously being ok with them watching blood and violence.
I’ve thought about this at length, and the conclusion I came to is that violence about self-sufficiency, while sex is about cooperation. With violence, you take matters into your own hands and you’re in control regardless of what others feel. With sex, it’s the exact opposite. You’re at their mercy and they have power over you.
It makes sense in our hostile culture to teach kids about self-sufficiency and taking power for themselves. If they give that power up to others, then it opens them up to manipulation and exploitation.
I’m not making a judgement call on what’s right or wrong, only what is.
Everyone’s scared of Reform getting in and yet Reform are the only ones promising to reverse all this. All this is done based off the back of a 2016 survey where parents said they were worried about kids watching porn on the internet, but the survey gave no indication of what a solution would look like and gave no mention to online age verification and banning VPNs.
muntedcrocodile@hilariouschaos.com
on 24 Aug 11:49
nextcollapse
If I had a nickle for ever time the UK did something pants-on-head stupid or short-sighted from a minor survey or public poll, [counts change jar]… How much are big macs these days?
Yeah, never forget how the people in power routinely gave Epstein a pass because they were participating in raping kids.
All this “for the children” is performative bullshit to take more power away from the average person.
HyperfocusSurfer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 26 Aug 09:18
collapse
Pidof files aside, them implying they need to watch children watching porn is not much better.
FUCKING_CUNO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Aug 11:15
nextcollapse
Dame Rachel told BBC Newsnight: “Of course, we need age verification on VPNs - it’s absolutely a loophole that needs closing and that’s one of my major recommendations.”
If this fucker had any idea what VPN even stood for they’d realize how fuckin stupid this statement is…
Let’s say they do. So people start using non UK VPNs. So you need age verification for any Internet access? For any computer or phone that could connect to the Internet?
They want to know where everyone is and what every person is doing at every possible moment of every day, be that in public or on the Internet. They are paranoid and know that their entire system is in danger of collapse with the common man gaining control over the rich and powerful.
Thus they resort to extreme control of the commoners to ensure that won't happen.
Child protection and anti-pornography stances are perfect excuses because they're very difficult to argue against.
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
on 24 Aug 14:03
collapse
Every time some new measure is released “for protection”, the next day it’s being used to sniff out dissidents. That usually means journalists, activists (political, labor, environment, …) and sympathisants to give them a bit of pressure to straight up arrest them on some pretense.
and here we have the heart of the issue, and their end goal. identification required for Internet access. total control.
AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works
on 24 Aug 14:05
collapse
100% and as always they boil it down to “well even if all that other stuff is true, it’s for the safety of children.”
Yet we have fucking confirmation that exposing networks of wealthy and powerful pedophiles is not on the agenda. Those people are untouchable. Those people are also the ones that we are handing complete control over to.
So who tf are we really protecting children from by doing this?
AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works
on 24 Aug 14:00
nextcollapse
Don’t parental controls exist for a reason? Can’t you just block VPN use on individual devices like an additional parental control rather than making everyone that uses a VPN prove they’re not a child?
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Aug 17:33
collapse
So you need age verification for any Internet access? For any computer or phone that could connect to the Internet?
I mean, experts have said for a while that if you’re going to require age verification, doing it directly on the device would be the most secure way. Allow parents to verify their phones, while creating child accounts for their kids.
When the site needs to verify their age, it simply asks the device directly if the user account is age-verified. It all happens in the background, so the adults never even need to bother with it once it’s set up.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
on 24 Aug 21:42
collapse
That makes sense. And seems like it would have much easier implementation as well.
Greyghoster@aussie.zone
on 24 Aug 11:35
nextcollapse
It’s a bit like “my kids will only eat chocolate” and the therapist’s response “where are they getting the chocolate from?”. If the kids are using VPNs then where are they getting the money for the VPN from? Is this parental consent?
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Aug 16:59
collapse
Which is an anticipated problem too. Because those free VPNs are harvesting all of your traffic to sell; If you’re not the customer, you’re the product being sold. Almost as if opponents of the ban said this would happen, and would only work to push kids towards sketchy sites…
Crazy how I got censored for posting that. Looks like there’s some kind of concerted effort to suppress information of reliable free VPNs.
Everyone check the modlogs to see what these people are trying to keep from you.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 20:36
collapse
well that was interesting. what is your justification @technopagan@lemmy.world because that is obviously not “spam”. I’m almost sure you’ll just delete my comment too instead of an explanation.
You ban something, and people will always find a way around it. Always.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 24 Aug 14:25
nextcollapse
Yup, and that’s how the US got the Mafia. We banned alcohol, but people wanted to drink, so the Mafia made that happen.
All a ban does is hurt law abiding citizens and businesses.
Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip
on 24 Aug 23:05
nextcollapse
This is a fairly revisionist history version of the mafia, they were here for decades before prohibition. One might say that they profited greatly from prohibition, but to suggest they began with it is incredibly incorrect. I hate to be the actually guy but I find organized crime fascinating and I can’t let this one go
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 01:40
collapse
Eh, not revisionist, just overly simplified. Prohibition massively increased their power and relevance.
ICastFist@programming.dev
on 25 Aug 17:45
collapse
Not all bans are bad or hurt law abiding citizens. Slavery and gambling come to mind, both still exist illegally (or, in the case of gambling, semi-legally, what with the deluge of sports betting and online casinos HQd in shitty countries), but I would say them being illegal is a net positive for society.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 18:14
collapse
Eh, I disagree. Slavery being banned is obviously a good thing, but that’s because it’s immoral to own someone else, so it’s essentially just kidnapping. Gambling, on the other hand, shouldn’t be banned for the simple reason that consenting adults should be able to do it if they choose.
negative rights - restricts others from preventing individuals from doing things to you (e.g. freedom from slavery, freedom to gamble, etc)
positive rights - forces others to provide goods or services to you (e.g. free healthcare, right to counsel, etc)
I believe nobody should gamble because it’s a poor financial decision and very addictive (and I choose to avoid gambling), but I also believe you should be allowed to gamble, and the government should ensure that companies that provide gambling services do so fairly (i.e. advertisements about win-rates and whatnot are accurate).
So yes, if gambling wasn’t allowed, people w/ addictions would be better off, but those who aren’t at risk of gambling addiction would be harmed due to restrictions on their freedom. So the question is, do we want government to protect us from ourselves, or merely provide a safety net for when we screw up? I’m absolutely in the latter camp, and I think we should use taxes to fund recovery programs for addictive behaviors in lieu of banning them. In general, I think a tax is way more rights-respecting than a ban.
ICastFist@programming.dev
on 25 Aug 18:59
collapse
Gambling between two people or very small groups is mostly ok and something humans have done since cave times.
Now, because real life has profit seeking corporations in control of gambling that know and abuse all psychological tricks available to maximize profits, I don’t think allowing them to exist is good for anyone except the owners. Casinos are also perfect for money laundering, so that’s another reason to not allow them to function, although with the internet they can just pick and choose a country to exist in.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Aug 15:18
collapse
I agree that gambling is bad and nobody should do it, but that’s different from the government preventing you from doing it.
Something being “bad” doesn’t mean it should be banned, it means it needs closer scrutiny to make sure both sides of the transaction are fully informed of the risks and can meaningfully consent.
money laundering
I don’t like this reasoning because the underlying assumption is that violating people’s privacy is okay if it helps catch criminals.
That said, there are typically rules that limit this. In most areas, casinos have to ID you and report any transaction over a certain amount (usually $10k or so per day, many casinos have a lower threshold) to tax authorities specifically to combat money laundering, just like banks do. That seems to limit money laundering for larger players, but obviously doesn’t do much for smaller players. To do better, we either need much lower limits, or much higher surveillance, and both would violate innocent people’s privacy.
Instead of that, we should take a hard look at policy and policing. For example, a lot of money laundering is by drug dealers, and they exist due to drug bans. Maybe we should consider legalizing and regulating more drugs, which would give people safer options, reduce incarceration rates, and reduce laundering from illegal drugs since more people would go for the safer options. On the policing side, we can improve training, reallocate people from ticketing to investigative work, and build community trust to improve quality of reports.
At the end of the day, I think personal liberty and privacy is more important than preventing harm or catching criminals. I also think we can do both, but we need to start from the perspective of maximising liberty and privacy.
ICastFist@programming.dev
on 29 Aug 14:15
collapse
When you think about it, most of the work of catching criminals (or gathering evidence) involves invasion of privacy, I guess it becomes a question of how much we’re willing to part with
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 29 Aug 14:48
collapse
I disagree. The only time the police should invade your privacy is with a valid warrant, and only to the extent of the warrant.
The police shouldn’t be able to monitor transactions at large for illegal activity, nor should they be to attain a broad warrant to check for illegal transactions if you’re merely suspected of an unrelated crime.
If that means more criminals go free, I’m okay with that. But it should also mean we train our police better to account for the higher difficulty of police work given the protection of our rights.
Clearly it’s a parental problem to determine if the VPN they are buying for their kids is being used to wank off, but apparently this party of ‘liberty’ has an unhealthy obsession with monitoring our children’s genitalia these days.
AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
on 24 Aug 15:48
collapse
Unfortunately, neither Labour nor Conservatives are parties of liberty, although there are some individuals within both that see the importance.
Watch them get Halloween masks to make them look like grammar just so they can automatically get recognized into the good stuff… BDSM burrito spiroasting. When I was a kid I kept a matchbox that I found on the streets. It was this awesome woman with the best looking naturally inspired gigantic breasts from Dick’s last resort. Who ever dropped those, thanks man, you made my member at least 1/4" taller. At least. I don’t know what the effects are to be honest.
NGC2346@sh.itjust.works
on 24 Aug 16:19
nextcollapse
When they effectively make the internet a dangerous place, Usenet will rise from the darkness. P2P will also always exist and these politicians dont understand computer math, so a lot of what they’re trying to accomplish is bound to fail.
Inkstainthebat@pawb.social
on 24 Aug 22:06
collapse
As someone who just read the Wikipedia article on Usenet and doesn’t know anything else about it:
Would this be pretty much the equivalent of the internet before search engines? Because if so I’m really intrigued
Never mind search engines, Usenet was being used before people were using web browsers.
Inkstainthebat@pawb.social
on 25 Aug 09:52
collapse
I’ll read up more on it, seems interesting
ICastFist@programming.dev
on 25 Aug 17:48
collapse
From my small understanding, usenet was like several forums loosely connected to one another, many servers are used mainly for filesharing. Every time I’ve checked some servers, all of them had a paywall to create an account.
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 21:31
collapse
Why are the kids technologically illiterate and undersexed until it comes to matters of government control? I’m not usually into tin foil hats, but this doesn’t feel like the kids are the primary concern here.
Pure_Psykosis@lemmy.ca
on 24 Aug 17:06
nextcollapse
But Dame Wontsomeonethinkof-de-Children saw a government report which says 65% of children under 5 have seen explicit videos of kittens being raped to death using power tools! Surely this constitutes an emergency which requires us to abandon online anonymity
If they were really after kids watching porn (or even porn in general) it would be technically somewhat simple to force ISPs to provide filters on their end as a subscription service. I’m pretty sure I’ve even heard that kind of services in the past. Make it even opt-out if you really want to.
That way ISPs would just ban everything from pornhub and others unless you spesifically want it allowed or even provide a portal where you could block reddit, twitter, tumblr or whatever you wish on your account. That kind of technology already exists and it’s used on many corporate setups.
There’s obviously ways around that, but there’s no technical way to block every possible way to move bits between computers. Even if they would shut down the whole internet there’s still ways to build mesh-networks or even buy USB-drives from a shady alley.
But as we all know, it’s not about porn and not about children.
VPN, Tor (and similar, like I2P), every imaginable P2P network, proxies, all non-http protocols (smtp, ftp, nntp, xmpp and other instant messengers and so on) can all transfer any kind of data, porn included. And a ton of other things. Heck, I’m quite sure there’s a minecraft mod where you can assemble JPG-images out of the blocks and view them that way. And then you can use stuff like uuencode where you can use anything that can move plain text to transfer binary data.
There’s no way to block all of that unless you shut the whole internet down. And even then you can still trade good old playboy-magazines with your friends. VPN in itself has very little to do with the actual problem, beyond that someone apparently noticed that their current “save-the-children” iteration had pretty large holes in it.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 00:56
collapse
Ban paper.
Kids could draw boobies on it.
jim3692@discuss.online
on 24 Aug 22:16
nextcollapse
You can’t block VPNs without blocking the entire internet. You can block known VPN services, but you can’t prevent people from hosting their own.
Some known VPN protocols could be blocked, using introspection tools. However, this would just render corporate VPNs useless. VPN traffic is just bytes, and so is WebSockets. Good luck figuring out whether my HTTPS traffic is legitimate internet traffic, or masked VPN traffic.
Even if they go that route, and frankly I think they would get lynched before we got to that point, they can’t monitor every single connection. That just way too much traffic.
That’s why China has a firewall, because that’s the best option they can come up with because monitoring every Chinese persons data is an impossible task. Their only option would be to go North Korea route, and just close the internet but that would basically end their economy.
In China? I’ve read that sentence like six times I’m not quite sure what you’re alluding to, but China’s had fiber for about 10 years now. The reason they allowed it is because increasing everyone’s bandwidth doesn’t really make the job of monitoring them any harder. It’s still the same number of connections. Plus it allows businesses to be competitive on the global market.
Also they kind of assume their firewall would work. Initially it did work, at least for the majority of people, but over time that more and more have learnt to use a VPN and now the whole thing’s a bit of a pointless exercise. There is a massive disconnect in China between the younger generation who use VPNs and the older generation who just consume state media.
Check out my cool new protocol that looks just like I am loading a webpage about cat facts, which is actually a hidden VPN that I use to secretly look at webpages about cat facts.
There is actually a technique called steganography, that does exactly that. It is used to hide arbitrary binary info inside images, while still fooling your eyes into thinking there is nothing sketchy there.
I didn’t say that it can’t be detected. I said it fools your eyes.
Besides that, stop using ML for everything. My guess is that you need insane amounts of processing power for ML to detect hidden messages inside terabytes of live internet traffic.
In fact, the algorithm for steganography is standard. It’s probably trivial to detect it, unless you add encryption and padding to the mix.
MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz
on 26 Aug 00:43
collapse
Before the Online Saftey Act I believe ISP routers default behaviour was to block adult sites (maybe depending on time of day). From what I can find tho, it wasn’t required by law. The OSA now places the responsibility on the websites.
Do the government ministers understand that setting up your own VPN is literally a 5 minute operation.
Hire a droplet VM, pre-installed with a server OS.
Log in with provided credentials.
sudo apt install docker
Copy/paste a docker compose file that sets up a wg-easy container.
Create a peer.
Take a picture of the provided QR code.
Connect to the server via a wireguard app.
Done.
Are they going to ban VMs?
buddascrayon@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 01:39
nextcollapse
Are they going to ban VMs?
They will keep banning things until they feel they have absolute control over the internet.
TwitchingCheese@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 04:25
nextcollapse
They’ll ban encrypted Internet traffic that they don’t have a backdoor to steal inspect the contents.
Exactly this. There’s maybe 8 politicians in the whole world that understand what a VPN is. They’re told by a lobbyist and donor that it’s a thing that is bad, now they’re out to figure out how to make it go away.
I’m sure the VPN industry will bring a lot of money to bear to ensure this doesn’t happen. They like the online safety act itself, because it brings them customers, but if it also causes them to face issues they’re going to be less keen on it.
GreenShimada@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 04:56
nextcollapse
If someone tells them to, they might try until a few business interests remind them that these are also fundamental components of business networks. Once money tells them to stop it, they will.
VPN companies should just hire a lobbyist for a week and this will all go away.
So all this does is create a black market for tech. People with the knowledge of how to set up this technology will provide it as a service for those who don’t.
It’s the same as trying to outright ban drugs. Those who can provide for those who cannot (for a fee).
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 12:46
nextcollapse
what’s a VPN? what’s a VPN app? how do I log in? what the fuck does a tunnel mean?
kids somehow figured these out. they’ll be able to figure out their selfhosted VPN too. at least more of them might find an interest in tech instead of consuming on brainrot platforms.
sunbeam didn’t describe it very clearly but it can be described in a way that its just following instructions without even having to understand it. like something like this: “register here. click this to get a free cloud server. log in to the server like this. paste this command and hit enter. install this app on your phone. tap import and scan. point your phone to the qr code on the screen.”
It’s a lot easier to get a VPN working than doing it yourself on a VPS.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 20:20
collapse
the instructions can cover the server setup too. the instructions can also be to just download and run a script with double click, because it’s really just following simple instructions that can be codified
LiamMayfair@lemmy.sdf.org
on 25 Aug 13:10
nextcollapse
If kids have learned to run their own Minecraft private servers, hosting a VPN should be child’s play… Pun maybe intended.
It is a 5 minute operation to learn how to use a VPN.
Many are, quite literally, just install and hit connect. Something an online tutorial can teach you in about a minute or two.
Maybe a bit longer to learn the other things. But I can assure you from experience that this is something that anyone can learn about in a short amount of time.
Bit of a far cry from the years of education and training needed to enter space.
There are instructions that are completely “type this” monkey see, monkey do. The majority of people who cannot follow such instructions should be wards of the state.
serenissi@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 12:59
nextcollapse
setting up vps requires money which ideally children do not have access to (not even crypto)
They could require age verification or even special licensing to use any sort of internet server infrastructure. That’s what I would do if that was my goal.
Myeah sort of agree if you compare wireguard vs wireguard docker.
But wg-easy has a management interface for creating peers and seeing who’s active so it’s somewhat easier to get set up.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 22:42
collapse
The VM is associated with your name and payment method. It is about removing privacy so they can remove free speech and other rights. Not about porn. You don’t need a VPN to access porn in the UK.
Half the porn sites don’t verify age anyway.
This pattern is so predictable, The Outlast Trials (2024) was based around it; your character is given trials based around fascist manipulation following this (“protect the children”) among many other patterns.
You are the shepherd, who would save the poor little lambs from Mother. Deliver them to the warm embrace of the Church, and we will let you out.
subarctictundra@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 13:18
nextcollapse
Hmmmmm, let me play devils advocate and say that kids should have access to porn.
Let me give you one, kids try to explore topics out of curiosity. They are probably not going to look up someone torturing animals, because they don’t want to see that. Kids usually look up and explore things they are ready for. Also “kids” is a pretty diverse group, a 5 year old and a 15 year old kid are very different.
For real young kids parents should monitor online behavior anyway. For teens, how is life this different than looking at a playboy or a porn tape. Teens have been doing that forever, the people creating these laws probably did that when they where kids.
It’s probably a lot better to let kids (teens) explore nudity and sex in a safe environment, instead of letting them go unsupervised in places that ignore the law.
It’s basically the same argument with drugs, offering legal options vs. going to a dealer and possibly getting much more dangerous drugs mixed in.
Calling teenagers kids in situations like this, or in general is not ideal. The better way is to refer them to minors as this is what they legally are, but even so ‘teenagers’ is how they should be referred to.
It’s probably a lot better to let kids (teens) explore nudity and sex in a safe environment, instead of letting them go unsupervised in places that ignore the law.
Absolutely. It’s only natural for teens/adolescents to be interested in that kind of stuff - they are transitioning into adulthood ffs.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 19:13
nextcollapse
Would you rather your teenage son :
Break his fucking head intruding on some poor adult woman’s privacy to see a naked woman
See hardcore violent BDSM from questionable sources as his example of what sex is meant to be like
Access tame softcore porn or naked ladies to fulfill his natural curioscity/blossoming adolescence
You can’t stop teenagers from being horny. And I rather they watch porn than have sex.
greatwhitepapertiger@lemmy.zip
on 25 Aug 16:32
nextcollapse
This has nothing to do with porn or protecting children. It’s a backdoor way to attach names and faces to VPN usage so movie and music studios can sue specific people for torrenting. They failed in bringing lawsuits previously because they couldn’t pin point the piracy to specific individuals. I would bet money that the ministers leading this charge have ties to groups in the movie and music industry. The UK will be the testbed before the full rollout in the EU and then worldwide.
This is a lot bigger than the entertainment industry now. Creeping fascism and the trillion dollar surveillance capitalism industry are hellish bed buddies.
Even with an association of an identity to a VPN provider, there is no one-to-one correspondence between a person and an IP address.
greatwhitepapertiger@lemmy.zip
on 25 Aug 21:01
collapse
True but that at least gives them a start point to try a prosecution that they didn’t have before. It also depends on if the VPN provider responds to a subpeona request or national/international jurisdictions.
UltraBlack@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 16:35
nextcollapse
Ok one question: Why do we have to protect children from porn if they’ve already gotten exposed to it?
It’s preying on the tech illiteracy of idiots. There are several pieces of software that can be used to locally censor the internet for minors, and they’re very affordable, and I bet free versions (open source?) probably also exist.
When I was a wee lad, there were “internet safety guides” being shown to kids and parents including :
Don’t post personal information online
Do not use your real name on the internet
Do not give images of your ID to anyone online
But then, facebook asked for people’s fucking IDs and real names, and people just fucking forked it over. GOOD JOB DICKHEADS.
Why do we have to protect children from porn if they’ve already gotten exposed to it?
… did you know that in maternity wards, more children are born every year?
I hate what is fucking going on, but you know, logic.
isekaihero@ani.social
on 25 Aug 16:46
nextcollapse
This is fascists using “think of the children” to violate everyone’s online privacy and spy on everyone worldwide.
queueBenSis@sh.itjust.works
on 25 Aug 18:18
nextcollapse
if the strategy is to tell children to stop circumventing the rules with a workaround, couldn’t the original messaging just have been “talk to your children about not watching porn”
it’s so obvious the identification laws have nothing to do with protecting children from porn and everything to do with Big Brother surveillance
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
on 25 Aug 23:46
collapse
Who cares if kids watch porn anyways? Like they’re going to find a way if they want to. I was coming into my own around the time the Internet just started hitting households, and therefore wasn’t the vehicle for porn it is today. There was a full on underground economy with all the prepubescent boys. Kids are going to do what they want regardless of legality.
And before that, kids were passing dirty magazines they found in a tree.
You can’t stop teenagers from being horny. And I rather they watch porn than have sex at that age.
Eternal192@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 25 Aug 18:19
nextcollapse
It’s funny how all the bigwigs are suddenly interested in “child safety” now that ol Eppie is gone, funny that. Also at least kids are learning how stick it to those old sacks for trying to take away their freedom.
DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 18:32
nextcollapse
FYI, with Mullvad VPN set to UK, sites that require age verification:
pornhub.com
youporn.com
redtube.com
porn.com
bellesa.co
tube8.com
thisvid.com
quorno.com
Sites tha do NOT require age verification:
hqporner.com
xhamster.com
youjizz.com
alohatube.com
qqqporn.com
xnxx.com
xcafe.com
helloporn.co
go.porn
cartoonporn.pro
And xvideos.com is a bit special since it shows you the thumbnails of porn videos but won’t let you play them.
But we need to stop VPNs! Think of the whole two children that have VPNs! What if instead of just going to the half of the sites that don’t verify age, they figure out how to use a VPN?! Oh the humanity!
Yeah, UK wants to de-anonymize VPN users as the next step in their attack on free speech. It is laughable to think this is about anything else.
Because the goal is to outlaw VPNs. To do that they need enough children to use VPNs to make it credible enough.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
on 25 Aug 23:40
nextcollapse
As if something being credible has ever stopped a politician from acting.
BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 11:50
collapse
Is there a plausible way they actually ban the use of VPNs? Like, they can make it illegal on paper, but even in China, which has long had strict restrictions on internet use, I’ve heard that VPN use is widespread.
It just all seems like performative whack-a-mole to me. The only people who can control what a kid sees online are their parents or guardians. A child is not buying themselves a laptop or an iPad.
What about the crappy late night TV channels with the women waving a cordless house phone like it’s 1996?
I’m perfectly able to watch porn because I’m 45, but I refuse to interact with any of this prove your age bollocks because I know full well that “we won’t store your details” and “we will share your details with 1284 trusted data partners” are the same picture.
And nothing will be done about that until it affects the power brokers in charge*.
* - hopefully, I mean we’ve had a series of ministers embroiled in scandals that would have caused immediate resignations in the past whereas now it’s “Fuck off, I’m working here. I’M IMPORTANT!”
The last data breach I can think of that was widely known was Ashley Madison. I think if the Porn ID data got leaked it would have a similar spread (giggity), due to a similar scandalous nature.
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca
on 25 Aug 20:01
nextcollapse
I remember when my step-son was a teenager. I didn’t care that he watched porn. I cared that he infected the family PC with viruses and malware trying to watch porn.
bluecat_OwO@lemmy.world
on 25 Aug 21:28
nextcollapse
we could have arrived at this argument before this whole data stealing conundrum
terminhell@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 01:02
nextcollapse
Ministers, stop watching them watch porn…
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
on 26 Aug 01:27
nextcollapse
Children aren’t using VPNs. Also I am going to say this: it doesn’t matter that fucking much. I watched porn before I was 18. It didn’t really do much to me. It did not give me unrealistic expectations of women. What did affect me were entirely unrelated stuff. Which is why I do need therapy and sexual therapy, but it wasnt the porn. It was people like that fucker.
lengau@midwest.social
on 26 Aug 03:19
nextcollapse
I initially read that as “stop using VPNs to watch child porn, ministers told” and was expecting a very different article.
You know, I’m just going to buy them a VPN so they can watch porn even more
ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 11:09
nextcollapse
Next up is “Stop children using custom linux distros and unique radio setups to connect to access points outside the nation”
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 14:35
nextcollapse
I know that this is all just theater to just destroy any semblance of free speech and privacy on the internet but if I’m completely honest I also don’t even understand people who freak out about kids looking at porn. Like, I get protecting children obviously from predators (fucking Roblox), but also I saw hardcore porn on the internet super early when I was like 8 and the only trauma I ever felt was the fear of being caught looking at it by my parents, who were otherwise pretty chill about me seeing really violent media.
And before me and the internet, kids were looking at their grampa’s/dad’s porn magazines or finding it in the woods or getting some 18 year old to buy it for them. It was harder but I’m telling you they found it.
I feel like a bigger concern for kids right now is microplastics, lead poisoning, and climate change and you don’t see nearly the same hysteria about that shit in mainstream politics.
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world
on 29 Aug 20:24
collapse
threaded - newest
Stop ministers making laws to… why the fuck they even do this bullshit? They are a government, they know everything about everyone even without such primitive control methods.
The people pulling the strings have obviously decided that internet freedom is a threat to them and they’re taking (global) action to ensure their supremacy.
Yeah, it’s just all these children with their bank accounts paying for their VPN subscriptions doing it all… Do they think we’re that stupid? Don’t answer that. 😔
It’s the free VPNs that are the problem. They are privacy nightmares.
Which is worse, the free VPNs or the UK government?
I mean I don’t think I could pick right now 😂
If only there was some way the government could have predicted this would happen and maybe not rushed a poorly thought out law in the first place!
maybe then they would not have:
absolute roasters the lot of them
Well, hold your beer because Brazil is just passing a similar law at this moment. Expect other countries to follow.
It’s happening due to a big child sexualization/adultization scandal that took forever to blow up^[While instagram itself has some “moderation”, they’ll happily turn a blind eye to anything that could hurt engagement. 10yo girls doing extremely sexual dances with pornographic music in the background? Boost that shit, look at the engagement!!! Tiktok is equally at fault for the same reason. This shit has been going for years and predates Hytalo and Felca.]. When the deputies came up with a law that was ready and just sitting in a drawer, my mind immediately went “Oh, fuck”. I still gotta read it, because it was approved recently.
Ya! Let them watch all that violence on Netflix instead!
Seriously though. We’ll legislate anything to keep them from seeing stuff they might reasonably expect to see and do one day and glorify things nobody should ever see or experience in person.
I’ve always been fascinated by the lengths puritans will go to prevent kids from seeing mammary glands, while simultaneously being ok with them watching blood and violence.
I’ve thought about this at length, and the conclusion I came to is that violence about self-sufficiency, while sex is about cooperation. With violence, you take matters into your own hands and you’re in control regardless of what others feel. With sex, it’s the exact opposite. You’re at their mercy and they have power over you.
It makes sense in our hostile culture to teach kids about self-sufficiency and taking power for themselves. If they give that power up to others, then it opens them up to manipulation and exploitation.
I’m not making a judgement call on what’s right or wrong, only what is.
Yeah, is the next step to ban games like Free Fire, Counter Strike etc.?
Everyone’s scared of Reform getting in and yet Reform are the only ones promising to reverse all this. All this is done based off the back of a 2016 survey where parents said they were worried about kids watching porn on the internet, but the survey gave no indication of what a solution would look like and gave no mention to online age verification and banning VPNs.
Why are people scared of reform getting in?
Racism, homophobia & sexism mostly, but I’m sure I’m missing a few.
Then again the other mayor parties haven’t been saints on the matter, tldr don’t trust a politician.
Because they are a bunch of idiot racist grifters. And those are their good points.
yourparty.uk
Wow that doesn’t look shady at all.
Are you serious? It’s real and lead by the only two sane people left in British politics.
Personally I do have to agree though, the website itself looks kinda scuffed.
If I had a nickle for ever time the UK did something pants-on-head stupid or short-sighted from a minor survey or public poll, [counts change jar]… How much are big macs these days?
Unfortunately amongst the unwashed masses of the British public this bill isnt actually particularly unpopular.
I don’t think it’s particularly popular either, no one seems to even really know about it.
Stop ministers using VPNs to watch child porn.
Told!
Yeah, never forget how the people in power routinely gave Epstein a pass because they were participating in raping kids.
All this “for the children” is performative bullshit to take more power away from the average person.
Pidof files aside, them implying they need to watch children watching porn is not much better.If this fucker had any idea what VPN even stood for they’d realize how fuckin stupid this statement is…
Let’s say they do. So people start using non UK VPNs. So you need age verification for any Internet access? For any computer or phone that could connect to the Internet?
That's what they're aiming for, yes.
They want to know where everyone is and what every person is doing at every possible moment of every day, be that in public or on the Internet. They are paranoid and know that their entire system is in danger of collapse with the common man gaining control over the rich and powerful.
Thus they resort to extreme control of the commoners to ensure that won't happen.
Child protection and anti-pornography stances are perfect excuses because they're very difficult to argue against.
Well, except for this one.
Every time some new measure is released “for protection”, the next day it’s being used to sniff out dissidents. That usually means journalists, activists (political, labor, environment, …) and sympathisants to give them a bit of pressure to straight up arrest them on some pretense.
and here we have the heart of the issue, and their end goal. identification required for Internet access. total control.
100% and as always they boil it down to “well even if all that other stuff is true, it’s for the safety of children.”
Yet we have fucking confirmation that exposing networks of wealthy and powerful pedophiles is not on the agenda. Those people are untouchable. Those people are also the ones that we are handing complete control over to.
So who tf are we really protecting children from by doing this?
Don’t parental controls exist for a reason? Can’t you just block VPN use on individual devices like an additional parental control rather than making everyone that uses a VPN prove they’re not a child?
I mean, experts have said for a while that if you’re going to require age verification, doing it directly on the device would be the most secure way. Allow parents to verify their phones, while creating child accounts for their kids.
When the site needs to verify their age, it simply asks the device directly if the user account is age-verified. It all happens in the background, so the adults never even need to bother with it once it’s set up.
That makes sense. And seems like it would have much easier implementation as well.
It’s a bit like “my kids will only eat chocolate” and the therapist’s response “where are they getting the chocolate from?”. If the kids are using VPNs then where are they getting the money for the VPN from? Is this parental consent?
Most likely they’re using “free” VPNs.
Which is an anticipated problem too. Because those free VPNs are harvesting all of your traffic to sell; If you’re not the customer, you’re the product being sold. Almost as if opponents of the ban said this would happen, and would only work to push kids towards sketchy sites…
.
a rare exception. but most have a different business model
Crazy how I got censored for posting that. Looks like there’s some kind of concerted effort to suppress information of reliable free VPNs.
Everyone check the modlogs to see what these people are trying to keep from you.
well that was interesting. what is your justification @technopagan@lemmy.world because that is obviously not “spam”. I’m almost sure you’ll just delete my comment too instead of an explanation.
photon.lemmy.world/modlog?user=17022223
It’s also interesting you got 3 downvotes. too bad we can’t check their owners anymore.
Mods are humans and make errors. No reason to suspect a conspiracy or be a dick about it
We didn’t see this one coming a mile away.
Palantir execs and shareholders are buzzing with anticipation.
You ban something, and people will always find a way around it. Always.
Yup, and that’s how the US got the Mafia. We banned alcohol, but people wanted to drink, so the Mafia made that happen.
All a ban does is hurt law abiding citizens and businesses.
This is a fairly revisionist history version of the mafia, they were here for decades before prohibition. One might say that they profited greatly from prohibition, but to suggest they began with it is incredibly incorrect. I hate to be the actually guy but I find organized crime fascinating and I can’t let this one go
Eh, not revisionist, just overly simplified. Prohibition massively increased their power and relevance.
Not all bans are bad or hurt law abiding citizens. Slavery and gambling come to mind, both still exist illegally (or, in the case of gambling, semi-legally, what with the deluge of sports betting and online casinos HQd in shitty countries), but I would say them being illegal is a net positive for society.
Eh, I disagree. Slavery being banned is obviously a good thing, but that’s because it’s immoral to own someone else, so it’s essentially just kidnapping. Gambling, on the other hand, shouldn’t be banned for the simple reason that consenting adults should be able to do it if they choose.
Basically, I believe there are two types of rights:
I believe nobody should gamble because it’s a poor financial decision and very addictive (and I choose to avoid gambling), but I also believe you should be allowed to gamble, and the government should ensure that companies that provide gambling services do so fairly (i.e. advertisements about win-rates and whatnot are accurate).
So yes, if gambling wasn’t allowed, people w/ addictions would be better off, but those who aren’t at risk of gambling addiction would be harmed due to restrictions on their freedom. So the question is, do we want government to protect us from ourselves, or merely provide a safety net for when we screw up? I’m absolutely in the latter camp, and I think we should use taxes to fund recovery programs for addictive behaviors in lieu of banning them. In general, I think a tax is way more rights-respecting than a ban.
Gambling between two people or very small groups is mostly ok and something humans have done since cave times.
Now, because real life has profit seeking corporations in control of gambling that know and abuse all psychological tricks available to maximize profits, I don’t think allowing them to exist is good for anyone except the owners. Casinos are also perfect for money laundering, so that’s another reason to not allow them to function, although with the internet they can just pick and choose a country to exist in.
I agree that gambling is bad and nobody should do it, but that’s different from the government preventing you from doing it.
Something being “bad” doesn’t mean it should be banned, it means it needs closer scrutiny to make sure both sides of the transaction are fully informed of the risks and can meaningfully consent.
I don’t like this reasoning because the underlying assumption is that violating people’s privacy is okay if it helps catch criminals.
That said, there are typically rules that limit this. In most areas, casinos have to ID you and report any transaction over a certain amount (usually $10k or so per day, many casinos have a lower threshold) to tax authorities specifically to combat money laundering, just like banks do. That seems to limit money laundering for larger players, but obviously doesn’t do much for smaller players. To do better, we either need much lower limits, or much higher surveillance, and both would violate innocent people’s privacy.
Instead of that, we should take a hard look at policy and policing. For example, a lot of money laundering is by drug dealers, and they exist due to drug bans. Maybe we should consider legalizing and regulating more drugs, which would give people safer options, reduce incarceration rates, and reduce laundering from illegal drugs since more people would go for the safer options. On the policing side, we can improve training, reallocate people from ticketing to investigative work, and build community trust to improve quality of reports.
At the end of the day, I think personal liberty and privacy is more important than preventing harm or catching criminals. I also think we can do both, but we need to start from the perspective of maximising liberty and privacy.
When you think about it, most of the work of catching criminals (or gathering evidence) involves invasion of privacy, I guess it becomes a question of how much we’re willing to part with
I disagree. The only time the police should invade your privacy is with a valid warrant, and only to the extent of the warrant.
The police shouldn’t be able to monitor transactions at large for illegal activity, nor should they be to attain a broad warrant to check for illegal transactions if you’re merely suspected of an unrelated crime.
If that means more criminals go free, I’m okay with that. But it should also mean we train our police better to account for the higher difficulty of police work given the protection of our rights.
Dead drop USBs for file sharing?
Banning Pornhub makes them use the VPNs in the first place.
Clearly it’s a parental problem to determine if the VPN they are buying for their kids is being used to wank off, but apparently this party of ‘liberty’ has an unhealthy obsession with monitoring our children’s genitalia these days.
Unfortunately, neither Labour nor Conservatives are parties of liberty, although there are some individuals within both that see the importance.
Watch them get Halloween masks to make them look like grammar just so they can automatically get recognized into the good stuff… BDSM burrito spiroasting. When I was a kid I kept a matchbox that I found on the streets. It was this awesome woman with the best looking naturally inspired gigantic breasts from Dick’s last resort. Who ever dropped those, thanks man, you made my member at least 1/4" taller. At least. I don’t know what the effects are to be honest.
When they effectively make the internet a dangerous place, Usenet will rise from the darkness. P2P will also always exist and these politicians dont understand computer math, so a lot of what they’re trying to accomplish is bound to fail.
As someone who just read the Wikipedia article on Usenet and doesn’t know anything else about it: Would this be pretty much the equivalent of the internet before search engines? Because if so I’m really intrigued
Never mind search engines, Usenet was being used before people were using web browsers.
I’ll read up more on it, seems interesting
From my small understanding, usenet was like several forums loosely connected to one another, many servers are used mainly for filesharing. Every time I’ve checked some servers, all of them had a paywall to create an account.
Think fediverse less features more text
Why are the kids technologically illiterate and undersexed until it comes to matters of government control? I’m not usually into tin foil hats, but this doesn’t feel like the kids are the primary concern here.
They aren’t.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory if everybody already knows it.
What you said there, that was just a fact.
I know, it just bothers me how little they’re trying to hide it.
But Dame Wontsomeonethinkof-de-Children saw a government report which says 65% of children under 5 have seen explicit videos of kittens being raped to death using power tools! Surely this constitutes an emergency which requires us to abandon online anonymity
If they were really after kids watching porn (or even porn in general) it would be technically somewhat simple to force ISPs to provide filters on their end as a subscription service. I’m pretty sure I’ve even heard that kind of services in the past. Make it even opt-out if you really want to.
That way ISPs would just ban everything from pornhub and others unless you spesifically want it allowed or even provide a portal where you could block reddit, twitter, tumblr or whatever you wish on your account. That kind of technology already exists and it’s used on many corporate setups.
There’s obviously ways around that, but there’s no technical way to block every possible way to move bits between computers. Even if they would shut down the whole internet there’s still ways to build mesh-networks or even buy USB-drives from a shady alley.
But as we all know, it’s not about porn and not about children.
You can’t block porn completely without blocking VPNs. If you connect to a VPN that’s all they can see. They can not see what you use the VPN for.
This makes it sound like VPNs can ONLY access porn. lol
he he he
They can also access Excel spreadsheets from what I’ve heard. Hopefully the children aren’t aware of the fact.
VPN, Tor (and similar, like I2P), every imaginable P2P network, proxies, all non-http protocols (smtp, ftp, nntp, xmpp and other instant messengers and so on) can all transfer any kind of data, porn included. And a ton of other things. Heck, I’m quite sure there’s a minecraft mod where you can assemble JPG-images out of the blocks and view them that way. And then you can use stuff like uuencode where you can use anything that can move plain text to transfer binary data.
There’s no way to block all of that unless you shut the whole internet down. And even then you can still trade good old playboy-magazines with your friends. VPN in itself has very little to do with the actual problem, beyond that someone apparently noticed that their current “save-the-children” iteration had pretty large holes in it.
Ban paper.
Kids could draw boobies on it.
You can’t block VPNs without blocking the entire internet. You can block known VPN services, but you can’t prevent people from hosting their own.
Some known VPN protocols could be blocked, using introspection tools. However, this would just render corporate VPNs useless. VPN traffic is just bytes, and so is WebSockets. Good luck figuring out whether my HTTPS traffic is legitimate internet traffic, or masked VPN traffic.
Good news, we closed that pesky loophole by banning encryption without backdoors.
If they can’t decode it, you better be ready to explain exactly what those bytes were!
Even if they go that route, and frankly I think they would get lynched before we got to that point, they can’t monitor every single connection. That just way too much traffic.
That’s why China has a firewall, because that’s the best option they can come up with because monitoring every Chinese persons data is an impossible task. Their only option would be to go North Korea route, and just close the internet but that would basically end their economy.
Why do you think the telecoms got away with stalling upgrades and fiber roll outs for so long?
In China? I’ve read that sentence like six times I’m not quite sure what you’re alluding to, but China’s had fiber for about 10 years now. The reason they allowed it is because increasing everyone’s bandwidth doesn’t really make the job of monitoring them any harder. It’s still the same number of connections. Plus it allows businesses to be competitive on the global market.
Also they kind of assume their firewall would work. Initially it did work, at least for the majority of people, but over time that more and more have learnt to use a VPN and now the whole thing’s a bit of a pointless exercise. There is a massive disconnect in China between the younger generation who use VPNs and the older generation who just consume state media.
Check out my cool new protocol that looks just like I am loading a webpage about cat facts, which is actually a hidden VPN that I use to secretly look at webpages about cat facts.
You get me. You’re my kind of person! ᓚᘏᗢ
There is actually a technique called steganography, that does exactly that. It is used to hide arbitrary binary info inside images, while still fooling your eyes into thinking there is nothing sketchy there.
I know! Nothing about all this is new.
The only new thing is that the UK government is about to learn about those things.
Can’t it be detected? I imagine ML could be used to automate to some extent.
I didn’t say that it can’t be detected. I said it fools your eyes.
Besides that, stop using ML for everything. My guess is that you need insane amounts of processing power for ML to detect hidden messages inside terabytes of live internet traffic.
In fact, the algorithm for steganography is standard. It’s probably trivial to detect it, unless you add encryption and padding to the mix.
“Stop using ML for everything”
I see no other way to drink from the firehose. We’re talking nationstate level resources.
Depends on the VPN
Before the Online Saftey Act I believe ISP routers default behaviour was to block adult sites (maybe depending on time of day). From what I can find tho, it wasn’t required by law. The OSA now places the responsibility on the websites.
Almost like you didn’t think this fucker through.
How much you wanna bet the ministers use VPN to watch porn as well?
Who needs to watch it when you can live it
You joke but people who live porn still watch porn.
Market research?
Moronic bit is atlast asking parents to be responsible
Saw that coming. Can’t have the populace living their lives without constant, repressive government scrutiny.
But it’s for the kids what kind of psychopath could be against that???
Do the government ministers understand that setting up your own VPN is literally a 5 minute operation.
Hire a droplet VM, pre-installed with a server OS. Log in with provided credentials. sudo apt install docker Copy/paste a docker compose file that sets up a wg-easy container. Create a peer. Take a picture of the provided QR code. Connect to the server via a wireguard app. Done.
Are they going to ban VMs?
They will keep banning things until they feel they have absolute control over the internet.
They’ll ban encrypted Internet traffic that they don’t have a backdoor to
stealinspect the contents.Of course they don’t. Most of them type with their index fingers and don’t even understand what a VPN is.
Exactly this. There’s maybe 8 politicians in the whole world that understand what a VPN is. They’re told by a lobbyist and donor that it’s a thing that is bad, now they’re out to figure out how to make it go away.
I’m sure the VPN industry will bring a lot of money to bear to ensure this doesn’t happen. They like the online safety act itself, because it brings them customers, but if it also causes them to face issues they’re going to be less keen on it.
If someone tells them to, they might try until a few business interests remind them that these are also fundamental components of business networks. Once money tells them to stop it, they will.
VPN companies should just hire a lobbyist for a week and this will all go away.
What a VM? What’s a server OS? How do I log in? What the fuck does sudo apt mean? What is docker? Now I’m editing files? A peer? What’s wireguard?
So many of you are disconnected from regular people because you’re chronically online.
Yes plan law makers needs to have a clue on what they are making laws about. Teenagers looking for porn are going to learn.
The same teenagers that don’t even use computers with physical keyboards?
I’d wager less than 1% of the minors affected by this will learn how to proxy through a VPS.
I just deployed a few VM on my phone, not even a tablet. It’s not that hard nowadays with websites being designed primarily for smartphone users
They just got a motivation.
So all this does is create a black market for tech. People with the knowledge of how to set up this technology will provide it as a service for those who don’t.
It’s the same as trying to outright ban drugs. Those who can provide for those who cannot (for a fee).
It makes these kids easy marks for malware.
what’s a VPN? what’s a VPN app? how do I log in? what the fuck does a tunnel mean?
kids somehow figured these out. they’ll be able to figure out their selfhosted VPN too. at least more of them might find an interest in tech instead of consuming on brainrot platforms.
sunbeam didn’t describe it very clearly but it can be described in a way that its just following instructions without even having to understand it. like something like this: “register here. click this to get a free cloud server. log in to the server like this. paste this command and hit enter. install this app on your phone. tap import and scan. point your phone to the qr code on the screen.”
It’s a lot easier to get a VPN working than doing it yourself on a VPS.
the instructions can cover the server setup too. the instructions can also be to just download and run a script with double click, because it’s really just following simple instructions that can be codified
If kids have learned to run their own Minecraft private servers, hosting a VPN should be child’s play… Pun maybe intended.
You say this as if people are utterly incapable of learning.
Anyone can learn anything of they’re given a good enough reason to want to learn.
Sure, but if they need to learn, it isn’t a 5 minute operation.
I too can go to space in 10 minutes, if I already did all the training and get a space shuttle from NASA.
It is a 5 minute operation to learn how to use a VPN.
Many are, quite literally, just install and hit connect. Something an online tutorial can teach you in about a minute or two.
Maybe a bit longer to learn the other things. But I can assure you from experience that this is something that anyone can learn about in a short amount of time.
Bit of a far cry from the years of education and training needed to enter space.
There are instructions that are completely “type this” monkey see, monkey do. The majority of people who cannot follow such instructions should be wards of the state.
setting up vps requires money which ideally children do not have access to (not even crypto)
They could require age verification or even special licensing to use any sort of internet server infrastructure. That’s what I would do if that was my goal.
Don’t give them ideas!
Docker’s an unnecessary extra step. Just install wireguard server on the VM.
Myeah sort of agree if you compare wireguard vs wireguard docker.
But wg-easy has a management interface for creating peers and seeing who’s active so it’s somewhat easier to get set up.
The VM is associated with your name and payment method. It is about removing privacy so they can remove free speech and other rights. Not about porn. You don’t need a VPN to access porn in the UK. Half the porn sites don’t verify age anyway.
Stop fucking but make children.
Religious fundamentalists famously love being the only source of sexual “education”.
The irony is that despite being a confessional state, the UK is 100x more secular than the USA.
I think the best way to solve this is to not have kids in the first place.
And deprive capital of all that cheap labor? Have you no heart sir/madam?
If I had to guess, I’d say the government pushback against porn is a result of members of the ruling class catching their offspring with porn.
If I had to guess, they don’t care at all about porn and are using this as a pretext to censor sites that talk about LGBTQIA+ people.
And also to block access to any sex ed content that talks about how to protect yourself from predators.
Actually it was pushed by some AI corp, to sell AI for verification purposes, alongside other bad faith actors.
Or by some other fly-by-night identity-verifcation company.
Transgender people are in the crosshairs and have been for a couple of years for now.
I’d say it has more to do with pandering to religious conservatives to keep them in their pocket.
My vote is smoke screen, lots of nasty stuff can fly under the radar with all this talk on porn, vpn and privacy rights
This pattern is so predictable, The Outlast Trials (2024) was based around it; your character is given trials based around fascist manipulation following this (“protect the children”) among many other patterns.
Hmmmmm, let me play devils advocate and say that kids should have access to porn.
If you want to actually play devil’s advocate, you gotta give an argument. Otherwise, you’re just being contrarian.
Let me give you one, kids try to explore topics out of curiosity. They are probably not going to look up someone torturing animals, because they don’t want to see that. Kids usually look up and explore things they are ready for. Also “kids” is a pretty diverse group, a 5 year old and a 15 year old kid are very different.
For real young kids parents should monitor online behavior anyway. For teens, how is life this different than looking at a playboy or a porn tape. Teens have been doing that forever, the people creating these laws probably did that when they where kids.
It’s probably a lot better to let kids (teens) explore nudity and sex in a safe environment, instead of letting them go unsupervised in places that ignore the law.
It’s basically the same argument with drugs, offering legal options vs. going to a dealer and possibly getting much more dangerous drugs mixed in.
Calling teenagers kids in situations like this, or in general is not ideal. The better way is to refer them to minors as this is what they legally are, but even so ‘teenagers’ is how they should be referred to.
Absolutely. It’s only natural for teens/adolescents to be interested in that kind of stuff - they are transitioning into adulthood ffs.
Would you rather your teenage son :
You can’t stop teenagers from being horny. And I rather they watch porn than have sex.
This has nothing to do with porn or protecting children. It’s a backdoor way to attach names and faces to VPN usage so movie and music studios can sue specific people for torrenting. They failed in bringing lawsuits previously because they couldn’t pin point the piracy to specific individuals. I would bet money that the ministers leading this charge have ties to groups in the movie and music industry. The UK will be the testbed before the full rollout in the EU and then worldwide.
This is a lot bigger than the entertainment industry now. Creeping fascism and the trillion dollar surveillance capitalism industry are hellish bed buddies.
Even with an association of an identity to a VPN provider, there is no one-to-one correspondence between a person and an IP address.
True but that at least gives them a start point to try a prosecution that they didn’t have before. It also depends on if the VPN provider responds to a subpeona request or national/international jurisdictions.
Ok one question: Why do we have to protect children from porn if they’ve already gotten exposed to it?
So they have more time to watch people shooting each other.
To add to it: Why do we need to protect children that arent ours from things their parents are supposed to protect them from?
Weird way to shift job tasks around.
It’s preying on the tech illiteracy of idiots. There are several pieces of software that can be used to locally censor the internet for minors, and they’re very affordable, and I bet free versions (open source?) probably also exist.
When I was a wee lad, there were “internet safety guides” being shown to kids and parents including :
But then, facebook asked for people’s fucking IDs and real names, and people just fucking forked it over. GOOD JOB DICKHEADS.
… did you know that in maternity wards, more children are born every year?
I hate what is fucking going on, but you know, logic.
This is fascists using “think of the children” to violate everyone’s online privacy and spy on everyone worldwide.
if the strategy is to tell children to stop circumventing the rules with a workaround, couldn’t the original messaging just have been “talk to your children about not watching porn”
it’s so obvious the identification laws have nothing to do with protecting children from porn and everything to do with Big Brother surveillance
Who cares if kids watch porn anyways? Like they’re going to find a way if they want to. I was coming into my own around the time the Internet just started hitting households, and therefore wasn’t the vehicle for porn it is today. There was a full on underground economy with all the prepubescent boys. Kids are going to do what they want regardless of legality.
And before that, kids were passing dirty magazines they found in a tree.
You can’t stop teenagers from being horny. And I rather they watch porn than have sex at that age.
It’s funny how all the bigwigs are suddenly interested in “child safety” now that ol Eppie is gone, funny that. Also at least kids are learning how stick it to those old sacks for trying to take away their freedom.
FYI, with Mullvad VPN set to UK, sites that require age verification:
Sites tha do NOT require age verification:
And xvideos.com is a bit special since it shows you the thumbnails of porn videos but won’t let you play them.
But we need to stop VPNs! Think of the whole two children that have VPNs! What if instead of just going to the half of the sites that don’t verify age, they figure out how to use a VPN?! Oh the humanity!
Yeah, UK wants to de-anonymize VPN users as the next step in their attack on free speech. It is laughable to think this is about anything else.
Very interesting. I’ll have to inspect and research each of these sites, many I never knew about, in very close detail for the sake of science.
I mostly picked top results for “porn” on duckduckgo, but I do find hqporner.com scientifically interesting ;)
Streisand effect: the BBC is telling every last kid that VPN is exactly the way to circumvent the prohibition.
Because the goal is to outlaw VPNs. To do that they need enough children to use VPNs to make it credible enough.
As if something being credible has ever stopped a politician from acting.
Is there a plausible way they actually ban the use of VPNs? Like, they can make it illegal on paper, but even in China, which has long had strict restrictions on internet use, I’ve heard that VPN use is widespread.
It just all seems like performative whack-a-mole to me. The only people who can control what a kid sees online are their parents or guardians. A child is not buying themselves a laptop or an iPad.
They will just selectively enforce it
How about parent your children?
What about the crappy late night TV channels with the women waving a cordless house phone like it’s 1996?
I’m perfectly able to watch porn because I’m 45, but I refuse to interact with any of this prove your age bollocks because I know full well that “we won’t store your details” and “we will share your details with 1284 trusted data partners” are the same picture.
Also “Data breach of 500K users IDs discovered on dark web”
Kids watching porn is a much smaller problem than data breaches. Those can fucking ruin people.
And nothing will be done about that until it affects the power brokers in charge*.
* - hopefully, I mean we’ve had a series of ministers embroiled in scandals that would have caused immediate resignations in the past whereas now it’s “Fuck off, I’m working here. I’M IMPORTANT!”
The last data breach I can think of that was widely known was Ashley Madison. I think if the Porn ID data got leaked it would have a similar spread (giggity), due to a similar scandalous nature.
I remember when my step-son was a teenager. I didn’t care that he watched porn. I cared that he infected the family PC with viruses and malware trying to watch porn.
Are these children in the room with him?
we could have arrived at this argument before this whole data stealing conundrum
Ministers, stop watching them watch porn…
Children aren’t using VPNs. Also I am going to say this: it doesn’t matter that fucking much. I watched porn before I was 18. It didn’t really do much to me. It did not give me unrealistic expectations of women. What did affect me were entirely unrelated stuff. Which is why I do need therapy and sexual therapy, but it wasnt the porn. It was people like that fucker.
I initially read that as “stop using VPNs to watch child porn, ministers told” and was expecting a very different article.
You know, I’m just going to buy them a VPN so they can watch porn even more
Next up is “Stop children using custom linux distros and unique radio setups to connect to access points outside the nation”
I know that this is all just theater to just destroy any semblance of free speech and privacy on the internet but if I’m completely honest I also don’t even understand people who freak out about kids looking at porn. Like, I get protecting children obviously from predators (fucking Roblox), but also I saw hardcore porn on the internet super early when I was like 8 and the only trauma I ever felt was the fear of being caught looking at it by my parents, who were otherwise pretty chill about me seeing really violent media.
And before me and the internet, kids were looking at their grampa’s/dad’s porn magazines or finding it in the woods or getting some 18 year old to buy it for them. It was harder but I’m telling you they found it.
I feel like a bigger concern for kids right now is microplastics, lead poisoning, and climate change and you don’t see nearly the same hysteria about that shit in mainstream politics.
Stop ministers from using children.