Hacker News Reader

Comment by redm | Hacker News Reader

Protrcting privacy worked out so well with these cookie banners, I cant imagine what could go wrong with this…

If you feel that the company you are getting porn from isn't respecting your privacy and your privacy is important, don't get porn from them.

The bill restricts distribution of porn to kids. It's up to the distributor to figure out how to do that.

No, it isn’t. It’s about power. There’s nothing a Canadian ISP can do to prevent kids from finding porn online. If the Canadian government actually cared about this they wouldn’t use (hopelessly ineffective!) ISP level blocking. They would be funding an information campaign on device-level content blockers and be funding a browser add-on and block/allow list.

Let me make sure I understand your position.

Are you saying that if this bill becomes law, consumption of porn among minors will not decrease?

Isn't it obvious it won't? Unless they go full-on China firewall style there will always be website readily available that won't enforce that crap and kids will find them easily.

The sites would be more difficult to find than they are now. Making it more difficult means it will happen less often.

Not meaningfully. If a kid wants to find porn, they'll find porn. These sorts of measures are ultimately ineffective at blocking everything, and if there's even one thing that slips through, even if only for a little while, that's enough.

Accessing porn will be more difficult and require more effort. When things are more difficult and require more effort people do it less. Especially vices.

For the sake of discussion I’ll grant you porn is a vice but that is definitely just your opinion.

Isn’t this bill supposed to “protect children”? Accessing porn isn’t illegal for adults. If the debate is about restricting access to a legal “vice” then opinions will likely shift even farther to the “no” side. I agree imposing puritanical beliefs is the actual motivation but that’s not a great slogan.

>Isn’t this bill supposed to “protect children”?

Yes.

>Accessing porn isn’t illegal for adults.

Correct. Porn isn't illegal for adults now, nor will it be illegal if the bill becomes law.

>If the debate is about restricting access to a legal “vice”

It isn't.

>I agree imposing puritanical beliefs is the actual motivation

I don't agree.

You're blowing a single word out of proportion.

Correct. The Streisand Effect suggests it might even increase interest.

Banning children from using the internet at all would decrease porn consumption among minors. That doesn't make it a good idea. Although, frankly, it would be more effective AND less of a privacy violation than the ID law would be.

> If the Canadian government

This bill wasn't introduced by and isn't supported by the current Canadian government. It's supported by the Conservatives, who are the opposition.

Sorry, Americanism, “government” means “the currently elected lawmakers”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com