Doesnt something like this just push underage viewers into going to "non mainstream" sites to get porn, and probably the stuff there has a higher chance of being illegal or at least more "unusual" than what you'd see on pornhub?
If they are not I wager chances are higher
I want my drugs legalized, but that doesn't mean I want to give them to children.
There are a bunch of other EU rules (under the DMA, DSA, GDPR etc) which de facto if not de jure only apply to very large players, but the difference is that most of the rules are either non-obvious to the user (the average user has no idea that sites want to sell their data, and if told that the GDPR restricts that will either see that as good or will not care), or obviously positive to the user (no-one is leaving threads because the cruel Digital Markets Act forces it to provide a non-logged-in browsing mode). A rule which is annoying to many users but can be evaded by just switching to an unsupervised smaller player seems unlikely to work.
It’s like how the administrator at the local high school restricting the use of flash games on the network but can still access these games by using Google as the proxy service (google used to provide option to view cached result). Or use Google translate to access the restricted site. Or use many of the public proxy sites.
At this point I'm not sure makelovenotporn is even mainstream and yeah... people could sure use it as an alternative for more "usual" content.
Now there are a lot of sexy mother/daughter dancing videos on Facebook reels. Non-nudity, but the inspiration is clear.
Bad storylines in porn have always been the norm.
To be more clear, the exact story doesn't matter, but to have no story can be jarring. The visuals benefit from some explanation, no matter how ridiculous, as to why two (or more) people found themselves in that situation.
Sure, you can come with a long and elaborate story about how two people met, went on several wonderful dates, and finally saw a heated passion for each other take over. Or you can just be lazy and say that they are in that situation because they are a family that lives together.
Now the economics. You have a given budget to produce a film. You can spend it on coming up with a great story, or can spend it on higher quality actors, better lighting, etc. While I am certain there is some market for both, which of the two do you think will be more likely to rise to the top – the better story or the more visually appealing work?
Sure she has a couple of things like Spiderman and Disney princesses in there but the reglious stuff seems to be everywhere.
Then you say that she appears to be reglious and she gets really offended and has long winded justifications rather than just removing those packages from her website if she doesn't want people to assume that's what she's trying to promote.
I would guess that the "big 3" at least maintain a modicum of security, and surely don't actively try to infect visitor's computers. That's something you will lose if you push users away from VLOPs.
Using non mainstream sites instead seems like a realistic way people are going to skirt this law, and those are very hard to regulate without other unpleasant side effects on Internet freedom. I think it's a reasonable concern to raise.
Imposing a burden on a handful of mainstream websites that already invest significantly into "safety" will push people into sites that are less able or willing to do so. Unlike the target of most other regulations or laws, it is trivial to find and browse new websites and there is (almost) no cost or risk. The only way it can be effectively regulated is with draconian measures.
windows/mac/linux?/xbox/ps5/nintendo/steam/etc..
used to be there where physical media, now to play games you need dozens of accounts across multiple sites with different settings and services. and even screen time limits often do not work reliable as it miscounts a lot.
The overriding goals are to (a) avoid overly alienating him from his peers' experience (e.g. don't be the only kid who can't watch some TV at home), while (b) teaching him to make good decisions himself and use things responsibily, by (c) introducing things at a measured pace.
Consequently, you're not going to keep a teenager away from porn. Not without causing more harms in doing so.
But! You can (and in my opinion should) absolutely moderate the speed at which it's introduced.
E.g. for now, at 10, he gets restrictions via VPN on his device. And you be frank with him about this! "Some websites aren't going to load" etc
But also you sit down with him and say "Look, this is how it's going to be, for now, because of your age. But when you turn 12, if you keep your grades up... I'll turn the filtering off for a couple hours a night."
IMHO, the problem isn't {thing}, the problem is {abuse of thing}. And the best way to empower people to avoid abusing a thing is to gradually build their skills to cope with it, which means measured exposure.
PS: Also, don't ever read his DNS logs. You don't want to know. Everyone, even children, deserve some secrets. The gold standard should be he-comes-to-you-with-questions, not you-go-to-him.
So, $0.02 as a person who grew up with what I thought at the time were overly-protective parents...
I say this as respectfully as possible, but imo, this is an insane take and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. Letting 12 year old children watch porn for a "couple hours per night" as a reward for good grades sounds like a dystopian hellscape. Porn is not for minors, full stop. We already have a male loneliness epidemic and a drop-off in dating in young men. We don't need to exacerbate problems by conditioning them to dull their desire for real intimacy, or to be OnlyFans simps from their pre-teen years. 12 year old minds don't need to be implicitly taught that women are objects to be used for the sexual gratification of men.
Teach them about sex, respect them and give them space to grow into themselves and still respect you, but pornography is not an inevitable given in someone's life, it is not a universal constant that every person falls into the trap of. It is a toxic, poisonous addiction to an intensely dopaminergic false sense of intimacy, it's destroying our young men and women. and I cannot recommend enough regularly moderating the devices and messages of any minors in your home. 16 years old is the earliest point where I would even consider tapering that moderation off slightly.
How do you propose to stop it?
Fully manage their devices? Never allow them access to the internet? Only allow them at friends' while supervised? Never let them out of your sight?
The redress for the ill is what's insane.
What we have is an epidemic of overly-restricted children who fail to learn independence and self-control, because parents "think they can do better." And now, sadly, have access to the technical means to absolutely control their children.
Don't.
They will sometimes do things you disagree with. But they will learn lessons from those things and grow into adults capable of handling themselves.
It's not "watching porn for a couple hours a night," it's doing something that's blocked for a couple hours a night. What that is? Well, that's the child you've raised.
Kids of the pre-digital generation certainly turned out okay, broadly speaking. And we certainly had far more freedom than kids nowadays (e.g. "I'll be hanging out with {friend}, call me at their house. I'll be home for dinner!").
But... it's also true that some modern evils weren't possible. Pedophiles couldn't groom us from across the country. Information came from the library or people. Communities were smaller and looked out for each other.
The one thing I'd be pretty resolute on -- establish some form of "you don't get to always have your device" up front. Whether that's homework time, or sleep time, or whenever. And be hard-nosed about it: no exceptions.
Otherwise "you always have your device" expectations set in, which coupled with stickiness of modern apps and peer pressure, means it's World War 3 trying to part them from it.
But if "no phone o'clock" has always been a thing... everything runs smoother.
I have a child who is happy to bypass rules and restrictions as a past time and with firewalls, screen time limits, frequent history reviews, physical lock boxes, and school accommodations he still frequently accesses content that is not appropriate. It requires hours a week to manage as well as effectively being constantly on call while my child is at school to approve time-based access to online resources.
I have another child who is a rule-follower and could be given a phone with unrestricted access and who would only use the approved apps and sites without any additional guard rails.
At least in our school district (and many others around the US), every student is given a computer that parents have no control over and which has filters managed by organizations with different priorities and values (and competency) than every family’s.