That ship has sailed. Even the opposition admits that trying to get everyone to filter is not going to work and is functionally insignificant. The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.
We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world.
Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content.
1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature.
2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon.
3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding?
4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.
Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost.
This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. When left up to the parents individually it's an absolute disaster.
These are just some specific examples of where I the nanny state can be beneficial. For most things in general though I'd also prefer people govern themselves (and their kids) whenever possible.
Agreed on the classroom angle, there are many reasons (e.g. cheating, concentration) to treat the availability of devices in a uniform way there.
> If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids
A focus on the handheld device also makes it easier to handle other related concerns that can't really be solved any other way, like "no social-media after bedtime."
I'm seeing this as a parent in real time. I'm actually changing my kid's friend's parent behaviors by simply being like, "Cool. But my kid isn't/is going to do that" I don't know when parenting happened by social committee, but I don't believe in it.
It's always been the case. We've just become so individualistic, at least in some western cultures, that we rail against it. There's even an old saying "It takes a village to raise a child".
(Yes fingerprinting is a huge issue but the implications of that get fairly complicated.)
State actor and porn site operator are two very different things. Pointing to the former in this context reads like a non sequitur to me.
We already live in an age of relatively little privacy.
The government could fairly easily gain access to the contents of a security deposit box. That doesn't justify a policy requiring proactively declaring their contents to the authorities.
And all of that is before we even get to the essential question - would the proposed measure actually accomplish the officially stated goal?
Or to summarize, the situation is already organically bad so everyone should be okay if we enact laws that artificially make it even worse in new ways.
To be blunt your reasoning seems entirely specious to me.
The choice between you and others keeping the belief that your porn viewing habits are completely anonymous vs. allowing minors unfettered access to hardcore pornography I choose the latter as the more important issue.
I don't believe anyone here suggested that it was.
> Google and others already track us
This is not related to the discussion at hand. I already explained to you. Google does not track me on non-google sites. My state government does not track my browsing history. Neither does the federal government.
> the argument against age verification on privacy grounds is weak
You are responding with nonsense and ignoring the information I provided.
> As with most things there are tradeoffs and there is no perfect solution.
An empty platitude. The thing you are arguing for fundamentally does not work to accomplish the stated goal, although it is quite likely to accomplish other unstated goals. The "tradeoff" is a systematic loss of privacy that is likely to weaken civil liberties in the long run.
> keeping the belief that your porn viewing habits are completely anonymous vs. allowing minors unfettered access
Yet another misrepresentation. At this point I have to assume that your behavior is intentional. I'm left with the impression that you are an ideologically motivated actor who is fully aware that you don't have a leg to stand on but is attempting to sway the perception of an unseen audience anyhow.
The actual choice presented here is between a "solution" that openly invites government overreach without actually solving the stated problem versus the current status quo or possibly some alternative approach. Honestly I've yet to be convinced of the issue with the current status quo. Parental controls exist. Whitelists exist. Why can't we expect parents to do their jobs by parenting?
The mainstream social networks don't permit nudity. If you really have so little faith in your own child's judgment then whitelist Facebook, Wikipedia, and a few others and call it a day. Although I do have to wonder. Assuming they're a teenager, why do you have so little faith in their cognitive abilities?
In the end I'm reasonably certain that unfettered access to social networks is far worse for development than unfettered access to hardcore pornography. C'est la vie.
If a porn company has to collect all the information about me (name, address, age, etc) and keep it in their database then, if they get hacked, then all that information, connected to what I viewed, is available to the hackers.
If the porn company has an ID that it assigns each person, and it reaches out to some government agency to say "is this person of age" (without their internal ID), then stores "yes/no" with the ID; then hacking cannot (or is much less likely to be able to) connect "what account has viewed what" with "what human being is attached to the account".
Effectively, by making the porn site need to collect and maintain personal information, privacy is made less safe. If the government is going to demand proof of age, then the government is on the hook for supplying a reasonable way to check it.
Before demanding car companies build safer vehicles I first invented the seat belt.
Yes, in my experience it isn't as severe as "Ostracized", but definitely a bit "left out" occasionally, especially when friends are all doing "snap streaks" and swap BFFs (as they do) etc.
So at least in my area, a girl at 12+ will miss out on some social peer activities if she does not have a phone. End of the world? Probably not, but I guess it depends on your community's local culture. Also, the valley probably isn't a great baseline for comparison.
I'm not recommending anything. I just think we tend to ignore the nuance.
This was the absolute norm in the 00s when cellphones became common and cheap enough for teens to often have one. If you were seen with a phone out it would be confiscated. At some point schools apparently just gave up and only a few are starting to rediscover the policy as though it's a novel idea.
What the fuck happened? When exactly did this transition happen?
In the late 2000s, as a response to a parental demand for communication and safety following high-profile school emergencies, especially school shootings.
Its not parents, primarily.
IMO the pressure comes from a few lobby groups, media scares, companies with age verification products to sell and big tech - the last because it imposes compliance costs that removes competition, and new entrants in particular.
You've skipped right past the "does it work" question. It doesn't. Porn is available on file sharing networks in far greater quantity than it is on reputable websites.
The only realistic methods I'm aware of are whitelist filtering, sufficient supervision, or sufficient interaction and education.