British man claims he's unable to watch porn as tattoos confuse age check system
needtoknow.co.uk
needtoknow.co.uk
- EU introduces law, making thirdparty tracking cookies illegal
- Every advertisement tracker switches to CNAME based first/secondparty cookies
- EU judges decide they are illegal by default, too, without explicit consent
- Google pushes out Federal Learning of Cohorts (FLoC) prototype, and essentially saying they track so much of the internet, they don't even need cookies to get beyond 98% accuracy.
- Nobody on the internet seems to care. Wtf?
- Google pushed out FLOC.
- The Internet freaked out.
- Google withdrew FLOC.
Thinking Google backs off easily given their history is a pretty naive take on how the world works.
I realize it was likely flagged, but burying anything controversial means that only vanilla topics will ever be discussed in any depth.
Yet the engineers who frequent HN and work at big tech companies are the ones who need to know about cases like this the most.
You place too much weight on reading the "front page" .. that's community and mod curated toward the core ethos of the site.
HN has a wealth of ongoing in depth discussion of all manner of things that often don't make "front page", you can see these if you (say) browse or follow new comments or active threads
https://news.ycombinator.com/pool
More info about this feature from resident cool HN person minimaxir:
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/#secon...
You shouldn't have to be an extreme world-class outlier in any area in order to feel valued. It's ridiculous how everything has become an all-or-nothing deal. This is not healthy.
The planet is getting trashed and 'the children' are doomed.
Individually We try and help, driving less, recycling and so on, but it kinda gets diluted by a billion Chinese moving into the middle-class and burning coal like there's no tomorrow.
Yeah:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
The crew goes back to 21st century earth to find that being unemployed is illegal and they quickly get put in a ghetto with other indigents.
At one point they're trying to get on the internet (the show was aired in 1995 so they predicted the 21st century internet) but they can't login because you have have a real identity and be a citizen in good standing (so nobody in the ghetto).
It's really the most prescient episode of Star Trek ever made.
The argument usually starts with an assumption that nobody did those things before and it's obvious that life was better before for everyone when those things were viewed as shameful.
Personally I think it's been known for centuries that sex is a pleasurable activity and controlling pleasure is a good way to control people.
If you look at levels of depression, sexual disfunction the steep drop in relationships and dating among younger people and other metrics you could argue the exact opposite, although obviously there are other factors (social media, ect) in how "messed up" generations are besides the widespread watching of porn by children.
"Other factors" is doing a heavy lifting here. I don't have a skin in this game, but politicians are scared to touch the elephant in the room (smartphones + social media), because they know they'll get a flack instantly. I don't think porn consumption among teenage girls are high, yet their depression rates are high as well.
>I don't think porn consumption among teenage girls are high, yet their depression rates are high as well.
That isn't what the data says.
>Seventy-three percent of the respondents (75 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls) said they had watched online pornography. The average age they started was 12. Many began younger.
>Seven in 10 who admitted they had watched porn intentionally said they had done so in the past week.
>Four in 10 said they had watched pornography, including nudity and sexual acts, during the school day. Almost half said they had done so on school-owned devices.
>Of those who watched the past week, 80 percent said they had seen “what appears to be rape, choking, or someone in pain.”
>Fewer than half (43 percent) said they had discussed pornography with a trusted adult. (Robb and Mann, 2023).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/raising-kind-kids/20...
I'm certainly no puritan, but it seems absurd to me to suggest that this early and mostly ubiquitous exposure to (often violent) pornography doesn't have a significant negative effect on the developing minds of children.
Edit: Just to be clear, my contention that children watching pornography is harmful to their development is in no way an endorsement of the crusade to force users to link their IDs to their online accounts under the fig leaf of "protecting children" (the universal trope used to deprive people of their rights).
This is very broad, we both know what "being too much into porn" means. I doubt that an average girl watches as much porn as an average man. And let me put it this way, most of my friends (guys and girls) are far from being puritan. Consumption type between these two groups is significantly different.
But I might be making stuff up. I just think social media is more damaging, because kids start comparing themselves to everyone else. In this case, everyone else became "global everyone else" rather than "local everyone else" (which was the case back in my middle school days). I feel like that's the biggest problem, because you people see what they're missing out on, which is basically unavailable to 99% of population. That simple thought process would bring down any kid.
If you are talking about men and women, perhaps that is true. I'm not of the opinion that watching pornography as an adult matters much one way or the other once your psyche is fully developed. The original OP regarded children and their development, and the study I cited was taken among children aged 13-17. These aren't my numbers, this is a peer-reviewed study.
>Seven in 10 who admitted they had watched porn intentionally said they had done so in the past week.
>Seventy-three percent of the respondents (75 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls) said they had watched online pornography. The average age they started was 12. Many began younger.
I also think social media is more damaging to children, but it isn't a zero sum game. With or without social media, I don't see how anyone can credibly argue that child exposure to (often extremely violent) hardcore pornography isn't a contributing negative factor.
This absolutely is a real problem, especially for younger kids. Have you talked to a teacher? Think things like "a kindergartner runs around grabbing teachers' tits and saying "I want to ..." lines you'd expect from a rape work like 50 Shades of Gray. It is neither in the child's interest nor in the interest of society at large to let that happen. And for every case that's as obviously bad as that one, who knows how many come off as creeps or even manage to appear normal from the outside, while suffering the trauma internally?
Remember, the status quo on the Internet is no control at all. Real-world sex businesses aren't allowed to get away with that, why should the Internet be exempt from laws? Just because the government is slow and incompetent to get started doesn't mean we can stick with "self-regulate, aka no regulation at all".
We can argue about exactly what the law should be, and we can argue how it should be implemented, but there absolutely must be something.
Sure, a law won't automagically fix everything. But it provides the starting point that almost every individual or group action must rely on.
(Then of course the trick is that older kids will show porn to younger ones just to mess with them. Of course ID requirements won't fix this.)
Maybe problem is not a knife. Maybe problem are parents who are expecting that state will baby sit their children.
Porn does harm some people, as it's easy to get addicted to it, and there's a lot of bad things happening on the supply side of it. I'm sure porn has also changed how people behave and what people expect in relationships, but it's hard to study such things. The amount of sex we have has decreased recently. I don't know if it's due to porn, but it'd be worth studying. If sexual satisfaction is easily available, there's less reason to seek the real thing.
It's beyond parents to fix these things, at best they can delay the discovery of porn for a few years, but that doesn't fix anything.
You don't like stuff other people enjoy and then you will go out of your way with ludicrous excuses to destroy it for others. Like a religious bigot.
This is just an anecdote with no way to verify it or the cause.
If you absolutely must have a barrier to entry, let it be a credit card or other form of payment (everyone likes free porn, but sex work is real work and deserves to be paid). It's something not a lot of kids have access to (a bank account) and you don't have to track people's identities anymore. (Kids can steal their parents' cards but that's on the parents.)
That said, these laws are bad and counterproductive. They create more (worse) problems than they solve. What I went through could have been averted if I understood the health impacts and risks. Back then, no one knew, and no one talked about it. I also don't know how representative my particular case was. I endured many years of chronic insomnia, anxiety, self-loathing and depression.
Is there anyone stupid enough to think that it won't?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Not only this but there seems to be no one on mainstream platforms putting forward the argument that what will mess kids up is a lack of access to sex education, which the bill also restricts.
Did you mean "Airstrip One"?
The UK has always been obsessed with controlling what they deem "indecent behavior". The rich have always been able to ignore this and the poor have always been forced to pick up the tab.
You think members of the government are entering their ID before going to pornhub? Not a chance. They are all circumventing this system themselves while endorsing it in public.
If it were about children then it would be the children that would need to be restricted from accessing the open internet, not adults of legal age who are supposed to have the rights needing to gain access to their inalienable rights … at least in America.
I also want to protect children from pornography, especially since I know people who have been deeply harmed by it, but it should be that any device that is for or used by children, people with curtailed and subordinate rights, are restricted by white-lists, not the other way around.
This website doesn't even want to say "porn" out loud.
> At the moment, he feels stuck with no clear solution.
Hm.
Clearly drawing this much on your face is the act of a child.
As for the story itself, it's depressing but sadly unsurprising that the whole population of the UK seems to accept being infantilized in this fashion in a country notorious for letting politically well-connected people evade any consequences for actual sex abuse.
I love that "pdf file" is used in place of pedophile.
Asterisking is old-fashioned.
The others are understandable enough, but what's up with this one?
As a reasonable form of civil disobedience? No - better to use Garry's Mod or whatever to bypass it entirely.
https://www.newzealand.com/int/feature/ta-moko-maori-tattoo/