this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
416 points (98.8% liked)
World News
32321 readers
865 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Such an on-device feature would either be trivial to break (if it's an ordinary API) or be impossible to implement in an open-source browser and OS (if it's some locked-down DRM-like thing), and the latter is not privacy-preserving because proprietary software tends to be spyware.
If these moralizers would just shut up, go away, and stop trying to ruin the Internet, that'd be great.
The whole internet censorship doesn't make any sense to begin with. We already have decades of free online porn and everyone is fine. Why would we try to limit porn usage online now? It's a cry for regulations from overprotective nannies. These blocks don't work anyways as it just needs one single kid with access to porn and they'll share it with the others. To believe we can control that is crazy.
No tool in the world will block new sites emerging not yet added to the filter or people from installing an uncensored browser.
I wish regulators good luck trying to regulate bittorrent and other peer to peer software. Not to even talk about what can be found with just installing the tor browser
They'll make it inconvenient to use anything but their DRM protected browser and DRM protected and certified OS. It's going to be like with android, where rooting your phone makes it impossible for most banks to do online banking. I personally stopped rooting my phone as I'm not fortunate enough to own two and carry two with me. Eventually they'll get you.
And guess what Google and Microsoft currently work on with the new web technologies, exactly what described above.
My bank app works fine with rooting last I checked. These days I just run a custom rom with gapps. The thing is that nothing Google and Microsoft do will matter in this case as there will always be websites that don't use it. Especially when talking about Piracy and websites running on tor or i2p. Even if illegal, new options will show up
32 years ago we were passing around 320x240 interlaced jpeg's on floppy disks downloaded from a 4800baud BBS. You had to be James fucking Bond to view that stuff on the family computer in the living room, or in the back of the computer lab. I remember sitting at the back of lab with some friends watching an image load of a disk and trying to figure out which hole his dick was in. That's how slow it was.
Today, you can get streaming 4k videos on your 7 inch computer while you're sitting at the back of the bus, or the back of class. I'd say accessibility to minors has greatly improved over the past 3 decades. Regulators are (as usual) playing catch-up with technology.
Before Internet video porn, kids were finding their dads' Playboys and VHS tapes.
And before that, people living in cabins or caves had sex in full view of their children because there was nowhere else to do it.
Children seeing adults bang is not even remotely new, and nothing overly bad ever came of it. The only reason anyone is concerned with this is because their screwed-up religion taught them to be afraid of sex, and that is not an adequate justification for compromising innocent adults' privacy.
I agree with your main points, but I don't think that just because something has been the status quo it doesn't deserve scrutiny. There are those out there who feel that this is an issue. For them, the best time to explore it is now. At this point it's futile, but I think it's important that we re-evaluate our laws and policies when there's a group asking for it. We just need to make sure the people making the decisions at the end of the day are competent...
This group has been demanding the censorship of porn, consequences be damned, for decades now. They have failed thus far, and the sky has not fallen as a result, so it's pretty clear that it's safe for society and the courts to continue to dismiss their irrational hysteria.
Personally I believe that there should be at least some attempt to protect kids from seeing adult content online. Ideally of course it'd be parental responsibility, but having some sort of system in place would be good. I think the tech around porn as it currently exists is deeply harmful, both for children and for women. I'm not against porn as a thing, but like.... come on, we can't just be spreading around videos without any sort of filters and removing it from the control of the people featured in the video.
There's not a good technical solution for these problems just yet it seems. I think the idea of age verification on-device, and then sending an 18+ or minor flag to apps/sites/etc. would be a good solution. We already click on a "I'm 18+" button, and this is functionally the equivalent but having age verification going on completely offline. Yes, people could bypass that with technical knowhow, but the point isn't to stop adults, it's to largely prevent kids from seeing this stuff.
It should be up to the parents. If they give a shit then they should deal with it. If they don't then whatever. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide and regulate it because they're going to do a poor job creating the rules, and probably some conservatives are going to have things blocked that aren't porn and are helpful to some kid's sexual education because they're regressive.
That sounds like the real motivation for this nonsense: not to protect kids from harm, but to protect their parents from the responsibility of properly educating them.
as people say for hate speech laws: "if you aren't wanting to show children anything sexual, then there shouldn't be a problem. what do you wish to show kids that you think may be considered sexual?"
naturally gov overreach is a concern even for speech but that doesn't stop people from trying to regulate speech.
I think ultimately though with the system in place mentioned, it wouldn't completely block access to educational materials as parents could easily show that stuff to their kids if they so choose.
You severely underestimate kids' technical know-how. If it can be broken, they will break it.
Not necessarily.
Recently we got a new LG TV that has an age lock option with some other family settings. The parent can turn it on with a PIN, and they can set up restrictions.
The same approach could be used here. But this would need 2 things: obviously support by the web browser app, and support by the OS to tie app installs, uninstalls and data wipes to the parent's code.
To help with cases when the device is sold, maybe the parent should press a button every year that they still want this, and also receive an email notification when the period is nearing it's end.
But a much better solution is that parents are dealing with their children.
They may see up some site filters, but when they notice that their child is using a workaround then it should be punished with taking away the phone.
Just an another HTTP header, flagging if user is an adult. Set it to False if OS reports that the account used has parental controls enabled.
This is just meant to keep children out, not protect state secrets.
HTTP headers can be faked. Easily.
That will keep children out for about 12 seconds.
Maybe, but if their parents failed to enable parental controls or the kids hack them, they shouldn't be allowed to blame the websites.
There's already plenty of options available to parents - legislators must be made to stop blaming websites when parents don't use those tools available to them.
Zero knowledge proof. Trusted issuer issues proof of birthdays. User submits proof of minimum age without disclosing additional information.
That would require you to disclose proof of your real-life identity to some dubious company for the purpose of unlocking porn. Definitely not privacy-preserving.
The company you disclose your age and online reference to doesn't need to know how their confirmation will be used. It could be an entity already knowledgeable (DVLA, IRS).
But yes, if porn is the only use case then this method is self incriminating.
That is precisely the problem. It will mostly or only be used for porn.
Not really. Most social media involves some rudimentary age verification, even though their age threshold is lower. Same goes for banking and interacting with government sites. Far from the only ones.
Yes, mainly:
Porn, licor, tabaco, gambling.
But also:
Jobs, dating, discounts, insurance etc.