Turn on thread page Beta

Conservatives suggest extending porn age verification to social media watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    More authoritarian "won't someone please think of the children" nonsense from the Conservatives.

    They want time cut offs for children and teenagers, because they're supposedly spending "too much" time online. Now they've suggested time and age limits for web users.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX4lTtMXcAMXT1h.jpg:large

    Here's the Times article, but it's behind a paywall.

    First they suggested it for porn, now they're suggesting to extend it before it's even in place. How long before it's extended even further to control everyone's access to the internet?

    Getting really sick and tired of this creeping internet control and censorship, using the excuses of "think of the children" and "fake news".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    More authoritarian "won't someone please think of the children" nonsense from the Conservatives.

    They want time cut offs for children and teenagers, because they're supposedly spending "too much" time online. Now they've suggested time and age limits for web users.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX4lTtMXcAMXT1h.jpg:large

    Here's the Times article, but it's behind a paywall.

    First they suggested it for porn, now they're suggesting to extend it before it's even in place. How long before it's extended even further to control everyone's access to the internet?

    Getting really sick and tired of this creeping internet control and censorship, using the excuses of "think of the children" and "fake news".
    Every other form of media is subject to regulation, why not this?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    More authoritarian "won't someone please think of the children" nonsense from the Conservatives.

    They want time cut offs for children and teenagers, because they're supposedly spending "too much" time online. Now they've suggested time and age limits for web users.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX4lTtMXcAMXT1h.jpg:large

    Here's the Times article, but it's behind a paywall.

    First they suggested it for porn, now they're suggesting to extend it before it's even in place. How long before it's extended even further to control everyone's access to the internet?

    Getting really sick and tired of this creeping internet control and censorship, using the excuses of "think of the children" and "fake news".
    I'm sick and tired of it too, the same goes for video game restriction. What evidence is there to prove that violent video games cause violence? Yet they ban it for under 18's, authoritarianism is damaging to society

    We are all free humans, where is the liberty in this country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Every other form of media is subject to regulation, why not this?
    Because the government deciding how much time your kids are allowed on the internet and trying to control what sites you can access is highly authoritarian and simply not acceptable. Especially when they're also throwing "fake news" in as a justification.

    The regulation other media has is not comparable to the internet, because the internet is a completely different beast to the rest of the media. Its selling point is its freedom and wide access to information that the print media and broadcast media cannot come close to.

    And there is very clearly a desire by governments to end that freedom judging by the fact that this proposal started with porn and they're already suggesting extending it before it's even come into effect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Because the government deciding how much time your kids are allowed on the internet and trying to control what sites you can access is highly authoritarian and simply not acceptable. Especially when they're also throwing "fake news" in as a justification.

    The regulation other media has is not comparable to the internet, because the internet is a completely different beast to the rest of the media. Its selling point is its freedom and wide access to information that the print media and broadcast media cannot come close to.

    And there is very clearly a desire by governments to end that freedom judging by the fact that this proposal started with porn and they're already suggesting extending it before it's even come into effect.
    Nothing you've said there isn't opinion.

    We regulate films, we regulate TV, we regulate games, we regulate magazines, we regulate what people can see in shop windows.

    The internet is no different just because it's new. It's not above the law, it's simply that the law hasn't kept up.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    How is this even the slightest bit enforceable?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Children, are growing up in an age where social media and technology is going to be important to their lives.

    How can those in government who grew up in different circumstances, and many probably dont use social media try to restrict it :/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHuman98)
    How can those in government who grew up in different circumstances, and many probably dont use social media try to restrict it :/
    Do MPs who don't smoke have any right to say where the smoking ban should affect, or what the tax on cigarette packets should be?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    i thought these verification things are just a box that says click if you are over 18 ?? I think i saw one for a mobile phone company that needed a credit card but isnt that a bit socially exclusive as not everyone has a card
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Nothing you've said there isn't opinion.

    We regulate films, we regulate TV, we regulate games, we regulate magazines, we regulate what people can see in shop windows.

    The internet is no different just because it's new. It's not above the law, it's simply that the law hasn't kept up.
    Obviously not the same. I don't need to give out my credit card details to turn on my TV or go into a shop.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Obviously not the same. I don't need to give out my credit card details to turn on my TV or go into a shop.
    Depends which TV service you use these days, and you still (in theory, at least) need a license.

    And quite, because you could see anything if it wasn't regulated. That's no different to the internet.

    You wouldn't, I'm sure, advocate that videos of people being killed or mutilated were available without any kind of barrier to prevent the vulnerable seeing them, so at some level censorship is needed.
    Offline

    16
    Actually I think that is a good thing.

    Utterly unenforceable in general, outside of the big ones that the wrinklies have heard of, but it will mean that young people move to a variety of social media platforms, rather than Facebook and Twitter.

    I'm going to get in contact with my local MP and encourage him to block Reddit too, the British redditors are the worst.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    And there is very clearly a desire by governments to end that freedom judging by the fact that this proposal started with porn and they're already suggesting extending it before it's even come into effect.
    It is always about ending freedoms.

    Porn is always just an excuse they use to extend their powers. It isn't like the government have a massive moral panic about it - they don't have morals. Who is going to stick their necks out and appear like they're a massive pervert? Same with freedom of speech. Defending the freedom itself means often you defend those with nasty views.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Depends which TV service you use these days, and you still (in theory, at least) need a license.

    And quite, because you could see anything if it wasn't regulated. That's no different to the internet.

    You wouldn't, I'm sure, advocate that videos of people being killed or mutilated were available without any kind of barrier to prevent the vulnerable seeing them, so at some level censorship is needed.
    But that isn't to prove my age, it's to pay for a service. Stop drawing false equivalencies.

    Web filters exist. If little Timmy gains access to online porn or spends too long on the Gram, that's his parents' failure.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Nothing you've said there isn't opinion.

    We regulate films, we regulate TV, we regulate games, we regulate magazines, we regulate what people can see in shop windows.

    The internet is no different just because it's new. It's not above the law, it's simply that the law hasn't kept up.
    Give me a good reason why the government should be able to control what sites people can access based on age, or why the government should have the power to block whatever they want based on arbitrary and subjective criteria. Which could very easily end up being used against political content and used for actual censorship of the internet. Give me a good reason why it's the government's job to decide how much internet kids are allowed instead of the parents.

    None of those examples you use involve actually outright blocking access to information on the scale that control of the internet would. The internet IS completely different because it works in different ways and precisely because it gives freedom from the control of other media outlets. It's supposed to be more free than the rest of the media, that's the whole point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It really wouldn't work even if it was a good idea. It would be far too easy to get around, would be a waste of resources
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Nothing you've said there isn't opinion.

    We regulate films, we regulate TV, we regulate games, we regulate magazines, we regulate what people can see in shop windows.

    The internet is no different just because it's new. It's not above the law, it's simply that the law hasn't kept up.
    We don't regulate how long people can watch films or TV, or play games, or read magazines or newspapers, or go to the shops, etc.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    All science points towards social media having a negative effect on people especially young people, why shouldn’t the government intervene? It’s a proven fact, social media is crafted to cause damage to your mind. I think the government is simply acting in the best interest of people here.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    We don't regulate how long people can watch films or TV, or play games, or read magazines or newspapers, or go to the shops, etc.
    Only because we can't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zxyn)
    All science points towards social media having a negative effect on people especially young people, why shouldn’t the government intervene? It’s a proven fact, social media is crafted to cause damage to your mind. I think the government is simply acting in the best interest of people here.
    The government shouldn't intervene because it's the responsibility of parents to actually parent their kids and control things like this. Government stepping in to mandate how children and teens spend their free time is a massively heavy handed infringement of personal liberty, all in the name of allowing stupid useless incompetent parents to do even less parenting.

    And by far the biggest problem is that this is just another stepping stone to government control of the internet. They started with porn, now they're already talking about young people and social media, and you can guarantee if they get this through they'll move on to something else. And then you eventually end up with an internet where government has the power to block and censor whatever it wants.

    They started with porn because no one will stand up to defend it out of embarrassment, and now they're on to social media because it's a way to pander to older people with their stupid moral panic about how technology is evil.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 18, 2018
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.