UK to introduce porn age-checks in July Watch

quasa
  • Entertainment Forum Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
My life is ruined, discuss! (Joking)
Definitely will be using a VPN. Not a fan of age checks nor do I want my private information leaked.

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47960775
haha, about time (werent they supposed to introduce this a year or 2 ago?). This is great news and should act as a deterent for those addicted to the stuff / kids watching it. Also proxies arent always safe (i'd rather use a good old fashioned LAN for sensitive stuff info transmission than VPN via wifi). 1 of my mates did also mention that some pornsites dont work if you use a VPN, so that kinda defeats the purpose of using one to view porn does it not?
(Original post by miniminx3310)
what a stupid scheme xD
honestly more horny teens, oh lord !!

u18s will just find it easy to bypass it via proxy webs/ use twitter etcc
further, how are they meant to honestly verify it... *face palm*

I dont get how u cant watch porn until ur 18, but can be doing it at 16 as well....

I think they need to be concentrating on filtering out the weird stuff on the web rather than restricting all of it- thats if the gov really wants to make an impact anyhow
arent most teens horny anyways? in anycase, I have seen people in their 80s on viagra /cialis (although curiously, I have only seen 1 person on alprostadil).

Im actually surprised twitter doesnt introduce something like this as its pretty easy to see stuff on public profiles. but I do agree with your points otherwise.
1
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
Don't think a few traditional protestors that have some unruly elements, is nearly as bad as UKs instability. Literally playing with the economic fortunes of the whole nation on TV weekly.

Bet the UK parliament would trade a yellow vest movement....instead of ever having that damn referendum to begin with lol.
(Original post by Cryoraptor)
France is not much better with all the political unrest
0
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by quasa)
haha, about time (werent they supposed to introduce this a year or 2 ago?). This is great news and should act as a deterent for those addicted to the stuff / kids watching it. Also proxies arent always safe (i'd rather use a good old fashioned LAN for sensitive stuff info transmission than VPN via wifi). 1 of my mates did also mention that some pornsites dont work if you use a VPN, so that kinda defeats the purpose of using one to view porn does it not?


arent most teens horny anyways? in anycase, I have seen people in their 80s on viagra /cialis (although curiously, I have only seen 1 person on alprostadil).

Im actually surprised twitter doesnt introduce something like this as its pretty easy to see stuff on public profiles. but I do agree with your points otherwise.
Proxies probably aren't always safe and um pornsites do work on VPN (May of turned it on the 1st of April thinking the UK introduced the new system)
0
reply
username4454836
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
My favourite Russian social media site will be unaffected so I don't care.
0
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by Decahedron)
My favourite Russian social media site will be unaffected so I don't care.
I love VK.
1
reply
Cryoraptor
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
Same here lol, was pleasantly surprised to see it was all a load of hot air once again
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
Proxies probably aren't always safe and um pornsites do work on VPN (May of turned it on the 1st of April thinking the UK introduced the new system)
0
reply
TheMcSame
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
Pointless really. Government getting involved for its own sake. It's so easy to bypass region specific things like this it isn't even funny, it just forces the computer illiterate to fork over private info a company shouldn't need.
0
reply
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
My life is ruined, discuss! (Joking)
Definitely will be using a VPN. Not a fan of age checks nor do I want my private information leaked.

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47960775
You don't need to because it will be delayed, again.

Has been delayed twice already. It was supposed to be introduced last year.
1
reply
Acsel
  • Entertainment Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by Cryoraptor)
I never said it was only a UK problem. Of course, governments everywhere are trying to control the internet and some already have.
I didn't claim you did. I'm just saying that governments trying to control the Internet is a widespread problem. And nobody is having much luck.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
All those things apart from the watershed involve the child actually doing something that could be harmful to them, and with the watershed, parents are partially responsible for that because it's up to them to get their kids to bed before 9PM.

With porn, it's just watching the sexual act, and in this day and age, the majority of children are introduced to 'real' sex by porn.
If this were entirely true, there would have been no restrictions placed on adult magazines or over 18 video tapes, back before the Internet were so widespread. There's countless debate about whether porn is actually harmful, but even if watching porn isn't outright unhealthy, it's not exactly a good thing. There's a reason we have sexual education in schools, rather than just letting kids watch porn and learn from that.

Also a reminder that not all porn is simply watching a sexual act and it's hardly a good thing to start giving young people an unrealistic expectation of sex. Not to mention children are impressionable and like to imitate what they see, whether that's the acts involved, the general behaviour, the language, etc. The logical conclusion of porn being dangerous to young people in particular is age restrictions, because that's how it's been handled before. The conclusion (protection) is absolutely correct but the implementation (age restrictions) doesn't work on Internet technology. This is where governments fall down, they don't understand that the Internet is a new technology that needs treating in a different way.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
After that, all they have to do is add new websites they don't like- I mean pose a threat to the public to their blocker. Trust me, there will be more categories of websites they ban.
I feel like this is all a bit of a stretch, especially when nothing has actually happened. The Internet is fundamentally in the same place it was 10 or 20 years ago with regards to censorship and control. What you're describing is effectively close to the sort of censorship we see in far Eastern countries. We're an incredibly long way away from the Great Firewall of China popping up here in the UK.
0
reply
username4148304
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by The RAR)
This is ridiculous, you should be able to watch whatever the hell you like on the internet no matter what it is. You are only watching it yourself and entertaining yourself what harm is it actually doing? They claim it is to "keep children safe", no no let me translate that "It's our first step to dictatorship" because not so long ago they banned energy drink for under 16 I believe and now this? The government are not parents, they should keep their noses out where it does not belong.

Also sponsored by VPN
the government should intervene when the market fails. the adult entertainment industry fails here not taking into account the addictive & negative side effects of their product and so government intervention is needed, parents intervention is not enough.

porn is an addiction that needs to be blocked off, i really hope this works.
2
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
(Original post by lowwkey)
the government should intervene when the market fails. the adult entertainment industry fails here not taking into account the addictive & negative side effects of their product and so government intervention is needed, parents intervention is not enough.

porn is an addiction that needs to be blocked off, i really hope this works.
I challenge the government to do a poll asking a good what 200 ordinary people from the country what they think of the porn blocks, 100% guaranteed that more than 50% of them will not welcome it. Have they even asked the parents about this before implementing this stupid policy? I don't think so, next they will probably stop people from watching certain political videos. People search for porn, so if they are getting addictive that's their problem and they themselves can probably sort it out, why does the government have to intervene in your life, your freedom your choice. Banning energy drinks for under 16s was already stupid enough, maybe the government could work harder on something which will actually help the people and that is sorting out Brexit than go after useless shite like this.
If there is anything which the UK is famous for, is being a nanny state
Last edited by The RAR; 1 month ago
0
reply
Cryoraptor
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
Porn being addictive is an over-hyped moral panic. The vast majority of men have watched porn at some point, and so have the majority of women. If it was really as harmful as some claim, then most of the population would be horrific addicts of porn. Porn addiction only happens to a small margin of the population. I have been watching porn since I was 12 and I'm not addicted to it in the slightest. If what they said about it was true then I would be the equivalent of a cocaine addict by now, just for porn rather than cocaine. If you ask me, porn addiction is a symptom of a bigger problem. Porn can't be physically addictive because it doesn't do anything to your body. It's the same moral panic as cannabis: it's given a reputation as a horrible addictive mess that turns you into a loser with no life, when really that is far from the case.

The next time the media reports on some horrific statistics about porn's 'addiction rates', don't believe it. Don't believe what the media says in general.
1
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
My concern is those who will get around it, especially via the dark web. The other is that what will be defined as porn will be too wide- for example a topless shot of someone on holiday.
1
reply
drystar
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
Still don't understand how I can have sex at 16 but can't watch porn...
3
reply
JoshDarnIt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
Wish they would just ban it all together ngl
0
reply
Cryoraptor
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
I'm sorry but where have I said that porn should be the way children learn about sex? All I've said is that it's a common way children first encounter sex. I also put real in ''s because you're right, it's not real. I first got sex ed in year 5, you know, very basic stuff. I already knew what sex was at that time. That wasn't what made me start looking up sexual material though. I first started looking at soft porn, like nude pictures of women when I was 11, completely independent of anyone else. It's like a biological clock had started ticking, which is exactly what happens. Children know when they become sexually mature and they will find sexually explicit material when they are ready. In my case, porn didn't teach me anything about sex; it was a side desire for sexually explicit material, which again is what happens when you reach puberty.

In this country at least, sex ed happens earlier than when children start seeking sexually explicit material. So they already know what sex is, but that's got nothing to do with it. What I'm saying is that every child has a biological clock that will start ticking at a specific time, and when it does, they start seeking sexual material. Almost every person in this country who has gone through puberty has sought after sexually explicit material and found it eventually. Pretty much everyone I know has been viewing porn since the ages of 12 or 13, and yet none of us are sexually deviant perverts. Claiming porn is dangerous to children is absolutely unfounded.

Honestly, I think it's naive to believe this is an honest action, especially with the other things the government and other governments have been doing recently. It will lead to more blockages unless the leftservatives are moved out of parliament. This isn't about protecting children, this is purely political.
(Original post by Acsel)
I didn't claim you did. I'm just saying that governments trying to control the Internet is a widespread problem. And nobody is having much luck.



If this were entirely true, there would have been no restrictions placed on adult magazines or over 18 video tapes, back before the Internet were so widespread. There's countless debate about whether porn is actually harmful, but even if watching porn isn't outright unhealthy, it's not exactly a good thing. There's a reason we have sexual education in schools, rather than just letting kids watch porn and learn from that.

Also a reminder that not all porn is simply watching a sexual act and it's hardly a good thing to start giving young people an unrealistic expectation of sex. Not to mention children are impressionable and like to imitate what they see, whether that's the acts involved, the general behaviour, the language, etc. The logical conclusion of porn being dangerous to young people in particular is age restrictions, because that's how it's been handled before. The conclusion (protection) is absolutely correct but the implementation (age restrictions) doesn't work on Internet technology. This is where governments fall down, they don't understand that the Internet is a new technology that needs treating in a different way.



I feel like this is all a bit of a stretch, especially when nothing has actually happened. The Internet is fundamentally in the same place it was 10 or 20 years ago with regards to censorship and control. What you're describing is effectively close to the sort of censorship we see in far Eastern countries. We're an incredibly long way away from the Great Firewall of China popping up here in the UK.
0
reply
Acsel
  • Entertainment Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
(Original post by Cryoraptor)
I'm sorry but where have I said that porn should be the way children learn about sex?
Again I'm not claiming you are saying that.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
What I'm saying is that every child has a biological clock that will start ticking at a specific time, and when it does, they start seeking sexual material.
Which is fine. The difference is that nowadays they have easy access to a lot of hard porn, rather than the dirty magazine they happened to find on the street.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
Claiming porn is dangerous to children is absolutely unfounded.
Except it's not unfounded and there's tons of research that supports both sides. Kids are becoming sexually active at younger ages. Porn addiction is a thing. Sexual abuse in schools is a thing. And so on. The "I'm alright so it must be safe" thing isn't a legitimate argument. This also directly contradicts a previous post you made:

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
Of course, wanting to protect young children from sexually explicit material is a good idea.
If there were no danger involved with exposing children to sexually explicit material then you wouldn't think protecting them were a good idea to begin with. You can't claim that protecting kids is a good idea and also claim the thing you are protecting them from is totally harmless. But that's all besides the point, because the thread is not a debate on whether porn is dangerous.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
Honestly, I think it's naive to believe this is an honest action
It's equally naive to think this is purely political. Not that either of us have any evidence which would hold credibility either way. Although I'm not claiming it's an honest action, I'm simply saying the intention of protecting child is fine, the actions taken are dumb. Probably best to save the political BS until there's actually some evidence which supports it.
0
reply
Cryoraptor
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
Porn addiction is a thing that happens to a very small amount of people. I'm not just saying I'M fine, I'm saying EVERYONE I KNOW is fine. If it was just me then everyone else around me would be a crippled porn addict. That's still an anecdote but you get the picture.

Yes, there is access to hard porn, but like I said, children will find what they want to find when they're ready. If they aren't ready for hard porn, they won't look for hard porn. It isn't something that just pops onto your hard drive, nor is it something that pops up after looking at soft porn. Trust me, I'm experienced with porn, you have to look for the hard stuff.

I feel like you're missing the point a bit. I said 'young children', as in, not old enough to comprehend it. Obviously you don't want to expose them to porn. I was saying that it's the parents' responsibility to prevent the untimely discovery of porn, because I can understand how that might be traumatising or otherwise damaging to a child. Someone I know accidentally discovered porn and masturbation before he should have; he's never gone near the stuff again and has no interest in sex whatsoever. That's a result of untimely discovery. This isn't a reason to do something like this though; that's a minority of cases, and it's not the responsibility of the government or porn websites. Most young children don't find porn because they simply aren't looking for it.

It's not naive though. It's the fairly obvious option if you ask me. Just look at what's been going on for the past few years worldwide. It's one more step towards government control of the internet.
(Original post by Acsel)
Again I'm not claiming you are saying that.



Which is fine. The difference is that nowadays they have easy access to a lot of hard porn, rather than the dirty magazine they happened to find on the street.



Except it's not unfounded and there's tons of research that supports both sides. Kids are becoming sexually active at younger ages. Porn addiction is a thing. Sexual abuse in schools is a thing. And so on. The "I'm alright so it must be safe" thing isn't a legitimate argument. This also directly contradicts a previous post you made:



If there were no danger involved with exposing children to sexually explicit material then you wouldn't think protecting them were a good idea to begin with. You can't claim that protecting kids is a good idea and also claim the thing you are protecting them from is totally harmless. But that's all besides the point, because the thread is not a debate on whether porn is dangerous.



It's equally naive to think this is purely political. Not that either of us have any evidence which would hold credibility either way. Although I'm not claiming it's an honest action, I'm simply saying the intention of protecting child is fine, the actions taken are dumb. Probably best to save the political BS until there's actually some evidence which supports it.
0
reply
username4515112
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by Cryoraptor)
Porn being addictive is an over-hyped moral panic. The vast majority of men have watched porn at some point, and so have the majority of women. If it was really as harmful as some claim, then most of the population would be horrific addicts of porn. Porn addiction only happens to a small margin of the population. I have been watching porn since I was 12 and I'm not addicted to it in the slightest. If what they said about it was true then I would be the equivalent of a cocaine addict by now, just for porn rather than cocaine. If you ask me, porn addiction is a symptom of a bigger problem. Porn can't be physically addictive because it doesn't do anything to your body. It's the same moral panic as cannabis: it's given a reputation as a horrible addictive mess that turns you into a loser with no life, when really that is far from the case.

The next time the media reports on some horrific statistics about porn's 'addiction rates', don't believe it. Don't believe what the media says in general.
no one knows if theyre addicted or not until they try to quit. few decide to quit porn outright because we are told its 'normal natural healthy'. in my experience and other porn free people if you watch porn regularly for years and years you can't just quit. i quit 4 years ago and im still trying to quit. and im not some sort of crazy addict i watched it 2/3 x a week.
porn does damage the body it triggers the reward circuit it mens brain similar to that of a hardcore drug. it produces unnatural amounts of dopamine and the brain starts cutting back receptors to handle it. its why you need to watch more hardcore porn to get the same high

'. I have been watching porn since I was 12 and I'm not addicted to it in the slightest'. i had that thought once just like all the other addicts did
Last edited by username4515112; 1 month ago
0
reply
Acsel
  • Entertainment Forum Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
(Original post by Cryoraptor)
Yes, there is access to hard porn, but like I said, children will find what they want to find when they're ready.
Except it's literally never been an option. It's only in the last decade or so that kids have started having unfettered personal access to the Internet, and with it easy access to porn. Prior to that, children could not simply find it when they wanted because porn was less of a digital commodity. 10 years ago a lot of children were lucky to have a phone, let alone one with Internet access. 15 years ago they were lucky to even have a laptop or access to the Internet.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
Trust me, I'm experienced with porn, you have to look for the hard stuff.
IDK what your definition of hard porn is, but the sort of stuff that pops up on the front page of any popular porn site is considered hardcore porn. And unsurprisingly a quick Google search for porn and those sites pop straight up.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
I feel like you're missing the point a bit.
I genuinely wasn't aware there was a point, I'm unsure where exactly this conversation was going.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
I was saying that it's the parents' responsibility to prevent the untimely discovery of porn
As I mentioned before, parents cannot be held singly responsible. Even the parents who are tech savvy enough to take preventative measures aren't in total control of everything their kids do.

I'm not saying one party should be wholly responsible but it needs to be a group effort. And right now, porn sites do absolutely nothing to protect minors. Government legislation is the only way that'll change. Trying to enforce age verification is the wrong action, but it's a step in the right general direction.

(Original post by Cryoraptor)
It's not naive though. It's the fairly obvious option if you ask me. Just look at what's been going on for the past few years worldwide. It's one more step towards government control of the internet.
And yet despite all that, here we are with no substantial changes to how things were years ago. Despite it being supposedly one more step towards government control, it very much seems like we've barely even taken the first step. Can you actually describe an Internet legislative change, that has come about as a result of government, that has had a purely negative impact? And if you can, can you also describe how it's part of a wider picture to control the Internet? I'd wager not
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (490)
31.07%
The paper was reasonable (608)
38.55%
Not feeling great about that exam... (258)
16.36%
It was TERRIBLE (221)
14.01%

Watched Threads

View All