Children aren’t using VPNs. Also I am going to say this: it doesn’t matter that fucking much. I watched porn before I was 18. It didn’t really do much to me. It did not give me unrealistic expectations of women. What did affect me were entirely unrelated stuff. Which is why I do need therapy and sexual therapy, but it wasnt the porn. It was people like that fucker.
I initially read that as “stop using VPNs to watch child porn, ministers told” and was expecting a very different article.
Ministers, stop watching them watch porn…
How about parent your children?
What about the crappy late night TV channels with the women waving a cordless house phone like it’s 1996?
I’m perfectly able to watch porn because I’m 45, but I refuse to interact with any of this prove your age bollocks because I know full well that “we won’t store your details” and “we will share your details with 1284 trusted data partners” are the same picture.
Also “Data breach of 500K users IDs discovered on dark web”
Kids watching porn is a much smaller problem than data breaches. Those can fucking ruin people.
I remember when my step-son was a teenager. I didn’t care that he watched porn. I cared that he infected the family PC with viruses and malware trying to watch porn.
FYI, with Mullvad VPN set to UK, sites that require age verification:
Sites tha do NOT require age verification:
- hqporner.com
- xhamster.com
- youjizz.com
- alohatube.com
- qqqporn.com
- xnxx.com
- xcafe.com
- helloporn.co
- go.porn
- cartoonporn.pro
And xvideos.com is a bit special since it shows you the thumbnails of porn videos but won’t let you play them.
But we need to stop VPNs! Think of the whole two children that have VPNs! What if instead of just going to the half of the sites that don’t verify age, they figure out how to use a VPN?! Oh the humanity!
Yeah, UK wants to de-anonymize VPN users as the next step in their attack on free speech. It is laughable to think this is about anything else.
Very interesting. I’ll have to inspect and research each of these sites, many I never knew about, in very close detail for the sake of science.
Streisand effect: the BBC is telling every last kid that VPN is exactly the way to circumvent the prohibition.
Because the goal is to outlaw VPNs. To do that they need enough children to use VPNs to make it credible enough.
As if something being credible has ever stopped a politician from acting.
if the strategy is to tell children to stop circumventing the rules with a workaround, couldn’t the original messaging just have been “talk to your children about not watching porn”
it’s so obvious the identification laws have nothing to do with protecting children from porn and everything to do with Big Brother surveillance
Who cares if kids porn anyways? Like they’re going to find a way if they want to. I was cooking into my own around the time the Internet just started hitting households, and therefore wasn’t the vehicle for porn it is today. There was a full on underground economy with all the prepubescent boys. Kids are going to do what they want regardless of legality.
This has nothing to do with porn or protecting children. It’s a backdoor way to attach names and faces to VPN usage so movie and music studios can sue specific people for torrenting. They failed in bringing lawsuits previously because they couldn’t pin point the piracy to specific individuals. I would bet money that the ministers leading this charge have ties to groups in the movie and music industry. The UK will be the testbed before the full rollout in the EU and then worldwide.
This is a lot bigger than the entertainment industry now. Creeping fascism and the trillion dollar surveillance capitalism industry are hellish bed buddies.
Even with an association of an identity to a VPN provider, there is no one-to-one correspondence between a person and an IP address.
True but that at least gives them a start point to try a prosecution that they didn’t have before. It also depends on if the VPN provider responds to a subpeona request or national/international jurisdictions.
Are these children in the room with him?
This is fascists using “think of the children” to violate everyone’s online privacy and spy on everyone worldwide.
Ok one question: Why do we have to protect children from porn if they’ve already gotten exposed to it?
To add to it: Why do we need to protect children that arent ours from things their parents are supposed to protect them from?
Weird way to shift job tasks around.
It’s preying on the tech illiteracy of idiots. There are several pieces of software that can be used to locally censor the internet for minors, and they’re very affordable, and I bet free versions (open source?) probably also exist.
When I was a wee lad, there were “internet safety guides” being shown to kids and parents including :
- Don’t post personal information online
- Do not use your real name on the internet
- Do not give images of your ID to anyone online
But then, facebook asked for people’s fucking IDs and real names, and people just fucking forked it over. GOOD JOB DICKHEADS.
Why do we have to protect children from porn if they’ve already gotten exposed to it?
… did you know that in maternity wards, more children are born every year?
I hate what is fucking going on, but you know, logic.
So they have more time to watch people shooting each other.
It’s funny how all the bigwigs are suddenly interested in “child safety” now that ol Eppie is gone, funny that. Also at least kids are learning how stick it to those old sacks for trying to take away their freedom.
we could have arrived at this argument before this whole data stealing conundrum
Hmmmmm, let me play devils advocate and say that kids should have access to porn.
If you want to actually play devil’s advocate, you gotta give an argument. Otherwise, you’re just being contrarian.
Let me give you one, kids try to explore topics out of curiosity. They are probably not going to look up someone torturing animals, because they don’t want to see that. Kids usually look up and explore things they are ready for. Also “kids” is a pretty diverse group, a 5 year old and a 15 year old kid are very different.
For real young kids parents should monitor online behavior anyway. For teens, how is life this different than looking at a playboy or a porn tape. Teens have been doing that forever, the people creating these laws probably did that when they where kids.
It’s probably a lot better to let kids (teens) explore nudity and sex in a safe environment, instead of letting them go unsupervised in places that ignore the law.
It’s basically the same argument with drugs, offering legal options vs. going to a dealer and possibly getting much more dangerous drugs mixed in.
Would you rather your teenage son :
- Break his fucking head intruding on some poor adult woman’s privacy to see a naked woman
- See hardcore violent BDSM from questionable sources as his example of what sex is meant to be like
- Access tame softcore porn or naked ladies to fulfill his natural curioscity/blossoming adolescence