440
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 48 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 15 points 1 day ago

Also "Data breach of 500K users IDs discovered on dark web"

[-] tarknassus@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

And nothing will be done about that until it affects the power brokers in charge*.

* - hopefully, I mean we've had a series of ministers embroiled in scandals that would have caused immediate resignations in the past whereas now it's "Fuck off, I'm working here. I'M IMPORTANT!"

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 1 points 21 hours ago

The last data breach I can think of that was widely known was Ashley Madison. I think if the Porn ID data got leaked it would have a similar spread (giggity), due to a similar scandalous nature.

[-] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 4 points 1 day ago

Kids watching porn is a much smaller problem than data breaches. Those can fucking ruin people.

[-] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 16 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

I know that this is all just theater to just destroy any semblance of free speech and privacy on the internet but if I'm completely honest I also don't even understand people who freak out about kids looking at porn. Like, I get protecting children obviously from predators (fucking Roblox), but also I saw hardcore porn on the internet super early when I was like 8 and the only trauma I ever felt was the fear of being caught looking at it by my parents, who were otherwise pretty chill about me seeing really violent media.

And before me and the internet, kids were looking at their grampa's/dad's porn magazines or finding it in the woods or getting some 18 year old to buy it for them. It was harder but I'm telling you they found it.

I feel like a bigger concern for kids right now is microplastics, lead poisoning, and climate change and you don't see nearly the same hysteria about that shit in mainstream politics.

[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

FYI, with Mullvad VPN set to UK, sites that require age verification:

  • pornhub.com
  • youporn.com
  • redtube.com
  • porn.com
  • bellesa.co
  • tube8.com
  • thisvid.com
  • quorno.com

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.

[-] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

Next up is "Stop children using custom linux distros and unique radio setups to connect to access points outside the nation"

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Streisand effect: the BBC is telling every last kid that VPN is exactly the way to circumvent the prohibition.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 16 points 1 day ago

Because the goal is to outlaw VPNs. To do that they need enough children to use VPNs to make it credible enough.

[-] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

Is there a plausible way they actually ban the use of VPNs? Like, they can make it illegal on paper, but even in China, which has long had strict restrictions on internet use, I've heard that VPN use is widespread.

It just all seems like performative whack-a-mole to me. The only people who can control what a kid sees online are their parents or guardians. A child is not buying themselves a laptop or an iPad.

[-] prole 2 points 19 hours ago

They will just selectively enforce it

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago

As if something being credible has ever stopped a politician from acting.

[-] greatwhitepapertiger@lemmy.zip 38 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 day ago

This is a lot bigger than the entertainment industry now. Creeping fascism and the trillion dollar surveillance capitalism industry are hellish bed buddies.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] greatwhitepapertiger@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] queueBenSis@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 day ago

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

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Who cares if kids watch porn anyways? Like they're going to find a way if they want to. I was coming 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.

[-] Honytawk@feddit.nl 2 points 22 hours ago

And before that, kids were passing dirty magazines they found in a tree.

You can't stop teenagers from being horny. And I rather they watch porn than have sex at that age.

[-] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Honytawk@feddit.nl 1 points 22 hours ago

You know, I'm just going to buy them a VPN so they can watch porn even more

[-] terminhell@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Ministers, stop watching them watch porn....

[-] UltraBlack@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

Ok one question: Why do we have to protect children from porn if they've already gotten exposed to it?

[-] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] lengau@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago

I initially read that as "stop using VPNs to watch child porn, ministers told" and was expecting a very different article.

[-] subarctictundra@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hmmmmm, let me play devils advocate and say that kids should have access to porn.

[-] dyc3@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

If you want to actually play devil's advocate, you gotta give an argument. Otherwise, you're just being contrarian.

[-] bier@feddit.nl 17 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] sleen@lemmy.zip 1 points 23 hours ago

Calling teenagers kids in situations like this, or in general is not ideal. The better way is to refer them to minors as this is what they legally are, but even so 'teenagers' is how they should be referred to.

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.

Absolutely. It's only natural for teens/adolescents to be interested in that kind of stuff - they are transitioning into adulthood ffs.

[-] Honytawk@feddit.nl 1 points 22 hours ago

You can't stop teenagers from being horny. And I rather they watch porn than have sex.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

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
[-] arararagi@ani.social 5 points 1 day ago

Are these children in the room with him?

[-] Eternal192@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] wabafee@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago

I think the best way to solve this is to not have kids in the first place.

[-] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 90 points 2 days ago

Dame Rachel de Souza told BBC Newsnight it was "absolutely a loophole that needs closing" and called for age verification on VPNs.

Saw that coming. Can’t have the populace living their lives without constant, repressive government scrutiny.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] toad31@lemmy.cif.su 14 points 1 day ago

If I had to guess, I'd say the government pushback against porn is a result of members of the ruling class catching their offspring with porn.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

If I had to guess, they don't care at all about porn and are using this as a pretext to censor sites that talk about LGBTQIA+ people.

And also to block access to any sex ed content that talks about how to protect yourself from predators.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

Actually it was pushed by some AI corp, to sell AI for verification purposes, alongside other bad faith actors.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
440 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

74473 readers
2607 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS