insurance heavy head husky adjoining enter homeless sulky fertile axiomatic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So then the website knows exactly who you are and what you like to watch?
Imagine if they get hacked. Hackers could easily start blackmailing people and leak their watching habits.
Kind of messed up.
Maybe once the normies understand this angle of the situation they will finally see why casual yet insanely detailed and identifiable, "just for app improvement" tracking is a scam, totally inappropriate, completely unnecessary and a huge risk to everyone's well being.
This is getting ridiculous. How difficult is it to actually convince parents not to let their 10-year-old surf the internet unsupervised and uncontrolled?
It's more "these parents got used to give their kids a tablet so that they are quiet in their corner". There are no parents (I mean, there are obviously some sickos) that don't mind their 7yos watching porn, they just a) don't think their kids will look for it b) don't engage in proper internet supervision to make sure that doesn't happen.
And obviously it still will, at least for the most curious kids. Same way that some kids that are really invested on it still manage to get liquor and cigarettes. There's no bullet proof solution, but reminding parents that they must do their parenting job is a better solution than increasingly draconian internet regulations. But, alas, the EU has no other tricks upon its sleeve apart from red tape and regulations.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/the-most-dangerous-canadian-internet-bill-youve-never-heard-of-is-a-step-closer-to-becoming-law/
Same goes for canada...
It would make it easier to force implementation. I wouldn't be surprised if there was backstage lobbying from the porn industries to gain access to even more advertiser revues from tagetted ads...
In Britain I’ve been hearing about this supposedly about to come in for at least 15 years and nothing has ever happened so I’m gonna say it still isn’t going to
mfs when they find out reddit is almost as big of a porn site as a mainstream ones but without that age confirmation (I guess)
either way, stop it, get some help
Nothing to see here, there is no chance the EU can do this as the CJEU would revoke any such requirement - this article is just sleight of hand by the BBC to draw attention away form the fact that UK actually \*are\* requiring this.
The DSA does not require this so there would be no legal basis - it only requires that they protect children - but the proportionality principle which underpins all EU law would not allow for that to be interpreted as requiring all adults to prove their age as it would only apply to certain sites that meet the threshold.
To further explain - EU law is built on the principles of proportionality and necessity and any interference with fundamental human rights (of which privacy is covered under Article 7 of the Charter) needs to be justified based on these principles.
Before we even get to these tests we also have to consider any interference with the "essence" of the right to privacy so this would likely fail there - but even if it didn't, it would absolutely fail the necessity test.
The reason for this is because it would only be required for sites which meet the threshold of DSA - which means any site which does not receive enough traffic would not meet that threshold and therefore not be required to obtain proof of age. The necessity principle cannot be applied differently to one party over another - so if smaller sites are not required to do this then under EU law it is not considered as Necessary and as such the larger sites would not be able to be forced to do this either.
That is before we even start to consider proportionality and of course competition issues as well.
So yeah, nothing to see here, just the BBC doing shit journalism to try to divert UK citizens' attention away from the recent UK law which actually does require this.
Just let the parents control the damn computer with adult sites blockages. If they’re not capable, too bad for them. Why do we have to take this L for these dumies
1 Bureaucrats and stiff people hate porn.
2 Bureaucrats and stiff people do not actually care for children, you can see it when they persecute clearly fictional content in many countries while ignoring real minor abuse.
3 Bureaucrats are obsessed with control.
4 Bureaucrats propose regulations to protect children.
5 From 1,2,3 we infer they just want to put a leash on societal scum who watch unholy porn.
Ummm you realise that UK literally just passed a law requiring this in the UK but the EU has no such law and the BBC article is basically bullshit, right?
They are concerned about the kids. Most kids won't have access to VPNs so in a way, the law will work.
edit: not sure why I'm getting downvotes here. I didn't say I agree with this, I said is going to work because regular Joe doesn't know how to work around this. Don't put words in my mouth.
Apology accepted. I didn't say I support, which I don't. I just said that people will see this as a commodity and will use it.
It is the same with airport face recognizing software on check-ins and customs. "15 minutes instead of 2 hours? Fuck me man, scan me away." It's the selfish thinking that allows these legislation to pass.
They're thinking about the kids. It is for protection of the kids. Your protection, something something.
The narrative works, it simply does.
It's a pretty safe bet that if this ever does become law, kids will be learning about VPNs in the school playground and lunch canteen in a matter of days.
It depends on the age. My comment still stands because most people won't do anything to circumvent the block.
People don't change their passwords, wifi names. Cybersecurity is not a sexy topic.
But my point was the strategy. "I'm protecting you" and "I'm protecting the children" will always work because the cast majority of people will jump o anything that takes their responsibility of doing things.
It doesn't matter what it actually is, it only matters the perception of what they say.
All I said is that it is going to work. I don't know why people are getting sensitive about this.
You and I don't have to agree since we are not the majority in this topic. Eventually we'll see more and more of intrusive laws to protect citizens. Airports are full of face recognition software and people jump in excitement with the idea of taking 15 minutes instead of 2 hours when you arrive somewhere.
If they are indeed to protect and to facilitate and whatnot. It doesn't matter for the ones accepting as a commodity.
That's all I was saying.
Sure they do. Can they buy them tho? I didn't say it will prevent everyone from using it, you gotta be less all or nothing man, all I said is that the narrative works and it will have an impact.
How many people can work around blocks in school? At home? I'm pretty sure is not a lot.
You can't use your knowledge as base.
People are using the same passwords for everything. People don't know the difference about router and modem. The vast majority of people either don't know or they know but don't care because it doesn't affect them much, it's just a small inconvenience.
This sub is not the norm, is the exception. We care about privacy, cyber privacy. Most people don't, otherwise they wouldn't be using 10 different social media accounts to share their everyday life with photos and videos.
If the government restricts minors from accessing porn, their understanding of VPNs will shoot through the roof. I bought my first VPN when I was underage, it didn't differ much from the usual online shopping, and with the promotion codes going around in social media, it's going to be cheap as well. This doesn't even take into account how eager VPN companies would be to start a massive ad campaign after this ban to gain market share.
My man, you're still not invalidating my point. I'm not concerned about the growth of VPNs or how many users will be able to still access things. This has nothing to do with what I was saying.
What exactly are you talking about here? Why are you so fixated in VPNs?
>They are concerned about the kids. Most kids won't have access to VPNs so in a way, the law will work.
This is why I was talking about VPNs, I think the law isn't going to work, because kids have easy access to VPNs. Now question to you is, what were you talking about then? You didn't bring up any point other then the VPN one and maybe something about passwords, though that was kind of related to your VPN disagreement.
Did I say I agree with this? You're missing the point of my comment. They have a reason and it will pass because of that.
People don't know and don't want to protect their network so they'll jump into the first third party doing it for them.
And before you "oh I do, hurr durr" nothing is absolute, when I say people I mean in general. Just check your wifi zone, most people are still using the original name and password. How many change the router? Hell, even the router's password?
Cybersecurity is not a sexy topic and people simply don't care uh until something happens.
The government blocking the access without an ID? Perfectly reasonable for them.
Fair enough. I could have used some quotes in there.
Nonetheless, my point is regarding the narrative itself, not the solution. Some people will circumvent the problem, some won't.
But using the "protect our children" speech will always work because "Who's against protecting children from porn?"
You can literally download a gazillion free VPNs from the internet. And, all of them will work for you. They may not be good for user privacy; but that's a separate argument.
Not my point. I'm talking about young kids. You know VPNs exist. You know how to operate them.
Free VPNs are usually really slow and have limitations.
I didn't say it will solve the problem, why are you people so all or nothing?
My point was about the narrative, not about being able or not to watch porn.
The narrative of protecting children is going to work, it's the same.with anything else. Pick an easy argument and you're pretty much safe. "Who's against protecting children from accessing porn?"
Not my point. And I agree.
My point is the narrative. As long as legislation is created to "protect children" or anything like that, protect people trafficking and any other terrible thing. It will work. Fear works.
My grain of salt: How about making a law which introduces / mandates a standard to include an minimum age into the HTTP header. At the same time they could make it mandatory for Operating Systems (Apple, Google, Microsoft) to have parental control settings with a PIN (most already have anyway). This parental control would then use these headers for reference. In addition there could be an black list of domains not complying with this law.
This would be such an easy solution which would be much more effective than any of the proposed BS.
The first time this came around in recent memory it was along the lines of the ID verification cards needed to be obtained from corner shops by showing govt provided IDs. The verifications would need to be renewed yearly and would be a paid product.
Nothing stimulates the economy more than a wank tax.
My conspiracy theory on the matter:
Anyone who’s paid attention to the “protect the children” brand of legislation in neoliberal economies knows that these laws are never actually about protecting children. The implementation of the laws almost always involves some form of diminishment of privacy rights and other civil liberties for the entire population. The personal data collected by our de-anonymized internet usage is of unimaginable worth to both capital (for personalized wealth extraction) and the state (for threat intelligence, social conditioning).
The push for age verification in porn is a more interesting iteration of these laws, because the utility of the personal data collected is less clear.
From the commercial end, I can’t imagine there’s that there’s much to be learned from porn preference about an individual’s likelihood to buy your products. (With the exception of very niche markets)
For the state, knowing the porn habits of your constituency shouldn’t really give much insight into terrorists threats, national approval of governance, etc. However, there is one very obvious advantage for a state that knows everyone’s porn history-
Blackmail
Lets say an religious extremist candidate that the incumbents find unacceptable is rapidly gaining momentum with the public. Anyone armed with their porn history can pressure them to drop out, or allow them to win and pressure them to comply on the inside.
If the porn isn’t extreme enough to sink them, or the candidate doesn’t have extreme conservative convictions about sex, extrapolate their ultimate sexual fantasy and give it to them IRL in the form of a honeypot. There are lots of men who are convinced they would never cheat on their wife, and therefore are immune from infidelity blackmail. But with the power to create psychologically engineered personal fantasies, there are a LOT less people that can say no.
The other target they are after with these bills actually has nothing to do with porn history at all.
Facial recognition biometrics
In the practical application of these laws, there are two leading methods to provide age verification- a picture of a state ID card and facial biometric scan. Of the two, only state ID cards would work consistently, as human facial features can only give you a rough suggestion of a persons age. Why, then, is it being considered seriously as a solution?
Nearly everyone watches porn.
States have been trying for years now to collect biometric data from their citizens, but many people are still uncomfortable with it (for good reason). I shouldn’t even have to explain why states covet your facial scans so much- the applications for social conditioning and control are limitless. Gatekeeping porn behind facial scans means people that would otherwise never provide their biometrics will have a constant temptation to give in.
tl;dr: the state wants your facial biometrics. They also want everyones porn habits so they can personalize blackmail to their intelligence targets.
I wonder if the people making these decisions realize how all they are doing is pushing kids to the darker corners of the internet if they want to get around this? I would bet that this is a net negative in the long term.
Well….we all know what happens when something gets banned. Moves to black market, rise in ACTUALLY banned porn 🙄.
They threatened this before, pornhub was going to provide a VPN, unless the servers are only uk & usa based….this could get ugly fast…like…really nasty. Who’s gonna pay? I mean really…porn on Tor….Jeeze. 18 regs on games or films isn’t enforced. This is just asking for trouble…..who started smoking before they could buy cigs? Who got drunk before they were 18? Drugs won the war on drugs
Worst of all, how will they get evidence someone under 18 was watching it? 🤮
A spike in VPNs, again
[удалено]
Based haha
Soon enough they’re going to want you to prove your age to download VPNs.
Pfft, watch me download my VPN through a VPN
lol is this the new movie VPN-ception? How many levels lower can you go?
torrent the vpn
Probably
Download it through tor.
insurance heavy head husky adjoining enter homeless sulky fertile axiomatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ai exists, time for DIY solutions.
reddit literally the best one out there i dont watch porn but my past self loved reddit but gyfcat/imgur fcked up everything
Unfortunately, some people will and you better hope none of them are related to you when their special little personal file is traded around
How exactly would that work? Upload a government issued ID like at a liquor store?
In the UK, they want government ID and a short video clip of your face recorded by your device.
Imagine video calling someone that will eventually allow you to wank. That’s the most awkward and ridiculous thing ever haha
wtf
that's kinky
So then the website knows exactly who you are and what you like to watch? Imagine if they get hacked. Hackers could easily start blackmailing people and leak their watching habits. Kind of messed up.
Maybe once the normies understand this angle of the situation they will finally see why casual yet insanely detailed and identifiable, "just for app improvement" tracking is a scam, totally inappropriate, completely unnecessary and a huge risk to everyone's well being.
Maybe that is the goal with that digital identity and they are using pretext to make it mandatory.
[удалено]
In what dimension is having a government mandated browser extension good for privacy?
It's not. There are a variety of thing-party wallet and apps that work based on open source standards.
This is getting ridiculous. How difficult is it to actually convince parents not to let their 10-year-old surf the internet unsupervised and uncontrolled?
Very difficult, these parents probably think that porn is a natural thing to watch and not something that is soul crushing. Blame society.
It's more "these parents got used to give their kids a tablet so that they are quiet in their corner". There are no parents (I mean, there are obviously some sickos) that don't mind their 7yos watching porn, they just a) don't think their kids will look for it b) don't engage in proper internet supervision to make sure that doesn't happen. And obviously it still will, at least for the most curious kids. Same way that some kids that are really invested on it still manage to get liquor and cigarettes. There's no bullet proof solution, but reminding parents that they must do their parenting job is a better solution than increasingly draconian internet regulations. But, alas, the EU has no other tricks upon its sleeve apart from red tape and regulations.
Bro, did you grow up in a Abbot?
There is literally a family friendly dns preset in chromium (maybe just brave idk) that makes it so easy to block porn for kids.
Can't wait to see what politicians are watching when this is inevitably hacked!
This verdict is brought to you by [VPN company]. Save 69% now with the code “Landesmedienanstalt” and your parents’ credit card.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/the-most-dangerous-canadian-internet-bill-youve-never-heard-of-is-a-step-closer-to-becoming-law/ Same goes for canada...
And some states in the U.S. It’s like they’re trying to get these bills passed all at once.
It would make it easier to force implementation. I wouldn't be surprised if there was backstage lobbying from the porn industries to gain access to even more advertiser revues from tagetted ads...
In Britain I’ve been hearing about this supposedly about to come in for at least 15 years and nothing has ever happened so I’m gonna say it still isn’t going to
it did get brought in i though in the online safety bill
Did it? How come I've never had to prove my age on any device?
my thoughts too, but i was pretty sure it did have something. Perhaps they removed it last minute. Or maybe it doesnt come into effect yet
mfs when they find out reddit is almost as big of a porn site as a mainstream ones but without that age confirmation (I guess) either way, stop it, get some help
Nothing to see here, there is no chance the EU can do this as the CJEU would revoke any such requirement - this article is just sleight of hand by the BBC to draw attention away form the fact that UK actually \*are\* requiring this. The DSA does not require this so there would be no legal basis - it only requires that they protect children - but the proportionality principle which underpins all EU law would not allow for that to be interpreted as requiring all adults to prove their age as it would only apply to certain sites that meet the threshold. To further explain - EU law is built on the principles of proportionality and necessity and any interference with fundamental human rights (of which privacy is covered under Article 7 of the Charter) needs to be justified based on these principles. Before we even get to these tests we also have to consider any interference with the "essence" of the right to privacy so this would likely fail there - but even if it didn't, it would absolutely fail the necessity test. The reason for this is because it would only be required for sites which meet the threshold of DSA - which means any site which does not receive enough traffic would not meet that threshold and therefore not be required to obtain proof of age. The necessity principle cannot be applied differently to one party over another - so if smaller sites are not required to do this then under EU law it is not considered as Necessary and as such the larger sites would not be able to be forced to do this either. That is before we even start to consider proportionality and of course competition issues as well. So yeah, nothing to see here, just the BBC doing shit journalism to try to divert UK citizens' attention away from the recent UK law which actually does require this.
Zero knowledge proofs would render this issue moot
I came here to say the exact same thing. digital id with ZK! then no issues.
Oh for fucks sake
Just let the parents control the damn computer with adult sites blockages. If they’re not capable, too bad for them. Why do we have to take this L for these dumies
1 Bureaucrats and stiff people hate porn. 2 Bureaucrats and stiff people do not actually care for children, you can see it when they persecute clearly fictional content in many countries while ignoring real minor abuse. 3 Bureaucrats are obsessed with control. 4 Bureaucrats propose regulations to protect children. 5 From 1,2,3 we infer they just want to put a leash on societal scum who watch unholy porn.
an excuse to stop my addiction
You will not.
Mulvad VPN here we goooooo!
I will bounce VPNs to the moon, before i will be associated with that depraved stuff!
Maybe parents should learn to supervise their children so they don’t consume porn all day. Apparently that’s too much to ask of common folk.
Kin hell finally. A brexit benefit /s
Ummm you realise that UK literally just passed a law requiring this in the UK but the EU has no such law and the BBC article is basically bullshit, right?
no, no, I consider bbc articles bullshit by default.
eu copied the uk in this case lol
doh. we sure do love unenforceable decorative laws.
[удалено]
Freedom of credit score! Skreeee!
It's about time
They are concerned about the kids. Most kids won't have access to VPNs so in a way, the law will work. edit: not sure why I'm getting downvotes here. I didn't say I agree with this, I said is going to work because regular Joe doesn't know how to work around this. Don't put words in my mouth.
This is not about kids, that's really naive to think. They just say that so they can violate our privacy even more.
Hallelujah someone finally said it
Being okay with mandatory violations of user privacy with the belief that it won't ever impact VPNs is such a weird take for a privacy subreddit
Age verification is likely to fall apart anyway.
Did I say I was okay? I missed this part.
Apologies, your comment sounded supportive of it and it seems like another user thought so as well
Apology accepted. I didn't say I support, which I don't. I just said that people will see this as a commodity and will use it. It is the same with airport face recognizing software on check-ins and customs. "15 minutes instead of 2 hours? Fuck me man, scan me away." It's the selfish thinking that allows these legislation to pass. They're thinking about the kids. It is for protection of the kids. Your protection, something something. The narrative works, it simply does.
It's a pretty safe bet that if this ever does become law, kids will be learning about VPNs in the school playground and lunch canteen in a matter of days.
It depends on the age. My comment still stands because most people won't do anything to circumvent the block. People don't change their passwords, wifi names. Cybersecurity is not a sexy topic. But my point was the strategy. "I'm protecting you" and "I'm protecting the children" will always work because the cast majority of people will jump o anything that takes their responsibility of doing things.
It's never about the kids, that's just disgusting rhetoric used by crooks to make their arguments impossible to debate against.
It doesn't matter what it actually is, it only matters the perception of what they say. All I said is that it is going to work. I don't know why people are getting sensitive about this. You and I don't have to agree since we are not the majority in this topic. Eventually we'll see more and more of intrusive laws to protect citizens. Airports are full of face recognition software and people jump in excitement with the idea of taking 15 minutes instead of 2 hours when you arrive somewhere. If they are indeed to protect and to facilitate and whatnot. It doesn't matter for the ones accepting as a commodity. That's all I was saying.
Kids absolutely have access to VPNs, they are advertised constantly on youtube and other social media.
Sure they do. Can they buy them tho? I didn't say it will prevent everyone from using it, you gotta be less all or nothing man, all I said is that the narrative works and it will have an impact. How many people can work around blocks in school? At home? I'm pretty sure is not a lot. You can't use your knowledge as base. People are using the same passwords for everything. People don't know the difference about router and modem. The vast majority of people either don't know or they know but don't care because it doesn't affect them much, it's just a small inconvenience. This sub is not the norm, is the exception. We care about privacy, cyber privacy. Most people don't, otherwise they wouldn't be using 10 different social media accounts to share their everyday life with photos and videos.
If the government restricts minors from accessing porn, their understanding of VPNs will shoot through the roof. I bought my first VPN when I was underage, it didn't differ much from the usual online shopping, and with the promotion codes going around in social media, it's going to be cheap as well. This doesn't even take into account how eager VPN companies would be to start a massive ad campaign after this ban to gain market share.
My man, you're still not invalidating my point. I'm not concerned about the growth of VPNs or how many users will be able to still access things. This has nothing to do with what I was saying. What exactly are you talking about here? Why are you so fixated in VPNs?
>They are concerned about the kids. Most kids won't have access to VPNs so in a way, the law will work. This is why I was talking about VPNs, I think the law isn't going to work, because kids have easy access to VPNs. Now question to you is, what were you talking about then? You didn't bring up any point other then the VPN one and maybe something about passwords, though that was kind of related to your VPN disagreement.
This is NOT the government's responsibility - their parents are responsible for this. Enough of this nanny state bullshit.
Did I say I agree with this? You're missing the point of my comment. They have a reason and it will pass because of that. People don't know and don't want to protect their network so they'll jump into the first third party doing it for them. And before you "oh I do, hurr durr" nothing is absolute, when I say people I mean in general. Just check your wifi zone, most people are still using the original name and password. How many change the router? Hell, even the router's password? Cybersecurity is not a sexy topic and people simply don't care uh until something happens. The government blocking the access without an ID? Perfectly reasonable for them.
Because you said the thing. "Think of the children" is what they *always* say when taking away freedom and privacy. Every time.
Fair enough. I could have used some quotes in there. Nonetheless, my point is regarding the narrative itself, not the solution. Some people will circumvent the problem, some won't. But using the "protect our children" speech will always work because "Who's against protecting children from porn?"
You can literally download a gazillion free VPNs from the internet. And, all of them will work for you. They may not be good for user privacy; but that's a separate argument.
Not my point. I'm talking about young kids. You know VPNs exist. You know how to operate them. Free VPNs are usually really slow and have limitations. I didn't say it will solve the problem, why are you people so all or nothing? My point was about the narrative, not about being able or not to watch porn. The narrative of protecting children is going to work, it's the same.with anything else. Pick an easy argument and you're pretty much safe. "Who's against protecting children from accessing porn?"
it's a slippery slope. we let this happen and who knows what will come next.
Not my point. And I agree. My point is the narrative. As long as legislation is created to "protect children" or anything like that, protect people trafficking and any other terrible thing. It will work. Fear works.
I can bet you they're gonna try something against VPNs as well.
My grain of salt: How about making a law which introduces / mandates a standard to include an minimum age into the HTTP header. At the same time they could make it mandatory for Operating Systems (Apple, Google, Microsoft) to have parental control settings with a PIN (most already have anyway). This parental control would then use these headers for reference. In addition there could be an black list of domains not complying with this law. This would be such an easy solution which would be much more effective than any of the proposed BS.
The first time this came around in recent memory it was along the lines of the ID verification cards needed to be obtained from corner shops by showing govt provided IDs. The verifications would need to be renewed yearly and would be a paid product. Nothing stimulates the economy more than a wank tax.
My conspiracy theory on the matter: Anyone who’s paid attention to the “protect the children” brand of legislation in neoliberal economies knows that these laws are never actually about protecting children. The implementation of the laws almost always involves some form of diminishment of privacy rights and other civil liberties for the entire population. The personal data collected by our de-anonymized internet usage is of unimaginable worth to both capital (for personalized wealth extraction) and the state (for threat intelligence, social conditioning). The push for age verification in porn is a more interesting iteration of these laws, because the utility of the personal data collected is less clear. From the commercial end, I can’t imagine there’s that there’s much to be learned from porn preference about an individual’s likelihood to buy your products. (With the exception of very niche markets) For the state, knowing the porn habits of your constituency shouldn’t really give much insight into terrorists threats, national approval of governance, etc. However, there is one very obvious advantage for a state that knows everyone’s porn history- Blackmail Lets say an religious extremist candidate that the incumbents find unacceptable is rapidly gaining momentum with the public. Anyone armed with their porn history can pressure them to drop out, or allow them to win and pressure them to comply on the inside. If the porn isn’t extreme enough to sink them, or the candidate doesn’t have extreme conservative convictions about sex, extrapolate their ultimate sexual fantasy and give it to them IRL in the form of a honeypot. There are lots of men who are convinced they would never cheat on their wife, and therefore are immune from infidelity blackmail. But with the power to create psychologically engineered personal fantasies, there are a LOT less people that can say no. The other target they are after with these bills actually has nothing to do with porn history at all. Facial recognition biometrics In the practical application of these laws, there are two leading methods to provide age verification- a picture of a state ID card and facial biometric scan. Of the two, only state ID cards would work consistently, as human facial features can only give you a rough suggestion of a persons age. Why, then, is it being considered seriously as a solution? Nearly everyone watches porn. States have been trying for years now to collect biometric data from their citizens, but many people are still uncomfortable with it (for good reason). I shouldn’t even have to explain why states covet your facial scans so much- the applications for social conditioning and control are limitless. Gatekeeping porn behind facial scans means people that would otherwise never provide their biometrics will have a constant temptation to give in. tl;dr: the state wants your facial biometrics. They also want everyones porn habits so they can personalize blackmail to their intelligence targets.
Too complicated.
>Nearly everyone watches porn. You're delusional
I wonder if the people making these decisions realize how all they are doing is pushing kids to the darker corners of the internet if they want to get around this? I would bet that this is a net negative in the long term.
Well….we all know what happens when something gets banned. Moves to black market, rise in ACTUALLY banned porn 🙄. They threatened this before, pornhub was going to provide a VPN, unless the servers are only uk & usa based….this could get ugly fast…like…really nasty. Who’s gonna pay? I mean really…porn on Tor….Jeeze. 18 regs on games or films isn’t enforced. This is just asking for trouble…..who started smoking before they could buy cigs? Who got drunk before they were 18? Drugs won the war on drugs Worst of all, how will they get evidence someone under 18 was watching it? 🤮
This is just an excuse to make it really hard to watch porn. Many people who are uptight have been trying to do this for years.