No one is saying that kids should be able to access pornography. People are saying that it shouldn’t be the states job to raise your children for you.
Effectively blocking pornography for everyone in the country unless you dox yourself to shady websites is not the answer. The answer is developing the tools and simplifying processes required to stop children accessing these things on the device and local network level and putting those tools in the hands of parents.
The Great Firewall of Britain is a frankly stupid concept.
Bazoogle@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
This logic does not hold up in most other cases. We stopped selling alcohol and cigarettes unless you dox yourself to shady gas stations and stores. Parents should be able to stop their kids from being able to buy that shit, why should the stores have to do more work to enforce it? You’re seriously going to inconvenience all the adults that can legally buy it just to prevent kids from being able to buy it? Why can’t we keep our cigarette vending machines? Surely it’s cheaper just to have parents control their kids, rather than manage every single store in the country.
The internet is different, and it’s currently the wild west. Because it’s different, it’s also possible to prove your age without doxing yourself (like I mentioned with zero-knowledge proof). It is possible to prove you are over an age without telling anyone anything about yourself. Unlike being required to give your drivers license/ID card to buy alcohol or cigarettes which gives all of your information to every person you hand it to.
Not all parents are going to have the know-how to lock down a child’s internet access. They may need to use 3rd party tools, many of which would cost money. Does it really make more sense to have parents try to secure every place a kid may access internet pornography rather than securing it at the source? Again, if done correctly, it can be done privately and securely. I am not advocating that we give our ID to every sketchy internet site. I am advocating for a widespread secure and standardized solution. That makes more sense than to put all of the onus on the parents.
jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 10 hours ago
Both of which famously keep databases of everyone’s IDs, and require transmitting your ID over who-knows-what network to who-knows-where.
Oh, wait, no they don’t.
Right, and such a solution will ultimately just require everyone to trust the fact that it’s been “done privately and securely”
Bazoogle@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Scanning ID’s into a database is a thing. It’s not everywhere, but I have seen places do it. Usually Hospital’s and Casinos
No, that is not true. It is possible to set it up with zero trust, so we do not have to trust them. It will be setup properly in the first place. It’s like the fact that Bitwarden can be open source and yet people can’t just decrypt vaults despite everyone having access to the code. Zero-knowledge proofs can be done without requiring us to trust anyone. That is what I have been saying, but it keeps seeming to be skipped over. There would be an initial proof with a government identification (which basically everyone already has) and from there the system could be setup in a way that you can prove you are over the age without them knowing literally anything about you. It is possible to prove you are over 18 without them even know your age (other than it is greater than or equal to 18)