Comment on The age verification effect: adult site traffic plummets, VPN use soars

Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  You’re talking about America, which has nothing to do with the UK doing this.

  source
• FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  This is about the UK.

  And no, it wasn’t about banning porn. You can listen to politicians and ordinary people talk about it and both are generally in favour for the same reason: making it harder for children to access porn, specifically.

  source

  • fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    They’re lying to you. It’s 100% a porn ban

    source

    • ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s 100% a porn ban

      It’s 100% a play to have positive ID on every single user of megacorp sites so they can be surveilled and controlled.

      source

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        The best actions are the ones that fulfill more than one goal.

        source
    • FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      How do you know?

      There’s no such big religious movement in the UK, so where would that even come from?

      source

      • p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        It’s international. It doesn’t need to be based in England.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        These people are in too deep.

        source
  • mang0@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Oh, if they say so then it must be the true. Politicians would never hide their true intentions to make their policies more appealing.

    source

    • FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      If you want people to believe it’s a different motive then provide some reason to believe that? Noone has.

      source

      • mang0@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        There exists e.g. religious people who think porn is a sin. Saying you’d want to ban porn because it’s a sin would alienate potential voters. Therefore, they can simply take the “think of the children!” position which is a classic approach and that sounds much more appealing while still restricting access for everyone (who wants their identity associated with their porn history? Data leaks happen all the time).

        Similarly, (depending on political climate) far right politicians can’t openly spout hate about foreigners since it would alienate some voters. Yet, time after time they’re revealed to have been doing it e.g. when they thought they were anonymous.

        Of course you can’t know someone’s true intention, but assuming that people won’t lie and anything said by them is undoubtedly true unless somehow proven false is a bit naive.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    This is about the UK.

    You didn’t notice how every western ❝democracy❞ introduced ❝age verification❞ bills simultaneously as they were losing control of the Gaza narrative?

    source

    • FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Take your tinfoil hat off, and say something substantive.

      The MPs who voted on this made statements about their reasoning - that is substantive, but not definitive. If you doubt their statements then it’s only convincing if you can say why their statements are unrealistic in the light of other facts.

      Given that there is a widespread desire to prevent children from accessing porn, their motivations seem wholly realistic. What makes it unrealistic?

      source
  • vrek@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s also about several us states. Plus why make it harder to access porn? It doesn’t harm anybody. It may make children ask some questions you don’t want to answer but overall… So??

    I’m for regulating porn, actors and actresses should be paid, should be protected from sti, should not be forced or coerced. But access? Who cares?

    source

    • FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The article is not about US states.

      There is reasonable evidence to suggest that children viewing porn is harmful, and even though it’s clearly not a good reason - even if you believe said evidence - for something like the online safety act, people here act like you, as if there isn’t even any evidence, and as if noone actually believes it’s harmful.

      source
    • CouldntCareBear@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      If you don’t think children accessing porn is problematic I think you need to give it some more thought. It most definitely normalises some extremely mysogonistic, violent/ non consensual practices.

      I don’t think age verification is the answer, but let’s not pretend it’s not trying to address an actual issue.

      source