Ofcom is issuing industry guidance which sets out the tech adult websites must use to check ages.

Summary

Under the UK’s Online Safety Act, all websites hosting pornography, including social media platforms, must implement “robust” age verification methods, such as photo ID or credit card checks, for UK users by July.

Regulator Ofcom claims this is to prevent children from accessing explicit content, as research shows many are exposed as young as nine.

Critics, including privacy groups and porn sites, warn the measures could drive users to less-regulated parts of the internet, raising safety and privacy concerns.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    41·
    8 hours ago

    My problem with all this nonsense is that it doesn’t actually solve the problem, while causing many more. You’d need to fundamentally rethink the basic design of the technology if you were to actually prevent children from accessing sexual material with it.

    Absolutely - this always happens with these “save the children” laws.

    That’s something they don’t want to do, however, presumably because they’re addicted to the power it offers them to spy on everyone, and exploit the population for profit.

    Jesus Christ… You ever hear the phrase “never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance?” Politicians do this sort of “make the people feel like we’re doing something” shit all the time. They rarely consider the ramifications beside appeasing parents.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      61·
      7 hours ago

      You ever hear the phrase “never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance?”

      Generalities like that can be useful when applied appropriately, but counter-productive when applied blindly. That positions of power are held primarily by those who are motivated primarily by power ought to be the most straight forward assertion possible.

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        6 hours ago

        Agreed. I feel we’ve been giving politicians passes on “ignorance” for far too long. First, ignorance is not a defense in any other situation. Second, these people are supposed to uphold our laws and virtues, so they should be held to a higher standard. Third, if you can find a pattern in their “ignorance” which somehow always seems to benefit them personally - they’re not ignorant, but malignant.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        12·
        7 hours ago

        That positions of power are held primarily by those who are motivated primarily by power ought to be the most straight forward assertion possible

        Generalities like that can be useful when applied appropriately, but counter-productive when applied blindly.