Conservative government would require ID to watch porn: Poilievre::OTTAWA — A future Conservative government would change the law to require that porn websites verify the age of users to prevent minors from accessing the content, Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre signalled on Wednesday.  When asked whether his government would require porn websites to verify the age of users, Poilievre gave a one-word answer: “Yes.”  […]

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    10 months ago

    Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think kids should have unrestricted access to the unlimited amount of hardcore porn available on the internet. I think it has a negative effect on their development and can cause all kinds of misconceptions about sex as well as body-dysphoria in men and women. In the past, ID was required to purchase magazines like Playboy or rent adult movies and ID is required to access strip clubs or sex shops. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a way to verify age before accessing internet porn.

    And I’m speaking from experience here, I’m a millennial and I started watching porn in my early teens. But in hindsight I wouldn’t say it was a good thing.

    • abort_christian_babies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Install a router with content filtering.

      Raising children is the parent’s responsibility. Stop oppressing the rest of us due to one’s own laziness or incompetence.

    • LNRDrone@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sure, but parents are responsible for their kid’s internet use, not the fucking government. All these bullshit "won’t anyone think of the kids’ internet regulation things are all about tracking the whole population, the kids are just the excuse they use to try to roll this nonsense trough.

    • SuperSynthia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is what I worry about. If I’m on a list for accessing porn, what’s to stop them from seeing I like to watch gay porn? Then I’m on the gay list. Wrong government comes in and now I’m in more danger than I already am just for simply existing different from church approved heterosexual behavior.

      I don’t want kids watching porn/violence for what it’s worth. Surely there is a privacy respecting aspect to this issue, but ID for access is a dangerous precedent

    • Shirasho@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s the thing - you think it has a negative effect. It might, but we need real studies to back that up. Laws shouldn’t be made because of unsubstantiated feelings. If you want something meaningful to come out of these things you should advocate for unbiased mass studies.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t see that previous generations had a better attitude towards sexuality. I rather think it was worse.

      Age verification can only be seriously enforced through very intrusive surveillance of internet activity. You’d need a good reason to justify that, which doesn’t exist. How about we give all minors cameras to put in their bedrooms, so that CPS can check in on them? Too intrusive? Well, that actually might help against child abuse, which is a real issue.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m not sure to what degree that this restriction is practically possible with the way the internet works though. You can probably make it work on big websites dedicated to that content, sure (there’s admittedly still the issue of using VPNs to appear to be from a location without such rules, but given that these kinds of laws seem to be slowly becoming more common, maybe that won’t be an issue forever), but children are curious about things kept off limits, and includes teenagers who may seek that content actively. As such, if there’s a reasonably easy way to find that content, they’ll find it, so simply gating big websites isn’t enough. In theory, laws about the matter probably apply to more than just those sites, but consider: small websites based in other countries might just not care about foreign laws, any web service that allows user generated content (which is a lot of them) can potentially be used to share pornographic content, and some such web services are set up in a way that moderation sufficient to actually stop this is not realistic (say, discord servers secretly set up for sharing it, or fediverse instances too small to be notified by regulators, or based in another country, or with inactive moderation that doesn’t notice what is being shared). As such, I don’t think it’s really realistic, short of a type of authoritarian control on any site that allows any kind of user uploaded content that would cause way more harm than what it tries to solve, to actually be able to stop minors from being able to access porn if they really want to. As such, I’d think that a better way of addressing concerns like them getting the wrong ideas about how sex works, or having unrealistic standards of appearance or such, is better sex-ed. When they grow up they’ll be able to access this stuff anyway, so if one is worried about it giving incorrect ideas, it makes more sense to tell them that they’re incorrect, and why, and what the reality of the matter is, rather than try a futile attempt to childproof the internet.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is being introduced by the party that wants to remove sex education.

      This isn’t about protecting children.

      Usually, anything the Conservatives do in the name of “protecting children” is about anything but. Probably the opposite, in fact.

      In this case, I imagine that this won’t only apply to pornography, but any “sexually explicit” material. Taken to extremes, that’ll likely include resources for learning about sex, sexuality, or even aspects of biology relating to sex. Or hell, maybe even information about abortion access.

      Kids looking for support for queer individuals? Banned. Kids looking for information on transgenderism? Banned. Kid looking up whether his/her experience with puberty is normal? Banned.

      No problem, people shouldn’t be accessing this kind of info (or having sex) until 16 anyway, one might argue? Well, if you (an adult) want access to any of that, be prepared to have your government ID tied to your porn access, and be ready to justify anything questionable the website loads into your browser (including thumbnails and titles for videos you never clicked on).

      Nothing the Conservatives do is about protecting children. It’s about fucking us over.

    • essteeyou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t want my kid to murder someone, so ban all violence on TV and in movies and videogames for everyone in the entire country so I don’t have to parent.

      • gaifux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Wow, you really teased out the nuance in a good faith effort champ.