United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
This is just getting into pure speculation now, neither of us knows for sure. It just lines up too perfectly with the Tories history of anti-porn stances for me to believe that it wasn't a motivating factor in choosing this approach to others that were pitched to the government (the lobbying from the age verification industry probably helped as well).
I don't think it's too much speculation, because opinion polling found that the public was broadly in favour of age verification. It's a mistake to think that politicians must automatically know (and agree with) things that the public don't know.
Sure, puritanism means that politicians aren't going to leap the defence of porn sites and their business models. But that angle is rather different - and I think contradictory - to the one you started with. You said that the government was told that it won't work; if that really was the solid argument you presented it as, wouldn't that imply they couldn't possibly be in favour of OSA for anti-porn reasons? After all, they ought to believe it won't actually work to reduce access to porn, right?
Obviously it's not the case that everything popular with the public is popular with politicians for the same reason, but if something is popular with the public you need quite a good reason to believe that politicians are in favour of it for some other motivation, and with all of that, we just don't have that good reason.
Sorry I misspoke, when I said it wouldn't work I was thinking of the negative knock-on effects that make this approach unworkable, not that it was entirely ineffective. What I'm trying to get at is that there were more effective options that the government for achieving it's stated goals, only allowing legal adults to access pornography, that didn't require you to send a picture of your ID or face to every website that happens to have nudes on it. But other, more privacy-friendly approaches wouldn't make adults hesitant to access porn websites and I think this quality of the current approach was a desirable effect.
I think politicians hating the concept of porn and liking the idea of having your real identity linked to your social media accounts are actually pretty good explanations for the government knowingly going with an inferior approach to all this.
Again, I think we're at an impasse, you're giving the former government a level charitably I can't. That's not to say prospective is unreasonable, I think it's perfectly reasonable, I just don't believe it.
Fair enough, thanks for the chat