I don't understand how this is a controversial opinion, but maybe parents should actually parent their children instead of expecting the Internet or the government to decide what their kids should see for them? Maybe talk to your kid about safe and ethical sex, the dangers of porn addiction, and not to take anything away from pornographic content instead? Maybe we shouldn't be giving children smartphones and tablets with unfettered internet access in the first place instead of spending time with them? Wild concepts I know.
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
1100 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
73495 readers
2964 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
because these laws aren't about protecting children they're about elimination of access to things the government doesn't like... like queer spaces
This, right here. It's like Nixon's "war on drugs" that went on, and on, and on... The goal was not drugs, per-se, but to use drugs as a pretense to police people of color.
Drugs still won.
And people of color lost.
As is american tradition.
Thanks, drugs!
And giving them sweeping ability to track everybody via their identity papers, to see what websites and services they're using, what all their online identities are, etc.
They claim the info isn't being saved or passed on to the government to form a big surveillance database to one day use against people - sure, it's legal to, say, be gay or a socialist or of a particular religion today, but societies and regimes change, and the info they collect on you today may become ammunition against you in 10, 20, 40 years time.
But I don't for a moment believe their obvious lies.
This is nothing but authoritarian police state monitoring and control. It's extremely obvious. Yet, who are we to vote for in the next election? Not Labour, thanks to this (and a few other big reasons perhaps), not the Tories because, well, you've seen what they're like.
It's not impossible for a third party to be elected of course, not as impossible as places like the USA that have a very worryingly solidified two party system, it's just very unlikely.
Knowing the British people and their seeming apathy and poor judgement at scale these days I wouldn't be surprised if they elect the racist bigots at Reform - who ironically would be even more authoritarian and evil than what we have now.
As usual, there's no hope for the future and no possibility of good outcomes.
Humanity is doomed to repeat it's failures for all of history again and again, and we're just along for the miserable ride.
The general apathy and disdain for noncomformity (the hatred protestors get is absurd) really does let their government stomp all over them. IIRC BBC goes out of their way to not cover protests in their own back yard, or anything that may be critical of the crown
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've been saying this a couple places recently, but why not pass legislation requiring every site to provide a content rating. Then parents can choose if they want to restrict content by ratings or not. Yeah, you could have malicious actors, but it makes it easier and simpler for everyone to work than having ID laws.
But that would actually solve the problem and not enable massive government overreach. We can't have that.
I imagine it would work about as well as YouTube Kids would.
Which is to say not at all
My 5 year old son does have access to an android tablet, but i restrict, selectively, what he can do on it and time limit his usage so it locks down after a few hours. I curate his youtube and frequently spend time watching kids content to decide if i want him watching it. If its good and educational i will share it to his kids youtube account. He cant browse the web, he cant buy things on the play stores. He has to get me to approve any app install and i will always install first and play to ensure it safe.
Its hard work, but its worth it to protect him online. And this has lead to it just being another one of his toys, it doesnt absorb his whole existence. He can take it or leave it. Which i am chuffed about.
When he is older and i can help him understand for himself how to be safe, i will help him however i can. Rather than restric, i will help him understand what the internet is, the good the bad and the ugly.
Good to hear a parent parenting ⭐
I wonder how you’ll deal with a 16yo things get tricky with hormones, sex and rebellion.
I expect i will crumple at that point. But i hope i set him up with the tools he needs to navigate that part of life. And hopefully he feels close enough with me to come to me for help.
That requires effort, which most parents are unwilling to do, and newspapers will still want it banned and governments would still want to ban it so they can ban other things too.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Part of me wants every website to do this. The UK just gets blocked from majority of the internet then people in the UK can get angry and rebel.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So of all the fucking things to restrict, why this? Facebook is a hundred times more dangerous than any porn. Ban that shit instead.
Because it’s something where the current government can claim they’re “doing something” or “addressing a real problem” but it also doesn’t threaten the rich and powerful.
Going after Facebook would threaten the rich and powerful, for who it is an important tool for manipulating people, who think they can use it to mold culture to what they want it to be my breaking the minds of children.
The current UK government is desperate to say to the public that they’re governing and fixing problems, but they also really don’t want to piss off the rich and powerful.
because Facebook is an abstract danger, porn is (relatively) well defined
Damn, U.K. is really getting destabilized fast. Law changes, immigration, censoring and now monitoring? Is this what happens when you leave EU and "lose" in the modern war?
That's what everyone should be doing.
Have to agree with you. If every site just blocked the country with a stupid law like this, then the regular (regarded) folk that are gonna send over their ID the first chance they get will maybe log off their wank station and idk join the cause.
Saying that, at least ppl will be forced to use a vpn instead of sending their id through the internet if they dont comply and just block.
load more comments
(1 replies)
hand wringing over objectionable video games is why queer artists are now having their platforms removed. if you dont want to see certain kinds of fictional porn, then either avoid the website it is hosted on, or make an account and edit your blacklist. also, if youre worried about your children having access to gay yiff, then restrict their access
Oh no, what ever will I, resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, do.
Boots up Tor.
I sort of don't understand why these places which are hosted somewhere else would even bother?
They would still have to comply with the laws of the places the site can operate in, regardless of its physical server location.
Or what?
Or have your site taken down by your own country because of its international obligations. You still have to abide by your own country's interpretation (and political alignment to) of foreign laws.
I doubt that the USA would recognise and take down websites for not following Ofcoms requirements. And Ofcom would 100% be too cowardly to even threaten that. They'd just geoblock.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Civil action. The case may be resolved in your favor, since it will be done in your country's court, but you'd still have to deal with court fees.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If I had the money for lawyers, I would definitely add an "I confirm I am not in UK" button to access to sites to "help people mistakenly identified as being in the UK due to e.g. a VPN or a proxy".
view more: next ›