Looks like UK is going the same way as a few states. Spare a thought for us. So messed up this increasing surveillance state.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Y’see, back in the day parents were not technically literate because the world was mid-societal shift. “Protect the children” (because parents are unable to) had some justification.

    Today, basic computer literacy is a survival skill in the UK. The level of literacy needed to track your own kid is not that high (or expensive to rent).

    If you are letting kids use tech you don’t understand, and are not willing to invest the time/money to track yourself, that’s a you problem. It shouldn’t become a me problem.

    As for “yeah but what about smart kids”, I’ve got some bad news for you. They will always find a way around ANYTHING you set up.

    • ohlaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. I was 17 teaching my parents about internet shit. I wasn’t smart, I still aren’t, but I also wasn’t. Anyway, the amount ov viruses I had to fix because of them downloading kenny_chesney.exe is… baffling.

    • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really feel very uncomfortable with the notion of tracking the kids anyway. Arming them with knowledge as best as possible, and as usual showing interest in their behaviour to try and look as best as possible for signs of problems but ultimately kids are still people with their own lives even if people in development. Yes you need to protect them, to a certain extent, but ultimately some of this is no business but their own. You can try to educate and forewarn and hope some of it sticks but the tendency from my memory of being a kid is that that tends to be met with an eye-roll, this is probably where the temptation comes from to track children or drastically restrict the choices they’re able to make so they can’t ignore you but this is hardly a great way for that person in development to ultimately… develop.

      This is dicey though, not least because as yet another random person on the internet offering their unsolicited opinion, I don’t even have kids, and if you follow my logic to extremis, you basically have, “let the kids just figure it out on their own they’ll be fine” which definitely won’t apply to everything and can have disastrous consequences in some contexts. But nevertheless I think this concept of tracking, either covertly, or overtly with the intention of making a kind of panopticon effect for the kids, is likely ineffective but even if effective, is indicative of something going wrong with the intent of the surveillance.

      • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a tricky one because of the nature of the net. Let’s say we have three kids: Timmy, Jimmy and Harry.

        Timmy starts looking up “tits”, because Timmy loves titties. He’s curious, and you probably want to have a talk about acting and how porn isn’t reality.

        Jimmy, well, Jimmy saw a videogame character tied up and it made him feel good, so he starts looking for that online. He’s about to explore the BDSM scene. He’s going to need the “safe sane consensual” talk, otherwise his explorations might get him, or someone else, hurt. He’ll need more of a talk than Timmy!

        Harry loves hentai; he found some when looking for pictures of his favourite cartoon character. Harry is going to need a long talk about fantasy Vs reality, otherwise he’s going to disappoint a lot of women! Wait a moment, most of the things he’s looking at involve animals and women… Might be time to get some therapy!

        In all three of these cases a different style and level of parental intervention was required. You watch your kids because they’re kids, and kids are experts at getting themselves (and others) hurt. Parents need to watch their kids because it’s their job to intervene, and to decide the method of intervention.

        However, we’ve not gone over the case of Lizzy, a girl cursed with religious fundamentalist parents. When they find out she’s more interested in girls than boys, she’ll be subjected to inhumane treatment to “fix” her. So there is a grey area here - not all parents should be parents.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fuck everything about this with a spiky dildo.

    What the fuck is wrong with these people who think literally anything about porn needs has any relevance in government?

    • dfc09@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could worry about regulating the industry to prevent exploitation and trafficking, but God knows they’ll keep their hands out of that

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fuck it.

    Maybe let kids watch porn.

    That’s your worst-case scenario, right? Minors with ready access to vanilla photographs of naked people, on above-board commercial websites? So what. Tell me this abusive horseshit is the only way to stop that and I’ll still reject this abusive horseshit.

    The pearl-clutching horrors imagined by conservative dullards are a mundane experience for millions of people, and relatively few of them become dog-fuckers or axe-murderers. Almost like a healthy libido is normal and 18 isn’t the day you take the shrink-wrap off your genitals.

    Teenagers masturbating is a non-event. It’s as unremarkable and unpreventable as atomic decay. It will happen. Do you want it to happen to whatever quasi-erotica passes through the filter? Bugs Bunny in drag, beach volleyball, that one episode of their favorite show where everybody shrinks? Shoddy AOL filters probably made more furries than Disney ever did. AI’s gonna twist kids right up. Tell me with a straight face that’s better than real photos of fake tits.

    By all means, keep actual smut off broadcast TV. Expect websites to put the weird stuff behind warnings. Don’t sell porn to minors. But if your website doesn’t take a credit card to visit, hey guess what, anyone can see it, and anyone will. Oh well. People who think that’s the end of the world are lunatics who mean it literally.

  • ugh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The headline is very misleading. Porn companies are considering facial recognition as an option for validating age. Governments are putting more pressure on porn websites to keep minors away from the content, but it’s very hard to thoroughly prove your identity online. A government issued photo ID is useless if you have nothing to compare it to visually. That’s why many websites use bank/credit card info as opposed to an ID.

    It is definitely a privacy concern if you worry about it being known that you watch porn, but I don’t think it’s right to fault the company.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Company? It’s the UK communications regulator, Ofcom.

      They found that many on low incomes don’t have photocard ID when they rolled out voter ID despite opposition.

      Considering no one seems capable of withholding data from motivated hackers, this could be quite horrific.