Skip to main content


Any technical solution that is supposed to block teenagers from anything is not going to work very well, because you are facing an opponent that:

* is smarter than you,
* is very dedicated,
* has a lot of free time,
* has an extensive network of friends,
* faces no serious consequences if caught,
* outnumbers you,
* considers you an immoral crook.

You really, *really* want to have them on your side. That means education rather than control.

in reply to ɗ𐐩ʃƕρʋ

I feel like this is an easily learned lesson. It's shocking to me how many people in this generation with power and political authority somehow missed the whole MPAA story from not even 30 years ago.
in reply to Mark T. Tomczak

@mark The people in power are well aware it won't work. They don't care. It gets them votes.
in reply to Simply Simon

@Salty @mark It's _almost_ like "age verification" laws might have some kind of ulterior motive .... πŸ€”
in reply to ɗ𐐩ʃƕρʋ

Not so. It's important to try age verification even if it's imperfect. Otherwise you are just favouring pornographers having unlimited access to children.
in reply to David Colquhoun

@david_colquhoun David, David, David.

I am 63. I still remember my youth. Did we get alcohol? Yes. Was there age verification to buy alcohol? Also yes.

Did we "phreak" free long distance and local telephone calls in the era of phone booths? Yes once again.

It is an incurable optimism to believe that somehow, although our generation read Playboy and Penthouse, our children and grandchildren will be blocked from porn because hand-wavey promises about age verification.

in reply to Reg Braithwaite πŸ“

@david_colquhoun Politicians want votes from people who simply don't understand how good kids are at getting booze, cigarettes, and porn.

Furthermore, many people do not appear to grasp the unintended authoritarian consequences of internet gatekeeping.

They tell us it's about porn. But what if it’s also about birth control? Or gender? Or consensual sex? Or socialism? Or anything else deemed "inappropriate?"

I’ve seen the books they ban from schools. I fear what they will ban online.

in reply to Reg Braithwaite πŸ“

@raganwald @david_colquhoun apparently now in UK to view footage of police arresting people during protests you need to provide your government ID.
in reply to Reg Braithwaite πŸ“

@raganwald @david_colquhoun As we are already seeing, LGBTQ-positive content is being categorised as "porn" and homophobic hate speech as "not porn". So now gay teenagers are only allowed to see the latter...
in reply to Reg Braithwaite πŸ“

@raganwald @david_colquhoun Moreover: In retrospect, was it so terrible that you managed to get all those things? Why restrict access so badly when us older people managed to do just fine in our youth?

There are lots of things I'd like to "shield" young people from. The list doesn't start with porn though. And it doesn't work though age verification.

in reply to David Colquhoun

age gating

Sensitive content

in reply to Jayne πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡ΊπŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ

age gating

Sensitive content

in reply to B Caligari πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

@bcaligari @wizzwizz4 @david_colquhoun
…monitored by volunteer moderators who believe in protecting the community to provide a safe and welcoming social space for all our users…at least it is in our corner of the Fediverse.
in reply to Jayne πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡ΊπŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ

age gating

Sensitive content

in reply to wizzwizz4

age gating

@wizzwizz4 facebook-addicts I know believe all kind of racist-motivated disinformation and are OK with
- fascism
- genocide
- bigotry
- climate-change denialism
- anti working class/leftist and pro-billionaires and pro white collar criminality bullshit
- hate toward cyclist and road rage justifications/denialism because "cyclists put others in danger" (total BS when you look at facts)

I don't think there is "moderation" on facebook…

@TCMuffin @bcaligari @david_colquhoun @deshipu

in reply to 🐧DaveNull🐧 ☣️pResident Evil☣

online moderation, facebook

Sensitive content

in reply to wizzwizz4

online moderation, facebook

@wizzwizz4 My point is not to promote authority.

My point is: Vertical "moderation" doesn't work because vertical "moderation" is specific to for-profit scructures that design moderation rules (as opposed to collaborative moderation) and those rules are designed in a way that doesn't "conflict" with profit. Hosting hate speech is profitable.

Also capitalism needs fascism to impose its bullshit through violence

@TCMuffin @bcaligari @david_colquhoun @deshipu

in reply to 🐧DaveNull🐧 ☣️pResident Evil☣

Sensitive content

in reply to David Colquhoun

@david_colquhoun Pornographers don't want to have "unlimited access to children" because it's not their target audience.
Groomers do, but from victims confessions, groomers very rarely, if ever, use porn, because they don't want the kids AWARE what is happening is sex. Which is why groomers are HAPPY for any sex education being barred from children. Which is what actually happens with blocks like that (sex education being labeled adult and verification-blocked from children).

reshared this

in reply to David Colquhoun

@david_colquhoun even assuming what you say is correct, what is an acceptable price for that? Is it ok to out closeted people by forcing them away from anonymity into a database that *will* be leaked at some point? Or anyone that had a slightly different preference? This doesn't just add age verification it removes online anonymity for everyone. And once that bits gone other bits will follow.

Or any price is acceptable to "protect our kids"?

in reply to David Colquhoun

@david_colquhoun That seems backwards to me. Not attempting age verification perhaps makes it easier for teenagers to access porn, but at least in doing so they’re anonymous. Age verification means theyre not. It’s also laughable to think that it can possibly be pulled off without egregious invasions of everyone’s privacy totally disporportionate to the goal sought to be achieved, but that’s a different question (although it should inform law and policy).
in reply to CharlieG

this is a really good point - the very thing being proposed completely undermines the number one (maybe number zero) rule that kept kids safe from predators on the internet!

@david_colquhoun @deshipu

in reply to David Colquhoun

@david_colquhoun Funny, porn sites aren't demanding to verify my age, but social media and communication sites are.
in reply to Ryan Castellucci

@ryanc β€œProtection of Children” through internet surveillance capitalism panopticon ending digital privacy
in reply to David Colquhoun

@david_colquhoun
It's kinda sweet that there are people who believe the opposition to age verification comes from people who want to access porn rather than people who don't want Big Tech to have access to everyone's verified identity.

reshared this

in reply to Reg

@Reg 'Cause they've historically had such a stellar track record with people's personal info, right?
@Reg
in reply to David Colquhoun

@david_colquhoun Age-restricting media is only ever going to hurt all vulnerable kids more than it will protect any kid from being harmed by a predator.

Like the book purges in the US, these laws will prevent queer kids, kids of color, and kids being abused, from accessing age-appropriate material that will help them survive their traumas. That's intended with these parentalistic laws. The "think of the children" battle-cry is used to trigger a protective reflex to manufacture consent.

in reply to ɗ𐐩ʃƕρʋ

everyone is acting like children exist in a vacuum. Children (most, anyway) have parents, it is their responsibility to teach children how to participate in society, how to interpret different things (even when said interpretation may not be to your taste). The children can protect themselves if they are given tools and strategies, and told about dangers.

This right-wing "think of the children" crap is all about surveillance and power over others. If you (as a political force) really cared about children, you would fund the education system and healthcare, so the children can grow up to be responsible adults raising responsible children who can think for themselves.

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.

⇧