Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pornhub Owner May Become the UK's Gatekeeper of Online Porn (yahoo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the thou-shalt-not-pass dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Yahoo News: Mindgeek may be the most powerful company that you've never heard of, or at least, a company you'll claim never to have heard about in polite company. It's the conglomerate that owns some of the world's most visited porn sites, including Pornhub, RedTube and YouPorn. Far from simply being a popular and free way for people to consume adult content, it may soon have a powerful political role in the UK that will ensure its dominance for decades to come. That's because, within the next year, Mindgeek may become the principal gatekeeper between the country's internet users and their porn. In April, the UK passed the Digital Economy Act 2017, legislation that mandated that any website showing adult content must verify the ages of its visitors. It was pushed through in response to concerns that children were being corrupted by easy access to and exposure to adult content at an early age. Section 15(1) of the bill requires that "pornographic material" not be published online, on a "commercial basis," unless it is "not normally accessible by those under 18." The bill has several flaws, not least the number of vague proposals it contains, and the ad hoc definition of what pornography actually is. Section 17 of the same act outlined the creation of an "age-verification regulator," the digital equivalent of a bouncer standing between you and your porn. This gatekeeper will have the right, and duty, to demand you show proof of age, or else refuse you access. In addition, the body will be able to impose fines and enforcement notices on those who either neglect or circumvent the policy. [...] The Open Rights Group believes that the BBFC will then hand over the actual mechanisms of the age verification platform to a third party in the private sector. Mindgeek has had several conversations with officials and is currently pushing its own age verification platform, AgeID. If selected, this platform could become the principal wall between Britons and their pornography -- giving Mindgeek enormous power in the market.

95 comments

  1. This will go well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean they already banned piracy and that doesn't happen anymore right?

    1. Re: This will go well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Porn is inherently a private thing that most people would tend to keep from their SO. It's human nature. So why in world would anyone participate in a program that verifies their identity, age, and arguably other PII so that there is now verifiable proof of said private activity?? This will just drive porn further underground and into illicit sources or even the dark web.

    2. Re: This will go well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The OP already answered that question, circuitously.

      (1) In 2004 the UK Cleanfeed System was introduced. The UK public was told that Cleanfeed would never be used for censorship, and only had a specific mandate to block child abuse image content.

      (2) UK bans access to The Pirate Bay and blocks torrent sites using BT's cleanfeed system. UK filesharers start to use VPNs to evade blocking.

      (3) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 requires all UK web activity to be retained by ISPs. Non-filesharing UK citizens start to use VPNs to prevent state surveillance.

      (4) Now the Digital Economy Act 2017 seeks to expand the cleanfeed system to all pornography. As with the original torrent site blockade, VPNs will become the default method to access such content.

    3. Re: This will go well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn is inherently a private thing that most people would tend to keep from their SO. .

      Only if you are alone with an imaginary girlfriend in your basement. Most well adjusted adults, I would suggest, engage in porn without having to "keep it from their SO".

    4. Re: This will go well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it varies.

      There's the porn they both like.
      There's the porn one of them likes and the other tolerates.
      There's the porn that one of them is scared shitless the other will discover.

      I don't do porn these days (mainly due to provenance challenges) but when I did, I shared my lesbian bondage videos with my girlfriend and.. lets just say that she liked them more than I did. I didn't share some other porn with her. I knew it wasn't her thing, although she wouldn't care that it was mine.

      Posting anon because.. well.

  2. Monopoly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a real shame people have such hang-ups about sex that they won't speak out against such a blatant monopoly as that company has built.

    1. Re:Monopoly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a real shame people have such hang-ups about sex that they won't speak out against such a blatant monopoly as that company has built.

      Yes that definitely explains why so many non-sexual monopolies routinely go unchallenged or are met with only the most feeble protests.

  3. Well the UK Parliament protects pedos, so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is verifying the ages of porn stars undesirable for the conservative crowd in 2017 or what?

    1. Re:Well the UK Parliament protects pedos, so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only in public. In private they'll carry on buggering under-age boys.

    2. Re:Well the UK Parliament protects pedos, so what? by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

      Yes this is a tory government, but nowadays antiporn and antiprostitution stuff is carried out just as much if not more by the feminist crowd than the conservative religious crowd since the UK is more secular than ever.

  4. The brits are really fucking up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are they retarded? I've watched porn since I was 12 and I turned out fine.
    Besides, how are they going to stop people from visiting porn sites outside of the UK?

    1. Re: The brits are really fucking up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're here, you didn't turn out fine you moron

  5. Why do the sites care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know where those sites are physically located, but let's assume for a minute that not every single porn site is located in the UK or has assets there.

    Why do they care then, what laws the UK passes about porn? The UK is free to build a "digital Hadrian's Wall" if it wants to keep out things the internet has on it. That doesn't mean everyone else has to follow their laws. Why not just ignore them?

    The internet is becoming WAY too controlled and compartmentalized, and governments are starting to salivate way too much over controlling it, China-style.

    1. Re:Why do the sites care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet is going slowly but steadily the way of the Dodo.

  6. Clueless, or what? by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    There are these things called VPNs. I've heard they're really good.

  7. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK passed the Digital Economy Act 2017, which will create an insurmountable hindrance in order to kill the pornography business in the UK. Users will get their porn from businesses in countries whose legislators understand how the internet works.

  8. If you wanted to get rid of porn by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 0

    What you'd do is get rid of the copyright protection. Declare that porn obscene materials have no legal protection. You'd do two things that would set the whole production process on fire without jailing anyone:

    1. Bankrupt the producers.
    2. Make it impossible for amateur producers to control distribution of their materials.

    The most you could do is use revenge porn laws to stop #2 and that would be as effective as asking Shawn Fanning "pretty please stop" back in 1999 instead of having the legal system at the ready.

    And the best part is that it would be completely legal and constitutional in the US because copyright law is not a civil right per Article I, Section 8.

    1. Re: If you wanted to get rid of porn by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think your idea of "porn" is stuck in the 80s. You think can girls and couples putting on live shows for fans care about copyright?

      Getting rid of copyright laws wouldn't do a damn thing towards eliminating porn; it would just change the landscape slightly.

    2. Re:If you wanted to get rid of porn by PPH · · Score: 1

      1. Bankrupt the producers.

      Pardon me while I do my part to put these bastards out of business.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Re: Well the UK Parliament protects pedos, so what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well as long as they keep using the same couriers for transferring those public inquiries I think they're safe from prosecution.

  10. Thanks MIndgeek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you made me discover that the hottest women on Earth have dicks!
    Jessica Versace
    Jane Marie
    Andrezza Lyra
    Camilla Jolie

    Thanks!

  11. ''children were being corrupted'' by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If that is what they are worried about, why have they not banned religious web sites; IMHO those are far more damaging than porn: they claim to present truth (without much evidence), then say that a bunch of people are bad: those of other religions (or none), gays, divorcees, ...; discourage free or rational thought, condemn evolution and generally denounce any sex out side marriage, ...

    Many kids have their minds screwed up by religion.

    1. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what they're worried about, otherwise the government would make it illegal to provide unfiltered internet access to under 18's. The adult paying for the access is providing it, they are illegally supplying the pornography and should be held legally responsible.

    2. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These fucking nutjob religious types are the ones pushing for this blanket restriction of porn.
      They'd honestly have people thrown in jail if they could, but they settled for this and previously a pedoscare back in the 80s to freak out teens from having sex like any normal human.

      Social networking sites are more damaging than fucking alcohol to the childrens mind, never mind porn. Holy jesus the stuff that happens on sites like Facebook, Instagram and such.
      They are like violent playgrounds on the internet. No wonder people are depressed out the ass. It's not the use of the site, it's the absolute mind poison that flows through them that is the issue.

    3. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      I can just imagine how the atheists will react to having their websites banned and being told that they cannot teach atheism to their children.

    4. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Falconnan · · Score: 2

      Sex: A healthy part (though optional) of a normal, functional human being's life.

      Violence: A destructive aspect of life which is not a part of a functional human being's life under the vast majority of circumstances.

      Guess which we need to restrict the visibility of according to the "God-fearing" crowd?

      Though in fairness, porn is not a very accurate portrayal of sex.

    5. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by dargaud · · Score: 2

      Teaching atheism ? Huh ?!? You are an atheist when you are born, and you stay this way unless 'taught' a religion with a belt or endless rote learning sessions.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    6. Re: ''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though in fairness, porn is not a very accurate portrayal of sex.

      Yes and no. They are real people, doing real things. A better way to describe it would be an uncommon portrayal, as those with the best bodies or other qualities in extremis are usually portrayed.

    7. Re: ''children were being corrupted'' by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure most real people having sex don't do things like get into awkward positions to ensure that their genitals are visible from a specific direction. Few of us get laid every time we call for a pizza either. Nor to we get a second take if we do or say something stupid during the act that ruins the scene.

      Porn is to sex what Kill Bill is to sword fighting. It looks really awesome but its (usually) highly choreographed and not especially practical in the real world.

    8. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Teaching atheism ? Huh ?!? You are an atheist when you are born, and you stay this way unless 'taught' a religion with a belt or endless rote learning sessions.

      "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" -Bill Maher

      --
      We'll make great pets
    9. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      I can just imagine how the atheists will react to having their websites banned and being told that they cannot teach atheism to their children.

      Let's see... which is worse, masturbation or pedophilia... you're definitely the "good guys"...

      --
      We'll make great pets
    10. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Errm, I'm pretty sure babies aren't in utero thinking "there is no God or Gods!", that is actually a rather absurd concept. So no, you aren't born an atheist (rather, you are born ignorant) and then come to faith in atheism later in life.

    11. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errm, I'm pretty sure babies aren't in utero thinking "there is no God or Gods!"
      They are not born thinking "there is a god", so their is no god in their thoughts. A bit like being an atheist.

    12. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Cederic · · Score: 1

      come to faith in atheism

      I fear you misunderstand atheism.

    13. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So no, you aren't born an atheist (rather, you are born ignorant) and then come to faith in atheism later in life.

      Kids have to be taught there is a God. They are also taught there is a Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny.

      Then later they are told the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny don't really exist...but there really IS a God.

    14. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, all children don't believe in math when born, and, eh, I can't come up with an idiotic self-serving lying ending to that as quickly as you.

      Theism doesn't exist solely due to "belts". Get past your rationalization of whatever shitty moral issues you have that provides all your motivation to your stupidity here.

      You'll feel better just cutting back on the porn or whatever and being less of a moron. I promise.

    15. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Kids have to be taught there is a God.

      And they have to be taught that there is no God.

      They are also taught there is a Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny.

      And they are also taught that there are Black holes, and Democracy and a Pluto.

      Then later they are told the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny don't really exist...but there really IS a God.

      Fairly recently (within my lifetime in fact) we've discovered that other stars have planets orbiting around them. It turns out that the people who believed that it was not possible for extra solar planets to exist were, in fact wrong :- despite the fact they hadn't been observed, they did in fact exist prior to us observing them.

    16. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Your comment makes no sense to me.

    17. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      They are not born thinking "there is a god", so their is no god in their thoughts. A bit like being an atheist.

      Nothing like being an atheist at all. Unless atheists are merely ignorant?

      If anything babies are like agnostics - if we asked a 4 year old if there was a God or gods, and they had no teaching or revelation either way, and they replied honestly, they would say "I don't know". That's the thing with babies too: they don't know either way. Atheists, however, do, since prior knowledge (objective or not) is required to assert that there is no God or gods.

    18. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps you do?

    19. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really want to go down the evidence road? Probably not wise for a theist.

      > It turns out that the people who believed that it was not possible for extra solar planets to exist were, in fact wrong

      I'm not aware of these people, who are they? And on what basis would they claim such impossibility?

    20. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Cederic · · Score: 1

      theism
      ËÎiËÉz(É(TM))m/
      noun: theism
              belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
              "there are many different forms of theism"

      a-
      prefix â /eÉ/
      ânot, without:

      Which part of 'without belief' infers 'faith' to you? Just that, I'm pretty confident in backing my understanding of atheism against your provably flawed one.

    21. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dig deeper, my friend... the etymology argument is old, and has been hashed to death in forums like alt.atheism.

      The basic problem is that historically atheism has been defined as the denial of the existence of God, not just the absence of belief.

      George smith called it "implicit/explicit" atheism in his book Atheism: The Case Against God. Alt.atheism is where the terms "strong/weak" atheism gained currency.

      The reason for these distinctions is not to determine a "correct" definition, but to clarify what you're talking about.

      So when you say a newborn is an atheist, it should be qualified with the "weak" or "implicit" label to avoid any misunderstanding, as in this case, that anyone is asserting that infants deny the existence of God.

    22. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Mmm. Sounds like:

      theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

      atheism: belief that there is no god or gods, specifically no creator who intervenes in the universe.

    23. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to go down the evidence road? Probably not wise for a theist.

      Interesting firstly, because you assume I'm a theist, and secondly, because it sounds like a tacit admission that there is no evidence for atheism.

      I'm not aware of these people, who are they? And on what basis would they claim such impossibility?

      (a) Atheists. (b) No idea.

    24. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So when you say a newborn is an atheist

      Well, I didn't, but technically it is true. Weak or strong is pretty fucking irrelevant to me, I just don't believe.

      Unlike KeensMustard, who clearly believes in his own bullshit. sigh.

    25. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Interesting firstly, because you assume I'm a theist

      No, just a friendly warning in case you are. You are definitely an apologist, unless you like playing devil's advocate for positions you don't hold.

      > secondly, because it sounds like a tacit admission that there is no evidence for atheism.

      There is no evidence for atheism. The burden of proof is on the claimant, but you know this.

      >> I'm not aware of these people, who are they?
      > (a) Atheists.

      Which atheists, specifically, claim extrasolar planets are impossible? Burden of proof is on you.

      >> And on what basis would they claim such impossibility?
      > (b) No idea.

      You claim that they make this claim, and you haven't heard them say why? I think you're a bullshitter.

    26. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> So when you say a newborn is an atheist
      > Well, I didn't

      Fair enough. I wrongly assumed KeensMustard was repolying to you with his statement "I'm pretty sure babies aren't in utero thinking 'there is no God or Gods!'"

      > but technically it is true.

      Only for one definition of 'atheism,' which is not the wrong one, but when you claim he "misunderstands atheism," you are not taking a very nuanced view. Remember, this has been debated for centuries... so please don't beg the question by assuming your preferred definition is the only one.

    27. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close. You're half right with each definition - the first part up to the comma.

      The stuff about "a creator who intervenes in the universe" is immaterial (pun intended).

    28. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Good enough

    29. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      No, just a friendly warning in case you are. You are definitely an apologist, unless you like playing devil's advocate for positions you don't hold.

      All that matters for the sake of this conversation is that I'm a non-atheist. The worse kind: an ex-atheist. This makes me skeptical of the claims of atheism.

      There is no evidence for atheism. The burden of proof is on the claimant, but you know this.

      True: the burden of proof is on the atheist.

      >> I'm not aware of these people, who are they? > (a) Atheists. Which atheists, specifically, claim extrasolar planets are impossible? Burden of proof is on you.

      In the above metaphor we now have evidence of extra solar planets exist whereas previously we didn't. But the lack of evidence had no bearing on whether they existed in reality. Previously, we merely lacked the means to detect them. They did not spring into existence when we observed them.

      So in the metaphor the person claiming that no extra solar planets exist is the equivalent of an atheist. In that they (atheists) claim that no deity could possibly exist, on the basis that there are no observations of said deities, and carefully avoid acknowledging that it's irrational to expect evidence for something that is by definition unobservable.

      You claim that they make this claim, and you haven't heard them say why?

      Correct: I've never heard a philosophically sound, rational explanation for atheism. That's why non-atheists consider it to be belief.

    30. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by dargaud · · Score: 1

      "faith in atheism" ?!? Do you even listen to yourself ? Atheism is a LACK of faith.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    31. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are talking at cross purposes (pardon the expression) because you're using different definitions of 'atheism.'

      It would be a lot more interesting debate if you'd get beyond the sophomore-philosophy stuff.

    32. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      So, are babies in the uterus thinking "there is no god or gods"?

    33. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. Are you going to claim you know what fetuses think or don't think?

    34. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      I'm skeptical of the idea that foetuses are thinking "there is no god or gods", given there is no evidence of abstract thought in children until they are mid-development. But if your faith requires you to believe it, then by all means.

      What you don't get to do is force people to give up a fundamental human right, which is freedom of religion. We allow you to believe things that to unbelievers seem absurd. You are free to hold those beliefs, but you cannot force others to believe them.

    35. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Your comment makes no sense to me.

      The GP made this thread into an atheism vs. theism bent. Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin. Porn is generally well a means to "get off" for a lot of people. Therefore the GP, on their religious high horse, declared porn sites to be associated with Atheism exclusively which is absurd. In Christianity, we have things like if a woman is raped she can be stoned to death and all sorts of other nonsense about regulating people's sexual behavior. In Catholicism, pedophilia is widespread and actively covered up. If you cover up something, rather than acknowledging and dealing with the problem, for all intents and purpose you condone the behavior. Pedophilia probably rises partially from taking vows of celibacy which go directly against animal nature. So, what I'm saying is, accept your animal nature or don't, which is better? Make more sense now? Get educated.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    36. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since no one suggested fetuses are contemplating the existence of God, you're kicking a strawman based on your intentional misapprehension of the word "atheist" in this context.

    37. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Well, since no one suggested fetuses are contemplating the existence of God, you're kicking a strawman based on your intentional misapprehension of the word "atheist" in this context.

      A misapprehension I just happen to share with the vast body of philosophy, it's ontological system and with the vast majority of people (i.e. everybody is not an atheist) . Perhaps your explanation ("it just is") might lack explanatory power?

    38. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, nitpicking terminology allows you to avoid addressing the actual point: that religion is not innate, it is learned.

      This should be self-evident to anyone who has realized that religion and moral codes depend on language and language must be learned, but whatever.

    39. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure I did address that - atheism, like all other worldviews, religions and faiths, is learned. Consequently, we would expect atheists to react badly to the idea of having their websites banned and being told that they cannot teach atheism to their children.

    40. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      The GP made this thread into an atheism vs. theism bent. Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin.

      So he (or she) was off topic. Gotcha. Because I wasn't talking about atheism vs theism, but rather that banning religions would necessitate banning atheism. This comes down to our universal rights enjoyed by theists and atheists alike: losing those rights means we all lose.

      Christianity (more specifically Catholicism) in particular thinks masturbation is a sin. Porn is generally well a means to "get off" for a lot of people. Therefore the GP, on their religious high horse, declared porn sites to be associated with Atheism exclusively which is absurd. In Christianity, we have things like if a woman is raped she can be stoned to death and all sorts of other nonsense about regulating people's sexual behavior.

      Pretty sure that's not right, I know a lot of Christians and they tend to be outraged by rape, and I've never heard of anybody being stoned. Also, by generalizing the behavior of some catholic priests to all religions, the OP is effectively assigning that behaviour to atheists as well - the argument he/she makes is nonsensical.

    41. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what you did is assumed 'atheism' to mean solely strong/explicit atheism, which was clearly not the OP's intended meaning regardless of philosophical tradition or etymology.

      Lack of religion is not learned; if no concept of God is taught to children, they are by default (weak/implicit) atheists. If you don't care for that definition, fine – use "non-theist" but the practical result is the same.

    42. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      It seems pointless and unhelpful to everyone to use the same term (atheist) to describe 2 positions which do not overlap or relate to one another. For that reason the people who have no knowledge of the existence of a deity (either positive or negative) are commonly called agnostics (agnostic: (no) knowledge) and the people like the OP above who obviously have a view on whether or not a deity exists and for the time being, feel free to express that view, we call atheists. Since I was replying to that person it seems reasonable to frame my response according to his or her stated or implied beliefs.

    43. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      You sure talk a lot of nonsense. My children are atheist not because they were taught to be so, but because they were never taught that there is some supreme being controlling everything. In all of their youthful wisdom they find other children's belief in a god as just strange but what they have been taught is to tolerate the folly of these 'believers'. Atheism is the default state. Theism is taught. It is not innate. Personally, I had to reject and unlearn a childhood of religious bullshit and so I'm left with baggage I never want my children to have. If they want to find some form of religion for themselves, that is their choice, but for their own good, I really hope they do not.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    44. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Atheism is not a religion. You are stupid. Go away.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    45. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the faithful try to make atheism a religion is so the atheist can be blamed for denying God, and not be faultless for simply being uninformed. They want to assert that "it takes just as much faith to say there's no God as to believe in Him!"

      Of course what they don't get is that to an atheist, God's existence is no more important a question than any other thing's existence.

      Do you deny the existence of Leprechauns? You must be one of those a-Leprechaunists!

      It would be pretty silly to fill in the "religion" blank on a form with "a-Bigfootist, a-Unicornist, a-Loch-Ness-Monsterist" etc. ad nauseam.

    46. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Sounds like your kids decided for themselves that they did not think there was a god or gods - exactly the mechanism used by kids who decided the opposite. Your kids think other kids are weird for having different beliefs - those kids think YOUR kids are weird.

      I think it's good that you teach you kids to tolerate other beliefs. That's good, because the diversity of belief is not going to change and the long standing atheistic doctrine that somehow, we'd abandon other faiths and become atheists turned out to be a false doctrine. So, contrary to the OP, you have no choice but to accept that not everybody believes as you do, and no amount of oppression and stripping people of their rights will change that. You might consider publicly rebuking the extremist atheists who make such remarks.

    47. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm convinced.

      What looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, but definitely not a duck. Gotcha.

    48. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
        – Thomas Jefferson

    49. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strong atheism, like agnosticism, isnâ(TM)t a religion but rather a philosophical position on the subject of religion.

    50. Re:''children were being corrupted'' by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      Strong atheism requires you to believe that there is no God or gods. That qualifies as belief in the accepted ontology, because there is no objective proof of that assertion.

      Atheism also states that we were not created by deities, but instead they were created by us. This becomes problematic for a number of reasons. The first is that the individual atheist has not studied the full set of deities that are accepted by one or more of the multitude forms of theism around the world, so they cannot speak objectively to this statement: it is just a statement arising from worldview (a religious assertion). The second is that atheism demands that there be no god or gods at all, not even the ones that nobody believes in. Otherwise, there could be god or gods that nobody believes in. So arguments about the deities that people believe in get's us nowhere down the path to a rational foundation for atheism.

  12. "children are being corrupted" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spoilers, they were already corrupt.
    Stop thinking your children are little angels. They aren't. They might be to your face, but they most certainly are not behind them.
    I've never known ANYBODY that was a nice little angel even back when I was pre-10 days. Fuck, I remember 2 of my friends dry-humping at 8.
    Humans are kinky. Deal with it, fucking prudes.

  13. Rick Ashley Verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The age verification is always: "Watch the following musical performance straight through. How many weeks did the performance in question stay at the top of The Official UK Top 40 Singles Chart? After successfully answering the gatekeeper's question, the customer receives a special key to behold, cherish and dominate, and can then proceed feeling highly invigorated and ready to consume some low budget adult entertainment.

  14. In the face of increasing cyber-threats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the UK passed the Digital Economy Act 2017, legislation that mandated that any website showing adult content must verify the ages of its visitors.

    Clear evidence that the U.K. is taking cyber-warfare seriously and has formally committed to ensuring that its future generations would be (self-)trained in that field.

  15. "Children being corrupted" is already insanity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We all were once children. We saw porn. Or even our parents.
    Our reaction was, that either we were not interested, or curious as to why people did this thing, or we just held our hands in front of our eyes just like when somebody kissed on TV.
    Because we were children!
    Nobody of us got harmed by it. How would that even work? I mean neuro-psychologically!
    The second we became interested, was also the second we had hit puberty.

    This insanity is based on the concept of "sin" in Abrahamic religions. Where conveniently, the most interesting thing, and the thing that we absolutely need for survival, is a "sin". And the punishment is the most horrible torture imaginable. By "God" ... But he loves you! --.--
    Except, of course, when the reproduction is church-approved. So only when the parents are under full control, and that is sealed with the act of "marriage".
    In medicine, we call that a eugenics program.

    Just for comparison, you can read how nudity and sexuality was handled before Abrahamic religions got in control:
    http://polynesianresourcecenter.com/culture/item/polynesian-sexual-customs
    (Beware when reading about tribal customs. Most sources are either through the distorted eyes of "missionaries", or from after they were "converted". So make sure of that, before arguing "But they had 'marriage' too!")

    So: Yes, barely 12 year old girls want to fuck barely 13 year old boys too. At least naturally. Deal with it, Catholibans!

  16. 1984, privatized by mtaht · · Score: 1

    I wish I could find the relevant passage in Orwell's 1984. Or was it Brave New World?

    1. Re:1984, privatized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Unlike Winston, she had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created
      a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship. The way she put it was:
      ’When you make love you’re using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don’t give a damn for anything. They can’t bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you’re happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?’"

      You're welcome.

    2. Re:1984, privatized by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Brave New World's approach to sex was the polar opposite of that in 1984. BNW's society embraced sex - and took that to an extreme, with the intent of removing all consequence and meaning. In BNW, sex is something that even casual acquaintances do together because they both enjoy it, and so why not? Monogamy is viewed as selfish to the point of perversion, because it asserts a level of ownership over a partner. Pornography is not just permitted, but encouraged.

      A modern audience probably finds this rather less dystopian than at the time of publication.

  17. So, to recap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lust is bad. Greed, sloth, gluttony, pride, envy, and wrath are still all strongly encouraged.

    1. Re: So, to recap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost, Sloth is also on the nope list.

    2. Re: So, to recap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, sloth is still encouraged - they want you to punch a clock, and perform dull, tedious grunt work to enrich your betters, but they don't want you to be ambitious, or aspire, or help your neighbors to make the world better. They want you to do your work, but stay where you belong, and mind your own business. Otherwise, you're a troublemaker.

  18. Not going to go well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are pretty much only 3 ways to verify age : 1) have a pop up you are actually 18, 2) require a CC, book one cent on it, cancel on verification and similar methods 3) provide your identity card number (in EU) and have a check digit + age verification. Beside the fact that most porn visitors will *actively* avoid 2 and 3 , how are they supposed to rule and require the verification for foreign porn site ? Are they about to require ISP to have a filter and hit that age verification web site before allowing the web site to load ? Are they about to forbid vpn ? And why is porn corrupting, but site showing violent stuff like beheading not ? Or not to be controversial , *ANY* religious brainwashing site directed at children ?

    1. Re: Not going to go well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3) Despite the best efforts of Blair's government we don't yet have identity cards in the UK.

  19. would you like jack boots with you tea, old chap? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Good going, Brits. You folks have somehow managed to build an EVEN MORE creepy jack-booted Puritan regime than we have in the States. Cheerio, hats off, hip hip hurrah!

  20. Re: Well the UK Parliament protects pedos, so what by Reverend+Green · · Score: 0, Troll

    Feminists are the new fundamentalist religious nutjobs. New faces, new funding sources, same foaming at the mouth hatred of healthy heterosexuality.

  21. Citation Needed by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    I would like to see a study that has quantified the risk and dangers to children watching porn. Until you show me the risk I won't support your mitigation. That seems pretty obvious. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Citation Needed by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I've looked into this myself, and there are none. The problem is control: There's no way to get a solid conclusion without a control, and there's no way any ethics board is going to approve a study that involves deliberately showing pornography to minors to see what happens.

      There are studies to be found, it's just that they all suck. Purely correlative, often contradictory. Conclusions are all over the place.

  22. Next up, national firewall. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    It's inevitable, really. I can see the chain of events right now:
    1. Pass this well-intentioned law.
    2. Many major pornography sites comply.
    3. Consumers say 'screw that.' They don't want their porn viewing on record - and besides, pornography is a impulsive thing. When you want it, you don't want to mess around with proof of identity first.
    4. Consumers each spend about ten seconds on google and find plenty of porn sites outside of the UK.
    5. After a couple of years, MPs notice that the law has achieved nothing.
    6. And so the order is given to ban all the porn on the internet.
    7. Battle ensues between government and ISP engineers building filters, and porn enthusiasts building new ways to subvert them. We all know who wins that one.

  23. Re:would you like jack boots with you tea, old cha by Duckeenie · · Score: 1

    You know that "people" don't actually get a say in what happens in one's country though?

  24. God and reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Teaching atheism ? Huh ?!? You are an atheist when you are born, and you stay this way unless 'taught' a religion with a belt or endless rote learning sessions.

    Or you study Aristotle and find that a supernatural being is entirely discoverable through reason:

    * http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.html
    * http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-way-part-ii-two-lemmas-make-lemma.html
    * http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-way-part-iii-big-kahuna.html
    * http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html

  25. What do the MoD & Mi6 make of all this? by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    We've already seen an adversary use this kind of weakness to attack us, with the results being brexit.

    Now we are creating a new weakness for our enemies to use against us. We are putting power into the hands of a few who can control what we do and don't see online, enough to sway votes.

    The UK continues it death wish.

    --
    A blog I run for the wealth
    1. Re:What do the MoD & Mi6 make of all this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly amazing watching my country fuck itself up.

      The government has imposed mass surveillance and storage of Internet access, but rather than do it itself using someone like GCHQ that might actually have a clue about security, they get commercial companies like Talk Talk to store all that lovely information that's a goldmine for criminals and terrorists. Companies that are regularly breached because their security is so piss weak. Might just be quicker to rsync all that data direct to terrorists, criminals, and foreign governments.

      But it's okay, because we can at least use encryption to try and be decent citizens and defend ourselves from terrorists and criminals. Oh, except our government wants us to weaken encryption and make it illegal not to have backdoors on the off chance they need to read anything we're discussing. Because clearly criminals and terrorists will stop using encryption if it's illegal. Nor would they ever exploit weakened encryption for illegal activities.

      Meanwhile, we're currently in the process of dismantling 40 years worth of European partnership, a significant bulk of which we pushed for to try and save British industry and offload a load of expensive bureaucracy. We've got about a year left to reimplement the entire thing again, at great expense, including renegotiating hundreds of trade and harmonisation treaties (although many we can't actually do until after we leave). To make matters worse the government seems to think we should have full access to the EU, but without paying for it. All based on a non-binding referendum result agreed to by 37% of registered voters, all of whom had a different idea on what they were actually voting for.

      Still, at least we can look forward to having our complete list of sexual preferences made public for the entire world to savour, along with our credit card details.

  26. how about we just kill all the puritans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm sick of these christ freaks fucking up society for the rest of us with their perverse authoritarianism. it's bad enough their hereditary inferiority is infecting the gene pool in the US.

  27. No sex please! by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    We're British!

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com