Site Question / Help Worrying new censorship.

[steve25805 125,623]

3 minutes ago, 2prnot2p said:

Your thoughts?

In any society we are only as free as the leash they have us on.

Provided we do not stray too far we do not notice our lack of freedom.

But those of us with free spirits often do.

The UK has often had a puritanical streak, with those campaigning for a finger wagging nanny state to compel the rest of us to conform to their narrow standards. Only in the UK could so ridiculous a figure as Mary Whitehouse ever have been taken seriously. For those unfamiliar, look her up. That's the kind of mentality we are up against.

 

 

 

[spywareonya 37,961]

12 hours ago, steve25805 said:

In any society we are only as free as the leash they have us on.

Provided we do not stray too far we do not notice our lack of freedom.

But those of us with free spirits often do.

The UK has often had a puritanical streak, with those campaigning for a finger wagging nanny state to compel the rest of us to conform to their narrow standards. Only in the UK could so ridiculous a figure as Mary Whitehouse ever have been taken seriously. For those unfamiliar, look her up. That's the kind of mentality we are up against.

 

 

 

But UK invented porn, punk, and bdsm

You guys got balls of solid rock, you just got to get them out

[mickymoist 3,509]

12 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

Don't you all in the UK pay a TV tax every year?

We don't pay a tax as such, the BBC (British Broadcating Corporation) Is a public TV and Radio broadcaster that make dramas, documentaries, covers sport and news etc, It has no commercials to fund it and so is paid for by the public with a TV Licence fee

[steve25805 125,623]

3 hours ago, mickymoist said:

We don't pay a tax as such, the BBC (British Broadcating Corporation) Is a public TV and Radio broadcaster that make dramas, documentaries, covers sport and news etc, It has no commercials to fund it and so is paid for by the public with a TV Licence fee

But we have to pay it regardless of whether we watch it or not just for owning a TV. In effect it is a tax on TV ownership and all TV viewing, the proceeds of which are used exclusively to fund the BBC.

And since the BBC is becoming increasingly prone to broadcasting pro-Tory, anti-Labour propaganda, growing millions of us on the left are starting to resent funding it. A major source of the problem is that the only way into the BBC news arena now is through unpaid internships which only affluent parents can afford to support financially. Thus the media village has come to be almost exclusively drawn from the affluent upper middle classes, with a total disconnect from the real lives of the struggling millions. A media not of the people and with no understanding of the people is never going to be relevant to them. Which is why savvy people are in growing numbers seeking out info online which bypasses the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media. The media no longer reflects and only minimally reports on the hopes and fears of the masses.

[mickymoist 3,509]

Blimey! wasn't expecting that! I'll head back to the pee 🤣

[Admin 14,771]

I agree this definitely won't stop minors accessing porn. In fact, the plan seems very poorly thought through in many ways.

As far as I can tell, if you are not in the UK (or not browsing from a UK IP address) you will not be affected whatsoever. (However I imagine many other European countries are likely to implement similar things in the future if this implementation goes reasonably well).

However, for users who are in the UK, PeeFans will unfortunately have to comply or risk being severely fined or blocked by ISPs.

It looks like there will be one main system that all the main porn sites use, where you verify yourself once either using a personal document, or by purchasing a specific card in a store so no data is linked to you when verifying, and you can then access all porn sites that are using this system. Whilst not ideal, it sounds as secure as it can be and relatively painless, so I will try to get us on board with that. So in theory, you could buy a card at almost any shop (if you can prove you're over 18), enter the code online, and then can continue as usual with sites like pornhub and peefans etc.

I would like to stress again that whilst I support stopping young children accessing such explicit content, I am not in favour of this ineffective additional verification for users in this way, but we will simply have to implement it for UK users in some form (from July onward).

Of course, as mentioned already, VPNs are extremely cheap and would bypass this restriction, as you would no longer be accessing the site from a UK IP address.

I'll work to get the best solution possible, but if you're in the UK please be aware we'll have to add something. 

 

[Guest UnabashedUser]

On 4/17/2019 at 1:30 PM, F.W said:

"Protecting the people from themselves" is the easy way a Govt becomes a dictatorship.Other people deciding whats good for you.

Do they SERIOUSLY imagine savvy 14 year olds arent going to be able to bypass this?This is a sop to "concerned religious groups".

 

Power hungry politicians are the scumsuckers behind this atrocity.  Wait for the "you can get a license to watch if you pay the tax" crap to start if it's implemented. Whole idea is 🦇💩🥜

[likesToLick 10,216]

23 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

I really don't think such a law would ever fly here in the USA.  The ACLU would have a field day with a law like that.  Hell, in my state of Michigan, we can carry a gun right out in the open, so long as it is registered and purchased legally.

I think you will find the USA has many such repressive laws already in place,  and the ACLU was either unwilling or unable to help.   Your government is perfectly happy for lunatics to murder schoolchildren with guns,  but for some reason is desperately worried that somebody might see an exposed nipple.

As an example of your repressive laws,  I cite 18 USC  2257 which requires anyone making erotica to keep a permanent record on site of real names and photo ID of every model they ever filmed,  accessible to police inspection at any time.  The mere existence of these databases put porn performers at risk of stalkers, discrimination and persecution. While this was done with the usual "for the children" excuse,  its intended effect was to allow police to "raid" and disrupt film studios at any time they choose,  as often as they wish,  without a warrant.  This became so onerous that the studios often had to set up their records archive in a completely separate building with a different address in order to reduce the disruption.  

I don't recall any civil liberties action happening at all.

[likesToLick 10,216]

On 4/18/2019 at 10:05 PM, F.W said:

Then again,i would ask to the Govt,define what would constitute "pornography" in the law?Surely it cant be that which might cause a person to masturbate?

It is precisely that.  The UK government defines pornography as an image which "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."

[likesToLick 10,216]

On 4/18/2019 at 6:00 AM, F.W said:

Do they SERIOUSLY imagine savvy 14 year olds arent going to be able to bypass this?This is a sop to "concerned religious groups".

I agree.   The "concerned religious groups" and other "anti-sex leagues" are principally concerned with putting the adult erotica industry out of business.  The "solutions" they look for are always designed to make it more difficult or embarrassing for ADULTS to access porn. 

For example,  one of the options under this new law will allow adults to go to a newsagent and buy an "adult access key" that they can use to gain entry to erotic web sites.    Once they take this key home,  nothing will stop a younger person from using it to view porn,  but to get it in the first place the adult must publicly declare him or herself to be a porn viewer.   Many will be too embarrassed to do this,  and thus will lose their access.

The site administrators will also be required to spend money to implement whatever blocking software is required to comply with this law.  It is certain that some of the smaller producers will find this unaffordable and go out of business. see this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/18/age-verification-block-porn-ethical-sites-sex

 

[2prnot2p 1,071]

2 hours ago, likesToLick said:

I think you will find the USA has many such repressive laws already in place,  and the ACLU was either unwilling or unable to help.   Your government is perfectly happy for lunatics to murder schoolchildren with guns,  but for some reason is desperately worried that somebody might see an exposed nipple.

As an example of your repressive laws,  I cite 18 USC  2257 which requires anyone making erotica to keep a permanent record on site of real names and photo ID of every model they ever filmed,  accessible to police inspection at any time.  The mere existence of these databases put porn performers at risk of stalkers, discrimination and persecution. While this was done with the usual "for the children" excuse,  its intended effect was to allow police to "raid" and disrupt film studios at any time they choose,  as often as they wish,  without a warrant.  This became so onerous that the studios often had to set up their records archive in a completely separate building with a different address in order to reduce the disruption.  

I don't recall any civil liberties action happening at all.

Oh, you are correct on your point.  But that 2257 thing did not stop the proliferation of porno on the web.  I'd even go so far as to say that the USA has more porno sites than any other nation.  If not, we're up there.

As far as the gun issue is concerned, I'm with you completely.  My reference to guns was not intended to say that I'm pro-gun.  Not at all.  I'm in favor of much stricter gun laws and background checks.  Of course!

I just don't understand how a nation that has allowed boobs to be shown on antenna TV for many years can now put such a law into effect.  Am I right?  Haven't you guys had tits on the telly for many years?  We still don't, except on cable, which is not free and over the air. 

So, the UK seems to be a paradox.  Also, you guys could buy beer in a movie theater long before we could.  See what I mean?  Liberal in so many ways, yet still restrictive.  Oh well.  I think webmasters will find a way to deal with this law.  Is it a "done deal?"  Or, still in the negotiating stage?

[likesToLick 10,216]

4 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

I just don't understand how a nation that has allowed boobs to be shown on antenna TV for many years can now put such a law into effect.  Am I right?  Haven't you guys had tits on the telly for many years?  We still don't, except on cable, which is not free and over the air. 

A loud-voiced minority can often drive politicians to make laws against the interests and preference of the majority.  A sad fact of the political process.

[CON2H4 641]

A kid can still

1) use fake ID

2) Borrow his parent's credit card

3) Find his parent's porn stash

4) use a VPN, or other such technologies

5) get porn off his classmate who was smart enough to do the above.

I was first exposed to porn by a schoolmate who had it on his phone. 

[CON2H4 641]

Btw I neither asked to see porn, nor was asked if I wanted to see it

[2prnot2p 1,071]

I have a question.  I hope someone can answer it.

After this law in the UK goes into effect, let's say an adult types peefans.com into their browser window...what will happen?  There is no warning page here to enter Pee Fans.  So, how will they, i.e., the government, know that Pee Fans is an adult/porno site?  Can anyone tell me this?  This part seems like it would be very difficult to do.  I mean VERY!!!

My tiny site is set up the same way, with no warning page first.  What will happen if someone types in gsparadise.net?

I'm confused on this.  Can anyone help me?

Thanks so much!

P.S. If they're going to use keywords to limit access to adult sites, it would unintentionally restrict access to non-adult sites too.  So, the whole idea does not seem feasible to me.  I'd even go so far as to say it's virtually impossible!

Edited April 21, 2019 by 2prnot2p

[Admin 14,771]

2 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

I have a question.  I hope someone can answer it.

After this law in the UK goes into effect, let's say an adult types peefans.com into their browser window...what will happen?  There is no warning page here to enter Pee Fans.  So, how will they, i.e., the government, know that Pee Fans is an adult/porno site?  Can anyone tell me this?  This part seems like it would be very difficult to do.  I mean VERY!!!

My tiny site is set up the same way, with no warning page first.  What will happen if someone types in gsparadise.net?

I'm confused on this.  Can anyone help me?

Thanks so much!

P.S. If they're going to use keywords to limit access to adult sites, it would unintentionally restrict access to non-adult sites too.  So, the whole idea does not seem feasible to me.  I'd even go so far as to say it's virtually impossible!

You're right about the warning page... we don't currently have one, but for UK users we will have to after these changes. It will be a plain page asking them to confirm they're over 18, with no adult content visible until done so.

As for detecting what's a porn site and what's not, you're right a lot will slip through cracks and not get picked up. But I assume they have fairly advanced systems for checking... for example, consider the 'porn blockers' that some parents use... they don't have to manually enter all the sites, there's either a large database of them or an algorithm clever enough to detect what's porn and what isn't (I personally don't have any more specifics than that, but I imagine it's far more sophisticated than just keywords).

Upshot is, yes, your site should technically be affected and need an extra layer of age verification for UK users. But it is possible your site may not get flagged at all.

[steve25805 125,623]

When it comes to things like crackdowns on porn, this is the mentality of the person now running the country...

It explains a lot about the kind of mentality we are up against.

[2prnot2p 1,071]

12 hours ago, steve25805 said:

When it comes to things like crackdowns on porn, this is the mentality of the person now running the country...

It explains a lot about the kind of mentality we are up against.

How old is this photo and story?  Does PM May still believe this nonsense?  Man, talk about out of touch with reality!

[steve25805 125,623]

5 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

How old is this photo and story?  Does PM May still believe this nonsense?  Man, talk about out of touch with reality!

The photo is from the 80s. Clearly she was stupid enough to believe it then. We have to assume that this is how she thinks.

[gldenwetgoose 21,425]

22 hours ago, Admin said:

You're right about the warning page... we don't currently have one, but for UK users we will have to after these changes. It will be a plain page asking them to confirm they're over 18, with no adult content visible until done so.

As for detecting what's a porn site and what's not, you're right a lot will slip through cracks and not get picked up. But I assume they have fairly advanced systems for checking... for example, consider the 'porn blockers' that some parents use... they don't have to manually enter all the sites, there's either a large database of them or an algorithm clever enough to detect what's porn and what isn't (I personally don't have any more specifics than that, but I imagine it's far more sophisticated than just keywords).

Upshot is, yes, your site should technically be affected and need an extra layer of age verification for UK users. But it is possible your site may not get flagged at all.

A page asking for an over-18 verification will be absolutely fine by me - it'll be an extra click, so a bit of a faff but otherwise ok.

The more worrying thought is whether my ISP would introduce the big-brother database of sites in at server level, blocking at that level - I guess that is where the VPN would allow a path back to the light?  As long as they don't block VPNs...

[CON2H4 641]

1 minute ago, owlman76 said:

Now I'm not homophobic, I've several friends and relatives who are either gay or lesbian, but

Dude!

[2prnot2p 1,071]

3 hours ago, owlman76 said:

Put it this way, I have a 12 year old grandson, and I'd much rather have to explain to him why that woman in the film is wearing leather gear, or why that bloke gets turned on by a woman pissing on him than have to explain why those 2 blokes are doing each other up the backside. 

I've never been in that situation where I had to explain such a thing.  But, I would say, "It's in their genes.  You were born with blue eyes, right?  Well, those blokes were born liking men.  That's it."

That's the scientific consensus at this point.

[2prnot2p 1,071]

On 4/20/2019 at 4:56 AM, likesToLick said:

A loud-voiced minority can often drive politicians to make laws against the interests and preference of the majority.  A sad fact of the political process.

You are so right.  That's how Prohibition started here in the USA.  And we all know how much crime and other problems that caused.  Have we really progressed all that much?

[CON2H4 641]

3 minutes ago, 2prnot2p said:

You are so right.  That's how Prohibition started here in the USA.  And we all know how much crime and other problems that caused.  Have we really progressed all that much?

Freedom always needs defending.

[spywareonya 37,961]

2 hours ago, CON2H4 said:

Freedom always needs defending.

Problems start when people mistake lack of freedom for lack of concerns

And they start to look at the new iPhone while laws built during the Dark Age by enlightened people, and defended through bloodshed, and that eventually ended the Dark Age itself indeed because they were futuristic, and have been the roots of every Human Right of the last half of millennium, are stripped away from us

But hey, there is the new iPhone at half the price!!!