Pornhub Owner May Become the UK's Gatekeeper of Online Porn (yahoo.com) 95
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 Section 15(1) of the bill requires that "pornographic material" not be published online, on a "commercial basis," unless it is "not normally accessible by those under 18."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.
This will go well (Score:5, Funny)
I mean they already banned piracy and that doesn't happen anymore right?
Re: This will go well (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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(1) In 2004 the UK Cleanfeed System [wikipedia.org] 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 [theguardian.com] requires all UK web activity to be retained by ISPs. Non-filesharing UK citiz
"Children being corrupted" is already insanity. (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 convenient
Re: (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.
would you like jack boots with you tea, old chap? (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The brits are really fucking up (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?
Why do the sites care? (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 sali
Clueless, or what? (Score:2)
There are these things called VPNs. I've heard they're really good.
If you wanted to get rid of porn (Score:1)
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
Re: If you wanted to get rid of porn (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Bankrupt the producers.
Pardon me while I do my part to put these bastards out of business.
''children were being corrupted'' (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" -Bill Maher
God and reason (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
come to faith in atheism
I fear you misunderstand atheism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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- /eÉ/
prefix â
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 Cathol
Re: (Score:2)
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 effectiv
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, but definitely not a duck. Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
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 object
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
1984, privatized (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
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 le
So, to recap... (Score:1)
Lust is bad. Greed, sloth, gluttony, pride, envy, and wrath are still all strongly encouraged.
Re: (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.
Citation Needed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Next up, national firewall. (Score:2)
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
What do the MoD & Mi6 make of all this? (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.
No sex please! (Score:1)