SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-are-watching-you-watching-them dept.
UK age verification legislation will lead to a porn habit database (archive)
The country is eager to protect children from porn. It's a worthy goal, mind you, given that research shows that exposing kids to porn can be damaging. Unfortunately, it's a quixotic goal, given that porn is impossible to block. Nevertheless, the UK is now on the brink of creating a database of the country's porn habits.
It also seems poised to hand the age verification piece of that puzzle over to an outfit that Vice refers to as "the shady company that controls the majority of free porn tube sites." That company is called MindGeek. Vice likens it to the Walmart of porn. Britain's leading obscenity lawyer, Myles Jackman, says it supposedly owns about 90% of tube sites on the internet, and it didn't get that way by making friends in the industry.
[...] And now, MindGeek, the WalMart of porn, is getting ready to become even more filthy rich by having maneuvered itself into the position of becoming gatekeeper for consumers of porn, be they adults or kids who don't know how to use a virtual private network (VPN). It's not a done deal quite yet, but MindGeek has had several conversations with officials. It's also currently pushing its own age verification platform, AgeID. If selected, Britons could be dealing with AgeID as the principal gate between themselves and their porn.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday November 30 2017, @11:16PM (2 children)
Your idea makes sense therefore it will not be adopted.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @04:09AM (1 child)
No, it doesn't really make sense. What classifies as porn is different in different societies/jurisdictions. Where's the line? Topless women are not porn in Europe, women showing their ankles are porn in Saudi Arabia.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday December 01 2017, @02:52PM
Of course the judgement of what needs identifying would be the hardest part, especially with the international differences you describe. Porn isn't about body parts though. It's about intent. And while the Saudis are welcome to put a great big firewall around the bear ankles part of the internet, anybody that's really only concerned "for the children" should be able to agree that it's about intent to titillate, not the presence of female nipples.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?