School bullys, parents, friends, community members, church leaders and many others I imagine. The idea was that it would have your real name and it was verified by your ID.
Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.
Parents have plenty of capacity to exercise control over their children.
For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographic content if the client's user agent sets an HTTP header indicating they don't want to see it? Now you don't have any privacy problems because the header contains no personally identifying information -- you don't even have to be under 18 to opt into it. But then parents can configure the kid's devices to send that header, without even impacting the kid's privacy to view content that isn't designated as pornographic, since the header is an opt-in to censorship rather than the removal of anonymity.
Also notice that an academic discussion of sexual identity isn't inherently pornographic but is something that can require privacy/anonymity.
We are discussing "young people exploring their gender or sexual identity on the internet". This does include pornography, because it's very accessible and not hard to come by if you search for sexual terms. It also includes social media and online games where predators, and again, pornography is present.
Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young).
However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. We also know from recorded interviews with these predetors that they don't seem to actually mind exposing kids to porn.
> Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young).
We're talking about a law. If you distribute pornography to someone who sent the header in that request, it would be a violation of the law. But that law doesn't have any ID requirements or privacy problems, unlike the proposed one.
> However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children.
To begin with, "targeting children" is preposterous. It assumes that they would not only not care but prefer to have children as users than adults, even though children are less likely to have access to money to pay for content/subscriptions and purposely targeting children would get them into trouble even under longstanding existing laws.
On top of that, the header isn't specifying that the user is under 18, it's specifying that the user agent is requesting not to be shown pornography. It's as likely to be set when the user is a 45 year old woman as a 14 year old boy, so using it to distinguish between them wouldn't work anyway.
They would benefit from targeting children because porn is addictive and it is a stronger addiction the younger you start. Building future customers, basic business tactics really.
This is the kind of "business tactic" they used to teach about in DARE rather than business school.
Porn companies don't have any kind of monopoly or brand loyalty and the ones shady enough to do something like that are exactly the ones that won't still be in business by the time today's kids are adults, so anyone doing it wouldn't be the one deriving a benefit from it.
Even normal companies don't care about customers decades from now because the thing they do teach in business school is discount rates. A dollar in 10 years is worth less than half that today. Likewise, managers get bonuses and promotions on the basis of present-day profits rather than something that happens a generation from now when they're likely to be at a different company anyway.
The premise that they're expected to do that on a widespread basis is ridiculous. Instead it will be one fool who writes something along those lines in an email which is then published because media companies love publishing anything which is bad PR for someone they don't like, regardless of whether it was ever widely implemented or implemented at all. It isn't an actual business strategy for real businesses.
Decades? Generation? Make a good argument if you are going to make one. We are talking a few years here, say 12, 14, 16 to 18, and they get a steady customer.
The premise of "steady customer" is that they stick with you. Which, to begin with, is implausible because there are so many competing services, and even if it actually happened and that person subscribed to your service until they're 80 years old, those years are decades away.
Companies think both at a micro and macro scale. They chase individuals but they are also very interested in seeing the entire landscape be more interested in whatever they are selling. If porn peddlers were only targeting "that creepy uncle", and not thinking beyond that, the porn industry would not have been as big as it is today. The financial insentive is very real, and so is the desire to keep porn accessible to kids.
The dichotomy you're implying is "that creepy uncle" on one hand and a large proportion of the population on the other, but it's the latter in both cases. The people between the ages of 14 and 80 are nearly the same number of people as the ones between 18 and 80, and the people between 14 and 17 don't have money to pay you during those years anyway.
Targeting them has a lower return than targeting people who are of age.
This is just being intentionally obtuse. Just looking at simple probabilistic thinking, a porn company is more likely to get more customers if they target teenagers, make porn more normalized, obviously make porn legal, etc. If they have these incentives, then these companies would do them. They are not exactly headed by moralists or ethically inclined people..
Specific to targeting teenagers, porn users are mostly under 30, so your statement about 14-18 being around the same as 18-80 is irrelevant. About not being able to pay at 14-17, sure, let's go with that, but they start paying after that. We are talking a few years here. Companies do have incentives to create customers just a few years down the line.
Let me ask a few rhetorical questions. How do you think social media became popular? How did tiktok, snapchat, facebook, instagram become popular? Even yikyak became popular because they targeted teens. Why has so much advertising been targeted to teenagers for decades now? Hell, how did onlyfans become popular? All these companies have massive incentives to target teenagers.
So your stance of these porn companies not targeting teenagers is just being willfully obtuse.
Your argument is bullshit. There is no content filter on this planet that will prevent children from seeing blocked content. The children that know how to circumvent the protections will circumvent them. The providers of blocked content will figure out a way around them too.
Content filters only affect law abiding users and providers. The hallmark of an effective policy is to make it as easy as possible to comply with it. Setting a header is pretty damn easy to implement and enforce by the government. It also displays trust in law abiding citizen, who will comply with the law, because they know that it serves their best interests, rather than being shoved down their throats against their will.
The alternative will have exactly the same or - far more likely - worse results, because the cost of verifying every user's age is far too high to be implemented by the vast majority of sites on the internet. It's more likely that when law abiding citizens are faced with laws that are impossible to implement that they just throw up their hands up and close up shop or move somewhere else.
In the second scenario their services might still be accessible in the UK and need to be blocked by the UK government, the online safety act achieves essentially nothing in this scenario.
I have noticed recently a tendency to refer to teenagers too as 'children', or worse : 'kids'.
This is a dangerous semantic drift that ignores how teenagers are in the process of developing into adults, and so need the parent supervision of them to be slowly relaxed. (Especially since, if handled poorly, they tend to rebel, and cause much more damage.)
And, as a reminder, not all erotic or erotic-adjacent (or other "adult topics") works are porn,
and depending on the jurisdiction the age of consent is often less than 18
(16 in UK, though I am sure there are important details hidden behind this single number),
though I do understand that there might be new, unique challenges here in the Internet era, with laws that might not have caught up yet.
Minors are still humans who deserve rights. They should not be considered property of parents, regardless of fear mongering about grooming. Teenagers should have the right to access information without their parents knowing, as their parents can be just as, if not more dangerous to their health and well being as a hypothetical groomer. Many teens face real abuse from their parents over their sexuality. They should not be forced to live in the shadows or face abuse due to a "protect the kids" narrative.
Minors can have unfettered access to the web once grown up and yes the parents should be able to decide when that is to some point (that point being the 18th birthday). There is really no reason kids need to be able to "explore their sexuality" any earlier than that.
Sexuality is part of the human condition that doesn't start on one's 18th birthday just because over-protective parents want complete control of their child.
It's weird that parents believe they need to control every facet of their child's life, down to being able to learn about why they feel the way they do. It's a form of abuse and coercion.
I'm not sure how online privacy laws (or a lack of them) would spare a child who objected to marrying someone their parents wanted to force her to. Murdering your children is/was already illegal and the parents did that anyway. We can't worry about what the small number of psychopathic parents might do if kids don't have online privacy. We should instead try harder to make sure that kids are protected against their abusive parents regardless of the situation. There should have been places Shafilea could have gone to or reached out to for meaningful help and protection long before it got to the point of a murder.
That said, I personally think good parenting means giving children privacy, even online, and doing so increasingly at ages set according to the maturity/capability of the child. That's the sort of thing a parent is in a better position to assess than the government. I also think that this particular law is garbage. I just don't think "We must protect children from their parents by allowing them to access the internet in secret and anonymity" is a very compelling argument.
I do, of course. It's just worth considering that not every parent is how you or I might like or imagine them to be.
For some children their parents finding out they're gay would cause a great deal of real world physical or phycological harm. It's a really tricky thing to navigate, but aside from saying 'no children should be allowed access to the internet unsupervised' it gets really difficult.
No, seriously, look up stats on who gets charged with hurting children and you'll see that it's mostly parents. Sure, once in a while there's a pedophile handing out candy from a van, but almost all of the time it's a parent or some other person trusted by the parents to watch the kid.
this is coming across as intentionally obtuse questioning. Many people, including governments think that adopting specific sexual preferences and identities is wrong and worthy of criminal charges and harassment at a minimum.
And who would they need to hide from?