Porn sites Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat face stricter requirements to verify the ages of their users after being officially designated as “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs) under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

I personally have mixed feelings, as the information collection could be used to link individuals and profile them. Possibly leading to discrimination if abused.

But I also feel that any random kid shouldn’t be able to just go to these sites and see porn freely.
Ofc, there’s always going to be those who mange to circumvent any protection put in place but it’d be much harder then just clicking a link or typing in the address.

I also feel that parents should actively monitor their kids online activities and step up a Blocklist to pro-actively prevent kids from reaching these sites to begin with.

What are your thoughts on this?

  • ShortN0te@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Electronic ids can provide the age verification without giving out any personal information. This is a solved problem at least for a lot of ids in the EU.

    But no i still find it a stupid idea. It is the parents job to parent them.

    • harry_balzac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly - it’s the parents’ responsibility.

      Imagine any government telling car manufacturers that they have to verify that everyone who starts their vehicles has a valid drivers license.

      • ares35@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        give it time. the government (us) wants to put interlock gadgets into every new car to prevent drunks from driving. driving under the influence is illegal and those that do are more likely to kill someone. so is driving without a license, and so are those drivers.

          • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s still illegal - however it’s a defence to prosecution to say that there was a form of emergency or other mitigating factors.

            As always, the wording and mitigations are specific to the jurisdictions.

    • DigitalDilemma@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suspect you haven’t worked with governments before.

      Just because something is technically possible, it’s no guarantee that it will be the chosen mechanism for something. More likely the contract will be awarded to either the lowest possible bidder, or to a friend of a friend. Cronyism is depressingly common at all levels.

      • ShortN0te@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I suspect you haven’t worked with governments before.

        Just because something is technically possible, it’s no guarantee that it will be the chosen mechanism for something. More likely the contract will be awarded to either the lowest possible bidder, or to a friend of a friend. Cronyism is depressingly common at all levels.

        Not sure why you are under that impression. I never discussed the potential chosen mechanism.

        I stated that it is possible and that it is already implemented into the id card of many eu citizens.

    • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      isn’t the id unique? which means that sites can trace every visit you make and what videos you watch every time?

    • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s still worrying: wouldn’t some central authority know that “site X requested age verification for this person”?