Adult content - Age Verification system - April 2018

Amp34 said:
One day they’ll realise how the internet actually works.

All I can see this doing is pushing UK people away from larger legitimate sites to other sites with perhaps more shady content.

That’s if people don’t just bypass it all by using a VPN or proxy freely available through google. Which is what all the under 18s will do anyway.

Alternatively we could just have a more open society and discuss sex and nudity like, well, much of the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

I think they've got a fairly good grasp (hehe) of how it works...

“It’s about how we make the internet the safest place to be online,” explained the Culture Secretary.


On second thoughts, sheesh! :rolleyes:
 
dowie said:
oh jeeze, I'd forgotten about that poster and his obsession with "mind control" stuff that gets brought into every thread, I've got him on ignore so I'm not sure how I'm able to see those quoted posts @Vonhelmet (have you done something weird when quoting him?) - (don't worry he's got me on ignore too so this won't derail - but I'm asking because there might be a technical issue here with the forum software otherwise).
Click to expand...

It’ll derail now that I’m quoting you talking about him :p

It’s always been the case that you can see people’s quoted posts, even if you’ve got them blocked, as the quote isn’t actually tied to their user account or the original post per se, it just uses the markup to say who wrote the post, and provide a link to it. Hence you can quote random people:

Bill Clinton said:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Click to expand...

Or you can make up things people said:

asim18 said:
If the government tries to cut off my access to porn, I’ll get a mac10 in 3 minutes!
Click to expand...

It’s also why if you edit a post that someone has quoted, their quote of your post doesn’t change.
 
Mynight said:
I could be wrong but I don't think quotes are affected when they get split up. Do you see only 4 quotes by any chance?
Click to expand...

I think they should be... thought I've just spotted the answer to my own question there is no up arrow on the quotes so he's done something manually there that has screwed things up for the ignore functionality

Vonhelmet said:
It’s always been the case that you can see people’s quoted posts, as the quote isn’t actually tied to their user account or the original post per se, it just uses the markup to say who wrote the post, and provide a link to it. Hence you can quote random people:



Or you can make up things people said:
Click to expand...

no, if you use the quote function directly I shouldn't be able to see it... though now you may have tipped him off which is what I didn't want to happen, doh! :(
 
dowie said:
I think they should be... thought I've just spotted the answer to my own question there is no up arrow on the quotes so he's done something manually there that has screwed things up for the ignore functionality

no, if you use the quote function directly I shouldn't be able to see it... though now you may have tipped him off which is what I didn't want to happen, doh! :(
Click to expand...
Ah, ok, I get it. Yes, the first bit has the markup which presumably does tie it to his account so it’s blocked for you. That wasn’t the case on the old forum, I don’t think, but it must be a feature on the new one. There must be enough markup in the quote that it blocks the first bit for you, but because I’ve manually broken it up and then just typed in his name at each subpart it doesn’t include all the extra bits.
 
Thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail, you do make valid points.


Vonhelmet said:
I’m not forgetting anything, but you’re drawing spurious comparisons. If you’re going to talk about cinemas paying tax, then the comparison when dealing with internet porn is the ISP and telephone networks who are delivering the content. They all pay tax. Additionally, internet services, like paying for porn online, are subject to vat. The government don’t get to tax Hollywood film stars, so why are you coming out saying they want to suddenly tax porn stars, given that your opening gambit was that they don’t pay tax... even though they probably do wherever they are liable to tax.
Click to expand...

Taxing the delivery medium(logistics) shouldn't be confused with taxing the product. When you talk about internet service providers being taxed for giving us an internet connection, it's akin to talking about Royal Mail being taxed for delivering our porn DVDs.


Vonhelmet said:
Ditto “adult” dvds and as said internet website payments, memberships or whatever.
Click to expand...

Hollywood doesn't have a legal free alternative. The free alternative to hollywood is ALREADY illegal. It's called pirate websites. And government has been recently stamping down on it.

Now porn Does have countless free alternatives, most porn viewers in the world don't actually subscribe to any paid website and have never paid a penny for porn. That is what the problem is.


Vonhelmet said:
Ok, so you go a bit mental at the end, but we’ll ignore that. Anyway. I don’t know about you, but I’m given to believe a lot of people watch porn online without paying for it. If people aren’t paying then there’s not really anything to be taxed.
Click to expand...

Earlier you said "Ditto “adult” dvds and as said internet website payments, memberships or whatever."
So now you're saying those "memberships and whatever" aren't really significant...

And you are right, most people DO watch porn online without paying for it. That's the problem here lol, it's a whole gap in the market lol. Of course "there's nothing to be taxed" yet. That's like saying facebook wont get taxed a year before they started getting taxed.

You're not looking at this issue with foresight, you're just looking at the present. Centralising porn access to select porn outlets is simply one step towards more future control, monetisation, and capitalisation.

The fact that you'll need to add your card payment details even for free access means money WILL be made. 2 months down the line it will be £5 pm for slightly "premium" content. In fact some of these select "gatekeeper" websites already have premium content.


Vonhelmet said:
I’m going to ignore this mental nonsense at the end, otherwise you’ll start arguing these points when I’d rather get to the bottom of why you think the government wants to do this out of a desire to tax things rather than the far more obvious and rational explanation that the government are authoritarian and puritanical and don’t understand the internet.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm also going to ignore you throwing the word "mental" around. I appreciate that you've mostly stuck to the subject instead of getting too personal about your perception of my mental state. But I can assure you, I am more mentally sound than most people out there. I could also call you mental for thinking drugs are illegal for any other reason. :)
 
It’s not the governments problem if no one is paying for porn, why should they care about that? It’s their problem if people are paying it but that revenue stream is somehow going untaxed.

As said, the far more obvious explanation is that the government is puritanical and authoritarian so want to restrict access to porn full stop. It’s excellent “think of the children” guff to keep the daily wail readers busy.
 
Vonhelmet said:
It’s not the governments problem if no one is paying for porn, why should they care about that? It’s their problem if people are paying it but that revenue stream is somehow going untaxed.

As said, the far more obvious explanation is that the government is puritanical and authoritarian so want to restrict access to porn full stop. It’s excellent “think of the children” guff to keep the daily wail readers busy.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right.
 
This is so that later they can say "People are using VPNs to look at illegal porn, something must be done". It will be illegal porn of course because the very act of looking at it without age registration will make it so. It also is a stick with which to hit large porn sites to get them to comply. If they can do that then they'll start trying to blacklist the ones that don't. That too will make it illegal porn.

The net effect will be twofold. Firstly, the criminalisation and registration of personal VPNs. Secondly, consumers of mild porn who don't want to share everything they do with Theresa May will end up shoulder to shoulder with consumers of very nasty porn. Because only illegal sites will be available to them and these sites will be full of extreme porn. Much the same as the war on drugs sends buyers of mild drugs to people who also sell hard drugs.
 
Vonhelmet said:
“Highly damaging”? Just how much value do you think there is tied up in the uk porn industry? I think you’re seriously overestimating that end of things.
Click to expand...

As a step to restricting VPNs and granting the government the ability see everything, I imagine it will be damaging to the UK economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom