[jeroenhd]

> I'd say it should be opt in, but opt out would be a reasonable compromise.

Currently, it's already opt-out on major UK ISPs. Anyone with the brains to download a free VPN app (which includes kids) can bypass those blocks, though. That's probably why the government moved from putting the blame on ISPs to putting the blame on web hosts.

I think an effective age block is only going to make things worse for teenagers. If all of the responsible, normal porn sites follow the rules and enforce an age gate, the niche/shady websites will be all vulnerable teenagers can access.

I'd rather see a distinction between "normal porn" and "extreme porn" when it comes to content filters, but the UK also tried that when regulating UK porn productions. The list of banned acts included "caning, aggressive whipping, and humilation" (which makes sense to be labeled extreme, IMO), but also "facesitting, female ejaculation and urolagnia", which I feel are more like someone writing laws revealing their personal icks in legal texts.

[ta1243]

> Anyone with the brains to download a free VPN app (which includes kids) can bypass those blocks, though.

Well parental controls exist to prevent that from being added. But once you have vpns, you simply connect to another country's end point to bypass this anyway.

> If all of the responsible, normal porn sites follow the rules and enforce an age gate, the niche/shady websites will be all vulnerable teenagers can access.

That's my main worry.

Far better regulation of the generation of porn, which can ensure that the actors are doing it for their own free will, not harmed (any more than many other jobs), etc, would be a far better approach. This of course is easier said than done.

> but also "facesitting, female ejaculation and urolagnia"

It does feel like they are taking the piss.