[kneel25]

I don't know why people immediately have this thought, outlawing VPNs achieves virtually nothing in the UK. An adult bypassing an age check is irrelevant; underage users are at least mature enough to know what a VPN is - not the main target of the act. And there's virtually no real anonymity; hiding from your ISP doesn't make you untraceable. So why would they even consider it?

[latexr]

It’s naive to believe the goal of these laws is truly to protect children and that it has anything to do with age. That’s just the justification which gets them in the door.

[kneel25]

What is the goal then? Why do they care that you're bypassing it? I wouldn't deny using children in messaging isn't a deliberate focus to strengthen the case, but I don't think they're lying that it's about reducing access to harmful material, and I don't disagree with that goal or the way they've implemented it. It would be a weak case not to use statistics they find in the younger internet users because that's where it's causing the most unacceptable harm.

[latexr]

> What is the goal then? Why do they care that you're bypassing it?

Mass surveillance, population control, and the destruction of services they disapprove of. Pornhub’s traffic went down by 80% when they implemented the mandatory age verification checks in some state. So they simply blocked them because it wasn’t worth it. Later, someone (I don’t have the ability to track down the source right now) was caught admitting one of the goals of the law is to drive those sites out of business.

I recommend reading about authoritarian regimes in Europe (it was not just Germany) and how they controlled discourse, and what people had accessed to. Some of their decisions have repercussions which are felt to this day. In Spain, foreign media is dubbed while in Portugal it is subbed. Both are due to their respective dictators.

[kneel25]

There is no surveillance because it's third-parties responsible for the verification and no knowledge of the content or identity is passed between them beyond yes/no. Population control, sure, but that's not inherently wrong or unreasonable for reducing harmful internet usage. Pornhub's traffic are temporarily lazy users looking for a quick fix. Them being able to serve up step-sister roleplay slop in two clicks isn't something I care about protecting. I doubt they said that comment about Pornhub specifically, maybe, but I can believe driving certain sites out of business being part of the intention, barely moderated suicide discussion forums filled with teenagers for one.

I will read about that, but I quite quickly realised talking about this in person it's one of the few things I feel this strongly about, and even I'm not sure why I agree so entirely. I think I look at it a bit like climate activists interacting with deniers. Say what you want about future risks and criticisms, but there is no time, the situation is extremely fucked right now, particularly with children, and something needed doing asap.

[salawat]

For the children of course. Haven't you been around for this before?