zlacker

The most shameful thing is that the only websites actually harmful to children, aka social media, aren't banned or behind an ID check.

>>iLoveO+(OP)
I agree to an extent, but extreme porn is a huge problem for kids, in the UK at least.

>>iLoveO+(OP)
This is not correct: the law primarily regulates what it calls "user-to-user" services, i.e. social media.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50

"All providers of regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed by children must comply with the following duties in relation to each such service which they provide—

(a)the duties about children’s risk assessments set out in section 11, and

(b)the duties to protect children’s online safety set out in section 12(2) to (13)."

>>dabeee+81
Is it? I think the non pornographic misogynist content is actually a more serious issue. I've heard plenty of teachers complaining about Andrew Tate.

(so-called ""extreme porn"" was banned entirely by UK law a year or two ago)

>>dabeee+81
What is the problem with it? When I was a kid I did look at porn, turned out fine. How is it a huge problem for kids in the UK exactly? Or what do you mean by "extreme" here? I did not look at "extreme porn" if I think I know what you mean.

>>pjc50+a5
They are literally all accessible without any ID check.

>>dabeee+81
And Meta et el will happily serve it to you also.

>>dabeee+81
A huge number of lemmings screaming "Think of the Children!" does not actually mean there's a huge problem.