this post was submitted on 27 May 2025

147 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

71083 readers

3032 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

147

The European Commission says it is investigating Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX, and XVideos for potential child safety Digital Services Act (DSA) violations “as a matter of priority” (ec.europa.eu)

submitted 1 week ago by Pro@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Menschlicher_Fehler@feddit.org 164 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The Internet is not a place for children, stop trying to make it one and make parents responsible again for the things their kids consume.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 week ago

Exactly. Let them access specific sites you trust as they need to, and monitor their use. As they earn your trust, teach them how to avoid the worst of it and let them go on their own more and more.

That's how anything works with kids. Monitor them as they do something new, then let out the leash as they earn your trust, until they no longer need the leash.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Well yes, but....

Loads and loads of parents simply aren't fit to fit the description. There are loads of idiots out there that just don't care that their five year old watches porn. Then there is the class of idiots that think their little angel would never do such horrendous things, they're with God, didn't you know?

As an aside, I'm really curious as to what the deleterious effects are on kids, say, 12+ that watch porn. I was a kid like that over 3 decades ago and though porn wasn't as readily available as it was today, I remember watching the encrypted porn channel for the eventual boob flash, or the mosaic channel that would show 20x20 px porn. Actual porn from BBS-es (pre internet dial in systems) came into my life at about... 15-ish, I'd say, and it didn't affect me negatively whatsoever.

I'd definitely would like to see the difference between the effects on kids watching porn vs kids watching ultra violent movies or even real violence online. I'd wager the latter being more harmful than porn (be it porn combined with well designed sex education in schools, so good with that US kids!)

[–] HotCoffee@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago

True but if we take bad parenting as a design point then we might as well ban 80% of all things in the world. Forks, knives, power outlets, glue, sharp furniture corners.... Baths, what if your kid drowns cus of bad parenting.

[–] Rin@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

There are loads of idiots out there that just don't care that their five year old watches porn

Yeah but we're not making knifes plastic because some little Darwin Award winner might trip and fall playing with it when their parents are not doing their duties.

Louis Rossman talked against the idea that people are dying because they can easily cancel their security subscriptions. Here's a little transcript. It's a little off topic but I find that it works in this case because you can subsitute this for covid lockdowns or even the topic of children getting a hold of gross content like porn or violent content.

now one of the things that bothered me back in 2020 and one of the things I talked about with Andrew Kuomo is when he said something that I found to be demagoguic in nature when he said "If it saves even one life right?" And the reason that that bothered me is not because I don't care about saving human life it's not because I am not willing to go out of my way and do everything humanly possible to help all those around me it's because that standard ignores all negative externalities

In the vain, I might sound like an asshole but i'm not willing to protect 1 child in a way that will make the internet worse for millions of people.

Spoiler'd: consider this your cw/tw. I don't want to trigger people and if you're squirmish might be best to avoid.

kids watching porn vs kids watching ultra violent movies or even real violence online

i've had access to porn since i was 8. My friend used to send me isis beheading videos over skype. Used to lurk on /b/ for rekt (basically "watch people die") & porn threads. used to play violent vidia (gta/postal/cod/shooters generally etc) at the time too.

I've seen all of the above and I turned out fine, i guess.

I'd say i've experienced more trauma with my love life and relationships with the backstabbing/games/gas lighting/taking advantage and calling it love. I think that fucked me up more than any content on the internet ever did. Heck, i don't even rememeber my worst relationship because my just brain blocks it out.

or maybe there's just something wrong with me that even I don't know about as a result of what I saw as a kid. i mean, I honestly don't know.

i wonder if this makes me an interesting resesrch specimen tho lmao

please keep in mind that this is just my experience and doesn't make for a good argument for or against legislation of the internet.

[–] CritFail@lemmy.world 98 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Or, you know, parents could actually use parental controls.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 week ago

Or actually monitor their kids' internet use.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

But that would mean parents would have to learn something new. Nah.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 8 points 1 week ago

If only parental controls would work decently...

But I agree, this should be a matter of education and the parents should be present and educate their children.

[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 week ago

Nothing disgusts me more than Puritans.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The fascist censorship regime is just ramping up their efforts in Europe. The Nazis took over again.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In most of EU there are laws that forbid minors to access some products (like, you cannot sell alcool to minors). Don't see as fascist to make those laws respected.

I mean, if a minor buys a liquor from a store and it is caught, the store pays a fine (or it is temporary closed or whatever the law says), why should be a company that sell pornography (or enable to watch it) not be responsible the same way ? Just because it is on internet and it is a US company ?

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, I am familiar with the ‘think of the children!’ Trojan horse tactic.

[+] gian@lemmy.grys.it -6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So in your opinion even the ban to sell alcool to minors is in the "think of the children" category ?

Anyway, the ban to sell pornography to minors date way before internet so what's the point ? EU is not making a new law, it merely try to look if these companies respect them.

Then I could agree that back at the time, when you need to go to the newsstand to buy "the product" the check was easy and now it is everything but easy. Back at the time you just need to show your ID and that's all, the newsagent would never remember you and have nothing about you to be stoles.
Now the only problem I see is that the data you could send to verify you are an adult will be stolen (and sold) and that is a problem.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, I'd liken it to an adult giving a child alcohol. I don't know of any children who pay for their own Internet access.

If your liquor cabinet at home isn't locked, and your kid steals some, it isn't any different than not having a locked down Internet connection.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, I’d liken it to an adult giving a child alcohol. I don’t know of any children who pay for their own Internet access

Which is still forbidden, except if you are the parent and you are in your own home or anyway not in a public space. And if the kid is educated well, he would refuse alchool from an adult that is not his parent or relatives. If not maybe you should educated your kid better than that.

But I don't know children that can pay for their own alchool either.

If your liquor cabinet at home isn’t locked, and your kid steals some, it isn’t any different than not having a locked down Internet connection.

Well, I don't need to lock my liquor cabinet because I educated my kids.
And now that they are old enough they know that they can simply ask instead of stealing.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Well, I don't need to lock my liquor cabinet because I educated my kids.
And now that they are old enough they know that they can simply ask instead of stealing.

Congratulations, you have found the solution to kids accessing inappropriate content on the internet.

if the kid is educated well, he would refuse watching porn on a website. If not maybe you should educated your kid better than that.

use education instead of invasive age verification systems.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Literally no one but you is arguing about minors accessing porn.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I am not the one saying

The fascist censorship regime is just ramping up their efforts in Europe. The Nazis took over again.

I am the one saying that in the real world there is a law that ban minor from accessing porn that should be held valid also on internet.
The one implying that enforcing a law is fascist is you, not me.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because it’s a Trojan horse. They’re using porn as justification for increased monitoring for everyone who uses the web, and controlling what they’re allowed to see.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Fine, assuming you are right, what's the alternative ?
Skip the part about parental controls and parents that educate their kids, let's talk about something you would do to apply the law that does not cause some form of control.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

‘Skip the effective & responsible methods. What’s left?!’

Just astoundingly stupid.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do you realize that the "effective and responsible methods" are not bullet proof, right ?

I am not arguing that parental control should not be used or that parents should not educated their kid, I am arguing that since these method are based on something that can be easily bypassed (parental control) or you cannot assume as a standard (kid education) the only other alternative is for the site to really check who is accessing.

The 3 things must work together, none of them is a magical solution in itself.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So since we can’t count on all parents to properly parent their child, we’ll just infantilize the entire population and treat every single person as a child by default.

Yeah. Again, I’m familiar with this ‘think of the children!’ line of support for fascism.

And just as a totally coincidental side effect, the censoring tech will allow the government greater tracking of everyone.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So since we can’t count on all parents to properly parent their child, we’ll just infantilize the entire population and treat every single person as a child by default.

Any other solution to suggest aside the two obvious ones to use when the two obvious ones fail ?
Because face it: there are parents that don't properly parent their child and I suppose that we agree that also these child should be protected in some way.

Yeah. Again, I’m familiar with this ‘think of the children!’ line of support for fascism.

And again, I don't think that making sure that a law that already exist in the physical world is held valid also on internet is fascim.
We are not living under a fascism regime even if we are subjected to laws that ban something, be it minor accessing porn material, minors accessing alchool or adults driving while drunk or too fast.

And just as a totally coincidental side effect, the censoring tech will allow the government greater tracking of everyone.

Now, that is something we can talk about trying to solve a problem, how to check these kind of things without tracking or unecessary privacy invasion.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying.

As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. You then charge the guilty parents after the offense.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 0 points 1 week ago

You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying.

I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself.
I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help.

So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that.

As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it.

No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference.

But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law.

True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult.

I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day).

You then charge the guilty parents after the offense.

Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ?
Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Fine, assuming you are right, what's the alternative ?

that's easy, you even said it out loud:

And if the kid is educated well, he would refuse alchool from an adult that is not his parent or relatives. If not maybe you should educated your kid better than that.

now just replace alcohol with porn, and its done. just like they would drink your alcohol, they are using your internet access, its your job and responsibility to limit their access to both of these.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Meaning, the parents shouldn't let the child buy stuff on pornhub?

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Meaning, the seller should not allow the minor to buy stuff on pornhub.

The law did not say that the minor could not try to buy pornography from the newsstand (or whatever else is forbidden to him) but that the seller could not sell to him.
Same here, a minor could try to buy, the seller must not sell to him. That is valid also for accessing the site.

So I fully agree that the EU comission check if this laws is respected also on internet.

For me the only thing to discuss about this is the "how it is done" which can be an interesting discusssion in itself.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

But it's not about selling online but about access. Which is parental responsibility.

Why do we restrict porn at 16 anyway? Make it 13 or 12 to make more sense.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 1 week ago

But it’s not about selling online but about access. Which is parental responsibility.

Fully agree.
But I was not against the fact that also the site check if who is trying to access can legally access (and I don't think the simple "Are you of legal age" question is enough)

Why do we restrict porn at 16 anyway? Make it 13 or 12 to make more sense.

It is 18 here, but it can be a nice discussion.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 12 points 1 week ago

I’ll bet they are!

[–] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 week ago

Good thing there are no actual problems to solve...

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So not just I have to use Tor in Russia for those, but I'll also have to use non-EU exit nodes. Thank you morons.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can't believe the EU would be so inconsiderate to Russians like that.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yes! Ignoring their main realistic purpose

[–] coolmojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

And not the American states were mandatory age verification is the law.

[–] atlien51@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

Holy shit what? TLDR someone pls