gian

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.

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.

The size of the tools are dictated from the use of the tool, not the surgeon's hand size. You simply have the same tool in different size.

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.

In the US the “standard” low cost line was listed in the white pages by default, you effectively paid extra - per month - for an unlisted number.

As far as I remember in Italy the situation was different.
You can ask to delist the number when you sign the contract and it was free. I am not really sure if in the case you decided later to delist the number you needed to pay a one time fee for that, but keeping delisted was always free.

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.

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.

So how we can call what is behind the "ban this and that" mentality which is without any real study about the consequences and without any suggestion for alternatives ? Pre-intentional stupidity ?

Look, I am fully aware that what VW (and everyone else) did was a crime and I agree that they must pay. On the oher hand I also fully understand that you cannot change the reality only because you write a law to change it, in this case all the Euro-x normatives about emission levels.

Do you think that it is a silly idelogy to ask that also the people that make silly decision that they will not suffer are asked to pay for the consequences ? Fine, think this way.

Do we really lost the concept that one can agree with something but also see what the problems of that thing are ?

Yes, VW could have switched to hydrid or EV but not in the timeframe they are given.
Not to consider that switching the entire production to hybrid and EV without the necessary infrastructure to use them in the real world is useless, you simply build cars that nobody will buy.

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.

Yes, I remember these (they also send a map of the city with all the street and public transportation lines)

But the point is that you can be unlisted from these (and as far as I remember it was free). Not sure about the part where you can call an operator that tell you the number you are looking for.

Anyway, the problem is that Google seems to have shared the phone number even if the user declined to do so (and by the user account, the number was not listed for years). This just seems a move from Google that show a total disperect of the user decision.

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.