Most active commenters
  • waltbosz(4)

←back to thread

411 points donpott | 16 comments | | HN request time: 0.476s | source | bottom
Show context
nickdothutton ◴[] No.44983582[source]
Step 1, pass law.

Step 2, demand compliance.

Step 3, upon not hearing of compliance, levy fines.

Step 4, upon non payment of fines, declare in breach of (2).

Step 5, block site from UK using DNS, in the same manner as torrent sites etc.

5 was always the goal, 2 to 4 are largely just performative.

replies(13): >>44983768 #>>44983781 #>>44983897 #>>44984120 #>>44984248 #>>44985133 #>>44985729 #>>44985841 #>>44985859 #>>44986058 #>>44986633 #>>44988012 #>>44991247 #
sunshine-o ◴[] No.44984120[source]
This is the only power they have left.

The UK government has lost control of what happen in the physical world on their own island so now the bureaucrats play a fantasy game where they are gonna enforce their rules and dominion in their former colonies or the digital world.

replies(11): >>44985325 #>>44985367 #>>44985739 #>>44985860 #>>44986390 #>>44986462 #>>44986519 #>>44986980 #>>44988412 #>>44988528 #>>44991312 #
lokar ◴[] No.44985325[source]
While I disapprove of what the gov is doing here, I think it’s incorrect and unhelpful to put all the blame on them. AIUI, the UK is a democracy and these policies are generally supported by the voters.
replies(13): >>44985373 #>>44985589 #>>44985683 #>>44985789 #>>44985930 #>>44986196 #>>44986278 #>>44986352 #>>44986527 #>>44988134 #>>44988720 #>>44989241 #>>44989384 #
1. sunshine-o ◴[] No.44986352[source]
I understand the people might wanna block porn on their kids mobile internet and home WiFi.

So why don't they mandate their ISP to implement this as an optional feature ?

Why do they instead try to boil the ocean by going after every website on the planet and outside of their jurisdiction?

replies(3): >>44986376 #>>44987370 #>>44987879 #
2. nemomarx ◴[] No.44986376[source]
Their isps already offer this, actually. You have to show id to them to get it turned pff.
replies(1): >>44987093 #
3. hdgvhicv ◴[] No.44987093[source]
I don’t have to show ID, but I do have to pay the bill, which means a direct debit, which means over 18.

The correct solution (in addition to bill layer control and arguably compulsory support for an “over 18” tag in dns which would be easy enough to implement for the same sites that currently demand over 18s, would be to help parents utilise parental controls (having recently been through it with Minecraft and fortnight it was a nightmarish gordian knot.

The hand wringing about how evil vpns are is the same. My son can’t install mullvad or whatever on his phone without my approval thanks to apple’s parental controls. I assume android has the same.

The goal has never been to empower parents though

replies(2): >>44987944 #>>44988712 #
4. waltbosz ◴[] No.44987370[source]
My solution was to set my router to use the DNS server at 1.1.1.3 which blocks adult sites.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-1-1-1-1-for-families...

replies(2): >>44987582 #>>44993146 #
5. ImJamal ◴[] No.44987582[source]
I assume this doesn't block porn on reddit or non-porn websites?
replies(1): >>44987873 #
6. waltbosz ◴[] No.44987873{3}[source]
No, it just blocks DNS requests from a list of porn hostnames.
replies(2): >>44988166 #>>44991203 #
7. spooky_deep ◴[] No.44987879[source]
The ISPs already do this. Most mobile networks are even opt-out, not in, to this feature. The new law is unnecessary overreach. They either don’t know what they are doing technically (alarming) or are just authoritarian (very alarming)
replies(1): >>44990258 #
8. J_McQuade ◴[] No.44987944{3}[source]
I think the correct solution would be to make parents responsible for actually using those controls, as they always have been for controlling a child's access to such materials in other media.

For example, if you have a stack of explicit DVDs and it becomes apparent that your child has access to them, then you will likely get a visit from social services and potentially suffer legal consequences up to and including removal of custody. I honestly have no idea why stuff on the internet is treated differently. Internet providers are already required to check that you are over 18 (much as the person selling you those DVDs is) - if you then share the content that this makes available with a child, then you should be held responsible in the same way. It was sufficient with print, VHS, Sky TV, etc. - why not the internet?

replies(1): >>45008111 #
9. ranger_danger ◴[] No.44988166{4}[source]
Many browsers/apps now will ignore the system/DHCP-provided DNS server and use their own though (often via TLS so you can't block it easily)... so while this might work for some situations, I can't in good conscious call it a great solution.
replies(1): >>44993377 #
10. RandomBacon ◴[] No.44988712{3}[source]
> direct debit, which means over 18

Incorrect. Source: I had a checking account before I was 18.

11. prmoustache ◴[] No.44990258[source]
I don't think ISP DNS solution is very effective when all major web browsers implement DoH by default.
12. ImJamal ◴[] No.44991203{4}[source]
I understand that. I just wasn't sure if Reddit and co used specific subdomains for porn images/videos.
13. rapidaneurism ◴[] No.44993146[source]
Can they not set their device DNS to 1.1.1.1
replies(1): >>44993385 #
14. waltbosz ◴[] No.44993377{5}[source]
Wow I did not know that.

I agree. It's not a very robust solution, but it's better than nothing at all .

And it's annoying sometimes. One thing I found is that it somehow forces Google safe-search, which appears to block some non-pornographic search results.

15. waltbosz ◴[] No.44993385{3}[source]
They're not that technically inclined ... Yet.
16. d4v3 ◴[] No.45008111{4}[source]
Because then parents couldn't just shove a screen in front of their child's face and then proceed to ignore them anymore. Half-kidding, but there are real liability concerns. How much supervision is reasonable? My parents definitely didn't police my every moment on the internet. Actually, quite the opposite