this post was submitted on 27 May 2025

136 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

72137 readers

2114 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

136

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 month ago by Pro@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Menschlicher_Fehler@feddit.org 160 points 1 month 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 23 points 1 month 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 month 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 18 points 1 month 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.

[–] CritFail@lemmy.world 92 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

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

Or actually monitor their kids' internet use.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

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

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 8 points 1 month 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 39 points 1 month ago

Nothing disgusts me more than Puritans.

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

I’ll bet they are!

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month 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 month ago (1 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 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[+] gian@lemmy.grys.it -6 points 1 month 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 17 points 1 month 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 month 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 month 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 month ago (1 children)

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

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

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

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

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

Just astoundingly stupid.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 0 points 1 month 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 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 month 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 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 month 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 ?

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

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

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

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

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

Yes! Ignoring their main realistic purpose

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

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

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

Holy shit what? TLDR someone pls