Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
Only if the UK knows about them, and only for users who don't know how to use a VPN.
Would it really? The UK isn't that big.
Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?
- Thread starter Poem
- Start date
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
How would porn sites hide from the scrutiny of the government watchdogs, whilst still being accessible to the public?
Possibly. VPNs are not foolproof, you know. I live in Saudi Arabia, and it's a constant battle between the VPN providers and the Saudi government's censorship attempts.
Then there's the strong possibility that other countries will also enact their own similar legislation (apart from the US, presumably, coz freedumz), making it even more difficult for porn sites to bypass age restrictions. That time when PornHub was forced to remove a ton of videos shows that they are not beyond the reach of regulation.
Then there's the fact that many of those companies may not want to actively circumvent the requirement for age restrictions. That would, I venture, cause far more damage to them, in the form of adverse publicity and threats of legal action, than they would gain by such a strategy.
A proud second in the world for online porn consumption, after the US, of course.
Growth of internet porn tells us more about ourselves than technology | John Naughton
The actual size of the sex industry online is difficult to estimate, but it is sophisticated and, in some senses, more honest than Google or Facebook
www.theguardian.com
Pornhub has complied with the states in the USA that have imposed age verification requirements by not allowing access from those states.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
They don't have to hide. Filtering companies have been trying to block porn sites for decades, and they never catch them all. Government is not going to do a better job.
Are you advocating that the UK start acting like Saudi Arabia? That would be bad. Very bad.
Sure, that's possible.
That's quite a different thing. This is not about blocking porn sites but finding ways of compelling the companies to follow the UK laws. Government has a lot of options when it comes to finding ways to compel companies to abide by a given law. (Granted for the UK not as many as when we were a member of the EU.)
How effective all this will be at preventing UK children gaining access to pornography is the big question.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The population of the UK is roughly twice the population of California. Seems like it might be a worthwhile market to hang on to.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
It will be for some sites, particularly the large ones. But for a lot of smaller sites, probably not worth the bother.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
Blocking isn't a different question at all. First, how else except blocking are you going to have any enforcement against a site that doesn't operate in the UK and has no assets in the UK? You can't extradite a website. But more fundamentally, blocking is actually easy, provided you know about the site in the first place. But that's the hard conditional part: actually knowing everything that's out there. And that conditional applies here too. The fact that blocking fails shows that you're never going to know about all the websites showing porn. And you can't enforce the law against someone you aren't even aware is breaking it.
That's one big question. Another is how much harm would we be preventing even with 100% success. I've seen no objective or reliable measures of the harm done by porn. Note that I'm not saying it's zero, I very much doubt that, but I certainly don't trust Poem's claims.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Can you explain how 'filtering companies' work? I've not heard of that before.
However, you appear to be unaware of how the internet is policed in the UK. It's not the porn sites themselves that are the focus, because, as you rightly say, many of them are based outside the UK. What the government has done is to look at the ISPs, which are based in the UK, and got them to enforce the relevant legislation. Parental filters for porn are now the default for ISPs:
ISPs to include porn filters as default in the UK by 2014
New and existing customers will have to opt out of filtering program.
arstechnica.com
The UK porn block, explained
The UK government has a plan to stop children and teenagers seeing porn on the internet. Here's what you need to know
No, of course not, you silly billy. I'm saying that your 'one-size-fits-all', 'easy-peasy' solution isn't the panacea you imagine it to be.
I note you have avoided my point about adverse publicity and legal action against porn sites that refuse to implement robust age checks. Plus Darat's point.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
That is an odd assessment, to say the least. Smaller sites need to compete for customers anywhere they can: no small business can afford to give up a share of the second-largest market in the world because they 'can't be bothered'.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
They can when the cost of going for that market exceeds the profits. Which is more likely for small sites, because the cost of compliance doesn’t scale with the number of visitors.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Have you got figures showing these comparative costs?
Poem
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,279
I didn't ask you for a speculatory inference based on a google search. I am asking you for hard evidence / a source for your claim that:
describing evolution as "Neo-Darwinism" is a trait of Christian fundamentalists
Do you have such or not?
I'm behind on a number of posts....and?
Poem
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2021
- Messages
- 3,279
Here's you getting something else wrong:
December 30 - ME:
All you have shown is that I continue to post on this thread and not on other threads; that is hardly relevant or interesting.
Your response on December 31 quoting the above:
No, it goes to the heart of what GF and I were saying, and proves it. You post about this subject, only this subject, and nothing but this subject.
January 2nd - ME:
I've been completely transparent CY (and if you had been following closely you would know that). I am currently only posting on this thread.
Later on January 2nd - YOU:
So, finally, after all this huffing and blowing, you finally admit that you are, in fact, only posting on this thread. You could have just said that in the first place- would have saved a great deal of time and effort.
Just acknowledge that you were wrong on my use of Neo-Darwinism and wrong on the above and we can move on.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
Seriously? That's surprising, especially since you basically gave an example below. For a specific example (but by no means the only one), there's Qustodio. They compile a black list of sites that are deemed inappropriate for children (not only porn), and when you install their software, the software prevents access to the blacklisted site. But that filtering is never perfect.
And how exactly do you think that filtering works? It works by compiling a blacklist of sites to block. They might do this in-house, but they can also go to third party providers like Qustodio to compile that list for them. But the filtering isn't perfect. That's been the case for literally decades now. Internet filtering isn't a new idea.
I'm sure the rules do apply internationally. But they're harder to enforce internationally, especially against small operators.
Of course. But it was never the major companies that were going to slip through the filtering cracks.
Given that I don't think there even is an easy solution or a one-size-fits all solution, let alone both, this is a really peculiar accusation. I have no idea where you're getting this from, because I haven't even suggested a solution at all.
Because it's ridiculous. Major companies are likely to comply, I've been saying consistently that it's the smaller operators that are going to slip through the cracks. And you honestly think those smaller operators care about adverse publicity? No they don't. That's stupid. Give them any publicity, and you're more likely to increase their traffic, not cut it.
And I already responded to Darat. He's as confused about my argument as you are, apparently.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
You want a peer-reviewed academic paper on the respective usage of 'Neo-Darwinism' by biologists and Christians? Don't be silly. That's an insanely high evidence bar, one you know cannot be crossed. How about you do as I suggested? Do an internet search for 'problems with Neo-Darwinism', and see for yourself how that is the go-to term for anti-evolution fundamentalists.
And yet you have time to strain at gnats, like here. Curious.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
@Ziggurat
Let's summarise your position here:
CY: the UK government is imposing age restrictions on porn sites.
Z: That will never work. The sites can't be affected by UK law.
CY: Yes, they can, and already have been.
Z: OK, maybe, but they'll just try to get around this requirement.
CY: No, actually, the major providers have said they will comply.
Z: OK, maybe, but the smaller companies won't comply, because they need bad publicity and it's too expensive for them.
CY: Have you got figures for this claimed cost?
Z: *crickets*
Ziggurat, this is most odd. Your dogged resistance to the idea of protecting children by imposing compulsory age verification is puzzling me. Is this coming from your Mad Max, 'git the gubmint outta my business' stance? Is this an example of Nirvana fallacy? Or is there some other reason why you keep raising unfounded objections to this measure?
Let's summarise your position here:
CY: the UK government is imposing age restrictions on porn sites.
Z: That will never work. The sites can't be affected by UK law.
CY: Yes, they can, and already have been.
Z: OK, maybe, but they'll just try to get around this requirement.
CY: No, actually, the major providers have said they will comply.
Z: OK, maybe, but the smaller companies won't comply, because they need bad publicity and it's too expensive for them.
CY: Have you got figures for this claimed cost?
Z: *crickets*
Ziggurat, this is most odd. Your dogged resistance to the idea of protecting children by imposing compulsory age verification is puzzling me. Is this coming from your Mad Max, 'git the gubmint outta my business' stance? Is this an example of Nirvana fallacy? Or is there some other reason why you keep raising unfounded objections to this measure?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,667
Almost always a prelude to strawmen. And this isn't an exception.
"Work" is too ambiguous. It may reduce access. It cannot prevent access. Nothing you or anyone else has said suggests otherwise. Now, perhaps you are satisfied with a reduction. Perhaps Poem is too, though it doesn't sound like it. But that's the most you can hope for, so just keep that in mind.
Because you want to be puzzled. I never said don't do it. But some realism about what it can accomplish is warranted, and I'm not seeing that from either of you.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Stephen Meyer Explains Neo-Darwinism's False Beliefs-Part 2 - Nelson University
In part 2 of this vlog, Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Discover Institute's Center for Science and Culture, continues discussing the faults in the beliefs
www.nelson.edu
The Problems with Neo-Darwinism
Should Christians believe in “evolution”? It depends on what you mean.
www.thegospelcoalition.org
Exposing the Heart of Neo-Darwinism | Evolution News
At complete rest, for your organs and tissues to work properly, your heart must pump out about five liters of blood per minute.
evolutionnews.org
Theistic Evolution: The Failure of Neo-Darwinism
Dr. Ray Bohlin provides an overview of the first section of a landmark book on theistic evolution, showing why evolution doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
probe.org
Challenges to neo-Darwinian theories of development
BLOG 📖 READ 👓 SHARE📲 COMMENT 🖊
crossexamined.org
The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
Is it true that there are “no weaknesses” in evolutionary theory? All one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to…
www.discovery.org
3 Challenges to the Causal Adequacy of Darwinism | Evolution News
As a consequence of the collapsing tree problem, I suggest abandoning evolutionary classifications and return to a pre-Darwinian Linnaean classification.
evolutionnews.org
Just a selection of the articles mentioning Neo-Darwinism, which you are pretending not to have seen.
So, I've put up. Going to accept the point now?
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
No, just less of the cherry-picking fallacy.
Site:www.pnas.org Neo-Darwinism
Site:www.science.org Neo-Darwinism
Site:www.cell.com Neo-Darwinism