The OSA isn't going nearly far enough and your post just reveals where society is generally at in this modern world. You chose freedom above pretty much all else.
There are a bunch of people who would laugh uproariously at that suggestion.
It's more reckless to go around making porn out to be something secret, and hidden, and therefore interesting, and desirable.
CCO (Children's Commissioner for England's Office) report Feb 2023:
Yeah I don't believe that for a moment. That report was written by old white men who don't understand the internet, and don't understand children.
Okay. You and they chose sexual freedom above any concerns for kids. Fact.
This needs a response?
Nothing substantial here - mere assertion. Why don't you try again?
Knowledge is by far the best way of protecting children from any harm that might come from "accidentally stumbling across" pornography online. Secrecy is way more harmful. I say what I say out of concern for the welfare of children, and I have raised children to mature, well-grounded adults, so I know what I'm talking about.
Not really.
Society has put easy-access porn above any concerns for children's welfare. That is an uncomfortable, factual statement.
Explain what is funny.
I challenge you to come up with some evidence the CCO is wrong. Your experience online isn't evidence - you aren't a child.
I agree. And yes they do but kids are kids, part of the training of kids is that they will do things they shouldn't do and have to have their learning reenforced by the parent.
An analogy will never have a one to one correspondence - that's why it is an analogy in the first place. My point was that some controls are better than none at all.
But they are not, so your solution doesn't work. The only solution that works is to not allow kids (under 16s in my view) access to an unfiltered internet. Meanwhile we have the OSA that starts to help the overall problem - and remember the OSA is not just about porn, it covers much more dangerous stuff.
Not in the UK it hasn't.
I acknowledge that the UK is at least trying - but they are up against a behemoth. It remans to be seen if a significant number of young people are actually protected.
Yes, which means that children should learn that fact, what it means, and what they can and should do about it. Education is the solution.
In certain circles I am viewed as a vocal advocate of the nanny state. Take a look at some old gun control threads some time. I also argue for collectivism over individualism rather a lot. You saying that I have put individual freedom ahead of all other concerns is, quite frankly, hilarious.
Common sense says that when you're using shame and guilt to train your children to hide things from their parents, they are going to lie about their experiences. "Oh no, Mum, what you saw me looking at just now was totally an accident! I was actually looking for... uh... something else entirely and it just popped up there!"
Why yes, yes I am. I have raised two children to become smart, sexually active, mature adults. I have lived experience in these matters.
That's quite an admission. Most here vehemently disagree with that assertion.
Understood.
Whilst I accept not all the 38% will have been truthful, I think you are going to need a bit more evidence than that. My experience (as an adult) is that I also rarely come across explicit material. I think the nearest was on FBook because I joined a filmmaking group. I think children's experiences will be different and their curiosity will make them much more vulnerable.
But you have not remotely shown that the CCO is out of touch.
We all knew that the OSA wouldn't work. If this work around is efficacious then shame on all those involved with the legislation.
The OSA prevents circumvention by using Garry's Mod?