Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all...
Just a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at porn is an extremely bad metric. Just one child out if the several million or so in the U.K. would technically be a reduction. And the kids going around it is precisely why this sort of regulation doesn’t work.
You have to ask what your goal is. Do you actually just want a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at pornography as if all pornography is created equal. Kids will just go to less moderated sites which will contain higher rates of child pornography, other rape depictions, etc.
These laws are generally supported by two types of people: ones who know how it will be abused to stifle free speech (see: ID required to see protestors arrested by police) and dinosaurs that think the internet works identically to the video rental store.
Edit: I think the reason your comment was downvoted was because of the first sentence. It doesn’t protect children. Not even the most ideal “just gives up immediately after the popup” child.
It doesn’t matter. All I’m saying is that is some cases it is restricting kids from porn who may have accessed it otherwise. Doesn’t have to take away from your opposition to the laws. Just means that you can’t live in black and white.