190
Pornhub says UK visitors down 77% since age checks came in (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 year ago* (17 children)

The way EU is planning on implementing it is seemingly rather okay on the privacy side.
Basic idea is that instead of sending your actual ID to every random shady website, which is fucking stupid and you should never ever do, you verify your ID once to a trusted processor, and the websites only receive a simple "Is adult: yes/no" answer connected to a randomised ID from them.

Combine that with one additional hop between the website and processor and you eliminate the processor even knowing what websites you requested the check for, and therefore the risk of a data leak is minimal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Then there's one failure point - the 'trusted processor'. We need a trust free system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Exactly. I still don't understand why people still think it's a good idea.

    Just no! No Id check. No "age verification". No "single company" or centralized bs. No. No. No.

    We have 30 years of internet, without the need of ID verification. I don't need it. I don't want it. I don't asked for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    @JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz also you do understand that you are basically giving all the power to this random individual business that does the ID checks, right?

    It's like the current banking system. No thanks.

    That means your website can just be rejected by the ID partner and voila you got blocked from the internet. Maybe your website is discussing something that the government doesn't like?

    Whatever it is, you basically sell your soul to this ID verification company. And they can reject you from any website in the future for any random reason. And like I said, websites can be rejected as well from there system (it goes both ways).

    Tldr: you give them full power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If there is exactly one global service that does all the checks for every single internet user, which every single website uses, and the information going through them is always known, then sure, they could certainly block stuff.
    But it's quite clear by now "we aren't going to implement age verification on the internet" isn't going to happen, that verification is going to be implemented eventually, and in the rather near future. And places like the UK and many US states are extremely unlike to roll back the already implemented solutions.
    So the question now is how it can be done with the least amount of invasion to privacy, and crucially, without the website needing your actual ID.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Did you read me message above? You just don't want age verification to begin with.

    Your reaction to your government should be: I will not comply. I will not follow this path.

    And basically you search for other workarounds or resistance, rather then trying to work with them to a "solution" that doesn't exists.

    You can't have privacy and id verification. You can't never have both. It's either one or the other.

    If you think it can be done, well done, this is exactly what they want you to be believe. And thinking it's OK what is going on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I guess the trusted processor would be the state authority that already has all your data.

    That said, I think it's a solution looking for a problem. IDC if 14 year olds jack off to Pornhub, I rather care about 54 year olds being swindled by Meta to destroy our democracy. What did we do after Cambridge Analytica?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Do you trust your gumint to anonymize data to third parties? Especially if they're the ones buying elections?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    US style open corruption is illegal in the UK and the EU isn't it?

    That said I don't trust them, I'm just saying if we want to rail against the thing, we should know exactly what the thing is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How would you propose I prove to you at a reasonable certainty that I am an adult, without showing you my ID, or showing it to someone else you trust to tell the truth?
    And also somehow prove that the ID I gave was not fake without the government that issued it telling you that it's genuine?

    Well, I actually could do it because I'm old enough that most of my accounts are already over 18 years old, but I don't think requiring every new Pornhub user to wait 18 years is a reasonable solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago*

    Maybe just practise basic parenting?

    Everyone develops at different rates. The arbitrary line of 18yo is already problematic. After 18, suddenly everyone is 'thrown to the wolves' regardless of if they're ready.

    People used to mature much faster - raising families, fighting wars before they've turned 20, and by 40, practically geriatric.

    Is everyone 'ready' for porn at 18? Who decides? Just a line? Then with whom does the responsibility lie if someone that's not ready, but still does acces porn at 18 and experiences any number of negative effects that proponents of this measure claim?

    It's a control measure looking for an excuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I like how this approach gets called "okay on the privacy side" and just assumes you're logged in to everything. In case you missed it, the subject matter here is browsing porn, a vast majority of people aren't logging in at all with any service when they watch porn.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It doesn't. The website would ask for an id check, you would generate it on the processor side and give the randomized ID to the site so it could go check it's valid and let you through. It can be used to verify an account permanently but without one, it would kinda act like a temporary 2FA code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I'm glad to hear this. Some weeks ago I was pondering how to do age checks anonymously and this was pretty much the idea I came up with. It just makes a lot more sense because it does what you want without revealing anything private.

    Edit: had a brain fart and wrote unanimously instead of anonymously

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent