Prominent backbench MP Sarah Champion launched a campaign against VPNs previously, saying: “My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems.” And the Labour Party said there were “gaps” in the bill that needed to be amended.

  • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    The problem is that content filters don’t work all that well in the age of https everywhere. I mean, you can block the pornhub.com domain, that’s fairly straightforward … but what about reddit.com which has porn content but also legitimately non-porn content. Or closer to home: any lemmy instance.

    I think it would be better if politicians stopped pearl clutching and realized that porn perhaps isn’t the worst problem in the world. Tiktok and influencer brainrot, incel and manosphere stuff, rage baiting social media, etc. are all much worse things for the psyche of young people, and they’re doing exactly jack shit about that.

    • arc99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That’s a problem is for ISPs and content providers to figure out. I don’t see why the government has to care other than laying out the ground rules - you must offer and implement a parental filter for people who want it for free as part of your service. If ISPs have to do deep packet inspection and proxy certs for protected devices / accounts then that’s what they’ll have to do.

      As far as the government is concerned it’s not their problem. They’ve said what should happen and providing the choice without being assholes to people over 18 who are exercising their rights to use the internet as they see fit.

      • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        @arc99 @SpaceCadet thats basically allowing the Government to force the ISP’s to build a solution which is able to sensor every content. Sorry there is alot of reasons why you should be against it.

        PS: even your deep packet inspection falls short to end 2 end encryption / decryption …

    • ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 hours ago

      They know. The “think of the children” angle is just cover to enrage the tabloid readers and to be used as a straw man against anyone criticisng the law (“you’re a pedophile”). The real purpose is “let’s enumerate the IDs of everyone who uses the internet for anything we don’t like” and “let’s censor anything we don’t like starting with LGBTQ content”