| ▲ | sunshine-o 4 days ago |
| I understand the people might wanna block porn on their kids mobile internet and home WiFi. So why don't they mandate their ISP to implement this as an optional feature ? Why do they instead try to boil the ocean by going after every website on the planet and outside of their jurisdiction? |
|
| ▲ | spooky_deep 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The ISPs already do this. Most mobile networks are even opt-out, not in, to this feature. The new law is unnecessary overreach. They either don’t know what they are doing technically (alarming) or are just authoritarian (very alarming) |
| |
| ▲ | prmoustache 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think ISP DNS solution is very effective when all major web browsers implement DoH by default. |
|
|
| ▲ | waltbosz 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My solution was to set my router to use the DNS server at 1.1.1.3 which blocks adult sites. https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-1-1-1-1-for-families... |
| |
| ▲ | ImJamal 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I assume this doesn't block porn on reddit or non-porn websites? | | |
| ▲ | waltbosz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, it just blocks DNS requests from a list of porn hostnames. | | |
| ▲ | ranger_danger 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Many browsers/apps now will ignore the system/DHCP-provided DNS server and use their own though (often via TLS so you can't block it easily)... so while this might work for some situations, I can't in good conscious call it a great solution. | | |
| ▲ | waltbosz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Wow I did not know that. I agree. It's not a very robust solution, but it's better than nothing at all . And it's annoying sometimes. One thing I found is that it somehow forces Google safe-search, which appears to block some non-pornographic search results. |
| |
| ▲ | ImJamal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I understand that. I just wasn't sure if Reddit and co used specific subdomains for porn images/videos. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rapidaneurism 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can they not set their device DNS to 1.1.1.1 | | |
|
|
| ▲ | nemomarx 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Their isps already offer this, actually. You have to show id to them to get it turned pff. |
| |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t have to show ID, but I do have to pay the bill, which means a direct debit, which means over 18. The correct solution (in addition to bill layer control and arguably compulsory support for an “over 18” tag in dns which would be easy enough to implement for the same sites that currently demand over 18s, would be to help parents utilise parental controls (having recently been through it with Minecraft and fortnight it was a nightmarish gordian knot. The hand wringing about how evil vpns are is the same. My son can’t install mullvad or whatever on his phone without my approval thanks to apple’s parental controls. I assume android has the same. The goal has never been to empower parents though | | |
| ▲ | RandomBacon 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > direct debit, which means over 18 Incorrect. Source: I had a checking account before I was 18. | |
| ▲ | J_McQuade 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the correct solution would be to make parents responsible for actually using those controls, as they always have been for controlling a child's access to such materials in other media. For example, if you have a stack of explicit DVDs and it becomes apparent that your child has access to them, then you will likely get a visit from social services and potentially suffer legal consequences up to and including removal of custody. I honestly have no idea why stuff on the internet is treated differently. Internet providers are already required to check that you are over 18 (much as the person selling you those DVDs is) - if you then share the content that this makes available with a child, then you should be held responsible in the same way. It was sufficient with print, VHS, Sky TV, etc. - why not the internet? | | |
| ▲ | d4v3 a day ago | parent [-] | | Because then parents couldn't just shove a screen in front of their child's face and then proceed to ignore them anymore. Half-kidding, but there are real liability concerns. How much supervision is reasonable? My parents definitely didn't police my every moment on the internet. Actually, quite the opposite |
|
|
|
