[HN Gopher] House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using I...
___________________________________________________________________
House of Lords Votes to Ban UK Children from Using Internet VPNs
Author : donpott
Score : 71 points
Date : 2026-01-26 18:00 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ispreview.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ispreview.co.uk)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763548
| supernes wrote:
| Papers, please. Glory to Arstotzka!
| retired wrote:
| Does that mean that VPN providers now need identification before
| you can open an account?
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| But think of the children!
|
| That it has its own Wikipedia page is a sign of the abuse of
| this argument:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
| victor9000 wrote:
| This is the real intent
| krisbolton wrote:
| No. This a motion within one house of Parliament and hasn't
| become law, nor is there any guarantee it will be. It's
| something to be aware of.
| armada651 wrote:
| If this becomes law, then yes. But then people will turn to VPS
| providers instead and set up their own VPNs, which will then
| prompt a law to demand age verification before renting any
| server. I wonder how far they're willing to go down this rabbit
| hole.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Not necessarily - how is a kid paying for a VPS server?
|
| A personal debit card (which requires ID verification anyway,
| and likely has their parents able to see activity)? A
| personal credit card (which definitely requires ID + 18+)?
| Stealing their parents' card (works for like 5 days)? Does
| the VPS company block VPN ports without verification, similar
| to how most companies handle email? Do you think VPS services
| have any interest, at all, in an underage clientele?
|
| The proposed law is plenty effective - saying otherwise is
| like saying kids can bypass age verification at the knife
| shop or alcohol store by using eBay. No sane mind says that
| age verification is therefore useless.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If having a credit card and the ability to make purchases
| was good enough as an ID system, they could have simply
| made it the law instead of requiring tech companies to
| collect those sweet, sweet personal ID document photos.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The UK law doesn't say you have to use ID photos, that's
| porn companies knowing that charging even PS1 a visit
| would be devastating to the business. Credit card
| verification is a completely legal method in the UK.
| whatshisface wrote:
| They can check for credit cards without requiring any
| payment. Are you sure that's sufficient given these
| vaguely worded laws? If so many HN readers could solve
| the whole problem by making websites which issued digital
| signatures of random numbers to anyone who can support a
| PS0.01 debit which is then immediately reversed.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| The problem is porn companies know full well nobody,
| nobody, wants that on their credit card statement. Kinda
| weird that something supposedly as natural as rain needs
| such levels of privacy; the hypocrisy is notable (if it's
| so natural and so many people do it, own it).
| whatshisface wrote:
| They can have whatshisface's digital certificates, Inc.
| on their statements.
| gruez wrote:
| authorizations don't show up on statements, but still
| allow you to verify the card is valid
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Authorizations may not show on statements; but they are
| full well in financial records which could come up in
| court or a divorce claim later. Credit card companies are
| absolutely not allowed to turn a blind eye to any kind of
| usage.
| gruez wrote:
| >but they are full well in financial records which could
| come up in court or a divorce claim later
|
| Does this even matter in the age of no-fault divorces? Is
| any court going to sanction a spouse for having watched
| porn?
| sublinear wrote:
| Single people don't care, and they are becoming the
| majority of adults and probably more likely consume porn
| too.
| technion wrote:
| I have always wondered how this would go if you applied
| for a loan through your bank. Or a rental that wanted
| 'last three months financial transactions' in the
| application.
| sublinear wrote:
| I'm confused by what you mean (I'm an American though).
|
| I don't think I'm unique for putting miscellaneous stuff
| like this on a credit card, and not even necessarily the
| one my bank offers. Not to hide the transaction, but
| because charging to debit/checking would make tracking my
| monthly expenses less straightforward. Payments online
| are also safer on credit in case a chargeback is
| required.
|
| Also, are you sure you don't mean "proof of employment"
| showing the last three months of direct deposits? I've
| never heard of anyone asking for any other transactions.
| Similarly, pretty sure loan applications are based on
| credit reports. Transactions aren't relevant unless they
| got flagged for something so bad they showed up in the
| credit report (fraud, missed/late payments, etc).
| iamnothere wrote:
| I once rented a place where you needed either a decent
| credit rating or three months of full bank statements to
| prove income. (Paycheck stubs were not deemed
| sufficient.) Very invasive, fortunately I passed the
| requirements and didn't need to provide that info.
| landl0rd wrote:
| You're implying pervasive KYC and tying everything to your
| real-life identity is some unfortunate side-effect rather
| than a deliberate end. I have contempt for people who pass
| policies such as these but I do not think them foolish; they
| are likely aware of what will happen.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| The people who pass the policies may not know, but the
| people who formulate and drive the policies know for sure.
| The Window of Overton is fundamental to today's political
| environment, more than any other time in history.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| the purpose of a system is what it does, not what it
| purports to do. doubly so, if it does what it purports to
| do poorly but does something else very well. this system
| purports to protect children from adult content online but
| what it does is offer a legal justification for eliminating
| any and all anonymity.
| gruez wrote:
| >If this becomes law, then yes.
|
| Or they just operate outside of UK jurisdiction, in which
| case they can politely decline. Any executives/directors of
| said company might be liable to arrest if they decide to
| vacation in uk, though.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| The UK already has ISP's blocking sites. Anyone that
| ignores the law will be blocked, will be interesting to see
| what happens if they end up blocking one of the cloud
| megascalers.
| anonym29 wrote:
| Hilarious that they think they can prevent motivated
| people from accessing information using technical
| measures. China has been working on this for decades.
| It's a lost battle. Shadowsocks, V2Ray, xray; protocols
| like vmess, vless, trojan, etc.
|
| The British government, for all their effort (London has
| a higher geographic density of CCTV than Beijing) is
| wasting their time competing for the gold medal at
| International Totalitarianism Olympics, even the the
| world's current undisputed champion is losing the
| internet censorship battle, and always has.
|
| Central planning doesn't work and it never has. That
| includes central planning of what your citizens are
| allowed to see, hear, think, and feel.
| digiown wrote:
| Depends on the how you formulate the goal in the
| totalitarianism olympics. The goal of totalitarian
| regimes is not really to completely prevent the flow of
| information to motivated people. It simply needs to raise
| the motivation bar high enough so that all but the select
| few is fed only government-approved propaganda. The few
| that retain access is tolerated as long as they don't
| raise a stink. In this view, the efforts of China or Iran
| is fairly successful.
|
| The UK has a different flavor of authoritarianism
| centered on surveillance to (ineffectively) improve
| "safety", and general paternalism at all levels. It
| doesn't really intend to prevent the flow of information
| all that much.
| gnarlouse wrote:
| Age verification to wake up in the morning, age verification
| to breathe air, age verification to use the restroom, age
| verification t...
| rustyhancock wrote:
| You got a Loicense for that?
| dlisboa wrote:
| All of this would easily be solved by just banning social
| media. Nothing will convince me they are a net-positive to
| society.
| retired wrote:
| At the risk of doing a "you participate in society", would
| that include HN?
| direwolf20 wrote:
| That depends if it's social media.
| eikenberry wrote:
| I don't think social media needs to be banned, but maybe
| using complex algorithms to drive attention should be. Even
| Facebook was pretty good back when its feed was a simple,
| chronological display of all your friends posts and nothing
| else. It went down the tubes as they moved away from that.
| Fr0styMatt88 wrote:
| Put together, it's likely most people's friends wouldn't
| produce enough content to drive engagement, at least in
| 'public' social media like Facebook.
|
| I remember this phenomenon back when Facebook was less
| algorithmic -- some days there'd just be no new content
| at all. Especially I'm guessing if you limit adding
| friends to actually just the people you'd be happy to
| grab lunch with.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| If you apply the logic of your comment's parent to your
| suggestion you'll discover that banning social media would
| soon lead to using any and all communication under
| mandatory supervision and only after an application and a
| written permission for every individual act of
| communication.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Did banning heroin soon lead to consuming any and all
| substances under mandatory supervision and only after an
| application and written permission for every individual
| act of consumption?
| mghackerlady wrote:
| The government shouldn't be limiting any legal
| communications over the internet
| direwolf20 wrote:
| That's a tautology. The limited communications are
| illegal.
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| Severely disabled people need social media to get any form
| of communication with others. It is a key mechanism of
| infrastructure that provides connection for those limit to
| their homes and bed, which nowadays is an increasing amount
| of people with Long Covid and ME/CFS patients. We are
| talking about 10s of millions of people here that you would
| cut off from each other and the wider world.
|
| Social media isn't just bad interactions, there isn't just
| one twitter or reddit, its about what you choose to read
| and interact with and most of its not toxic its just people
| talking on the same topic.
| brightball wrote:
| Watching laws like this play out in real time adds some color
| to the other discussion about software in Europe right now.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46767668#46769847
| krunck wrote:
| Also VPS services because "SSH -D".
| whynotmaybe wrote:
| How would this work with a VPN outside of UK that doesn't do it
| ? Will it be blocked?
| lacoolj wrote:
| Very shallow, naive approach to child safety. This is like
| banning children from riding scooters on a highway. They're just
| going to use a bike instead. Danger still exists.
|
| VPNs are not the only way around this, so if you want to ban the
| "method of access" you need to be much more broad, and get the
| parents involved.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| A innefective mandate for the intended purpose, but a very
| effective mandate to know what adults use VPNs.
|
| Between this and the repeated attempts at encryption backdoors,
| this is something I would expect from a totalitarian regime
| that is preparing for civil unrest, not the UK.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| > but a very effective mandate to know what adults use VPNs.
|
| How? I suppose if the VPN services all started requiring age
| verification that might tell you this info. But I very much
| doubt that'll happen, as it runs completely counter to many
| legitimate VPN services' missions.
| romanovcode wrote:
| > Very shallow, naive approach to child safety.
|
| It's naive of _you_ to think this has anything to do with the
| child safety.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| It's like banning children from owning and carrying handguns.
| They still have knives and ultimately fists. We cannot
| eliminate harms, therefore we should not attempt to reduce
| harms.
| CJefferson wrote:
| But, we do ban children on scooters from roads in the UK, but
| they can go on bikes? I don't understand your metaphor.. what
| you are suggesting is what we do and it's sensible.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I don't think they don't mean the same thing you mean by
| scooters. Difference in the language.
| captainbland wrote:
| In fairness we essentially ban scooters from practically
| every public path/road but they're still everywhere
| chrisjj wrote:
| If parent could be sufficiently involved, there'd be no need
| for any ban.
| linhns wrote:
| How to enforce?
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Same way as they do with porn? Massive fines. Or the threat
| thereof.
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| > may make provision for the provider of a relevant VPN service
| to apply to any person seeking to access its service in or from
| the UK age assurance which is highly effective at correctly
| determining whether or not that person is a child
|
| "The law we made is like super duper good!!"
|
| > Children may also turn to VPNs, which would then undermine the
| child safety gains of the Online Safety Act
|
| "The law we made is easily circumvented :("
| donmcronald wrote:
| > may make provision for the provider of a relevant VPN service
| to apply to any person seeking to access its service in or from
| the UK age assurance which is highly effective at correctly
| determining whether or not that person is a child
|
| I think you're reading it wrong. Regulations _may_ have a
| provision that allows providers to apply age assurance [systems
| ?] if the age assurance is highly effective at determining age.
|
| I'm always surprised how ambiguous the writing is for this kind
| of stuff. Maybe that's the point. If the regulations don't (
| _may_ is optional) have the provision, does that mean they need
| to demand ID?
|
| IMO, highly effective = our buddies' tech that we declare
| highly effective. The whole ID push around the world is big
| tech trying to set up government mandated services that you're
| going to be forced to pay for, either directly or via taxes.
|
| The end game is probably digital IDs with digitally signed
| requests for everything you do. And, of course, corrupt
| individuals and criminals will somehow be able to get as many
| digital IDs as they want.
|
| That money should be spent on education. We're being robbed.
| antonvs wrote:
| I foresee a lot of VPN companies starting to offer "secure proxy"
| services or something like that. "It's not a VPN, it's a secure
| proxy!"
| advisedwang wrote:
| The law doesn't work like that. First of all, the actual
| regulation that gets made probably has a definition of VPN and
| won't rely on a company self-describing as VPN. Secondly law
| enforcement and courts aren't idiots*
|
| * well, many of them are. But not in the particular way that
| would be needed for a simple rename to work.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Proxies aren't VPNs though. They didn't mean call proxies
| VPNS, they meant provide proxies.
| advisedwang wrote:
| True if you are being technically rigorous. However the
| "VPN" services being targeted are already what would be
| more accurately described as a "secure proxy". So whatever
| regulation gets drafted will certainly be done so to cover
| "secure proxies", even if it uses the term "VPN".
| zrn900 wrote:
| After enforcing age verification to prevent children from viewing
| those pesky Gaza genocide videos that Israel did not want them to
| see, they gotta ensure that those brats wont be able to get
| around it and still see the videos.
|
| Its amazing how this censorship was brought on rapidly and
| precisely after Netanyahu demanded it at the start of last year.
| No surprise as half of Starmer government was funded by zionists.
| landl0rd wrote:
| I really don't think governments need a kick in the tail from a
| foreign power to try to grab more power. It's just what they do
| by nature.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Not sure what you're going on about. I don't think children
| should be watching _any_ genocide videos. Is that something you
| watched a lot of as a child?
| c0m47053 wrote:
| The thing is, it's not really children who lose access to
| this sort of content, it's the user who doesn't want to give
| Reddit or Twitter or whoever else a copy of their driving
| licence. Without age verification, they don't see the truth
| of something like Gaza, because it's ages restricted. They
| can however view the other, sanitised version of the story.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763548
| 4fterd4rk wrote:
| UK nanny state makes it an nonviable place to live. It's
| pervasive from the moment you step off the plane at Heathrow and
| see the inane safety stickers covering every surface "WARNING:
| DOOR" "WARNING: WATER FROM HOT TAP IS HOT" as well as the CCTV
| cameras.
| causalscience wrote:
| > "WARNING: WATER FROM HOT TAP IS HOT"
|
| LOL are you talking about the US? With their "don't put the cat
| inside the microwave" stickers and the "coffee is too hot"
| lawsuits?
| 4fterd4rk wrote:
| Stella Liebeck was seriously injured by that McDonald's
| coffee and it's a myth perpetuated by the McDonald's PR team
| that it was a frivolous lawsuit. She was in the hospital for
| eight days and required skin grafts. Do some research.
| SapporoChris wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaur
| a... "Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180-190 degF
| (82-88 degC), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more
| likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any
| other establishment"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee#Preparing_the_beverage
| "Optimal coffee extraction occurs between 91 and 96 degC
| (196 and 205 degF).Ideal holding temperatures range from 85
| to 88 degC (185 to 190 degF) to as high as 93 degC (199
| degF), and the ideal serving temperature is 68 to 79 degC
| (154 to 174 degF).
|
| I'm aware of the injuries she incurred. I think it is
| frivolous because hot temperatures are simply part of the
| nature of coffee. McDonalds did not select the vehicle with
| out cup holders for Stella. McDonalds did not select the
| sweatpants that Stella chose to wear. McDonalds didn't
| spill the coffee in her lap. Lastly, even non-coffee
| drinkers are aware that coffee is hot.
| epiccoleman wrote:
| > With their "don't put the cat inside the microwave"
| stickers
|
| not sure what this means, my microwave does not have such a
| sticker
|
| > "coffee is too hot" lawsuits
|
| I'd encourage you to look into the case you refer to[1] and
| decide for yourself whether the lawsuit feels frivolous given
| the facts. My read is that the lawsuit was justified.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Re
| stau...
| causalscience wrote:
| If caring that people might burn themselves with hot water
| is nanny state, then caring that people might burn
| themselves with macdonalds coffee is also nanny state.
| mghackerlady wrote:
| Caring that some restaurant employee is negligent enough
| to pour coffee hot enough to require an 8 day hospital
| stay isn't a nanny state, that is basic public safety. If
| I got in a hot tub expecting it to be hot tub temperature
| and it burnt my skin off I'd expect them to get in
| trouble for endangering me by misleading me into
| believing it was normal hot tub temperature.
| ck2 wrote:
| ah the country of brexit has more "clever ideas"
|
| something I find myself saying often lately watching BBC News
| every morning
|
| How about Cloudflare Warp? And don't some browsers like Opera
| have builtin VPN?
|
| What about tunnels like Hurricane Electric?
| irusensei wrote:
| Did the CEO of Tor announced when age verification features will
| be implemented?
| causalscience wrote:
| I'm in the UK and I've been involved in advocating for this.
|
| I find it utterly frustrating to read the "think of the children"
| mockery here on HN.
|
| I argue that this is good.
|
| There's many reasons why children having unfettered access to the
| internet and different campaigners care about different aspects,
| so I'm going to talk about the one I care about: addiction,
| destroyed ability to focus, and dopamine desensitization. In the
| UK (and elsewhere in the world, I imagine) there's a huge problem
| with people addicted to phones and children are especially
| vulnerable. I don't care if adults are vulnerable, they have to
| make their own decisions. But I care that parents that do
| everything right in terms of educating their children on how to
| be healthy with respect of phones (like me and my partner) then
| have to send their children to schools where they're given ipads.
| It's not fair to say "banning doesnt work you should just not
| give your children phones", but then force you to send your
| children to schools that give them ipads and other distractions.
|
| It's a matter of network effects (something that HN loooves
| talking about). In addition to the fact that phones are
| engineered to be addictive, you have the fact that in many
| schools EVERY child is on social media, and so any family that
| wants to stay away has to decide between isolating their child
| from society, or selling themselves into the "engagement
| industry".
|
| I think that banning is a valid approach. It won't be 100%
| effective, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that it will
| introduce friction (another thing that HN looooves talking about)
| and so will reduce the total number on children that is on social
| media and therefore reduce the social need for other children to
| be in.
|
| So, we're adding friction to break or weaken the network effects
| that keep these cancer companies harming children in schools.
| monsecchris wrote:
| The reason you want this is because the only way to implement
| it facilitates your tyranny and it still wont achieve what you
| pretend to desire.
| miningape wrote:
| > I think that banning is a valid approach
|
| Are we talking about VPNs or phones in general? Because
| somewhere in this we jumped from VPNs to phones in general, and
| these things are not equivalent.
|
| A phone ban in general for children, maybe I could agree with
| you on. But, a VPN ban on those grounds alone is utterly
| pointless: it's not like there aren't millions of other bits of
| internet crack children can easily find without a VPN.
|
| Not addressing the actual concerns and instead pointing fingers
| at a totally different, larger issue reeks of "won't somebody
| think of the children". All with the convenient downstream
| effect of revealing which citizens own VPNs.
| wasmainiac wrote:
| I don't think people mocking the reasoning behind the law, just
| its implementation. I'm all for kicking kids off the internet
| and phones. I'm not British... fyi, but as kids we were not
| allowed to drink but we still found ways to get beer or
| whatever else because the regulations were not effective.
|
| It's better to be more to the point and straight up identity
| social media platforms as addictive or otherwise harmful and
| block them altogether or at least kill the algorithm and
| endless scroll.
| boznz wrote:
| The title of the site "Hacker News" should be a dead giveaway
| why this law is mocked here
| causalscience wrote:
| Well, we've tried your thing of letting these companies call
| the shots. Now we'll try my thing for a bit :-)
|
| What's more hacker than experimenting to get the results you
| want?
| iamnothere wrote:
| No, we "hackers" will mock it and develop workarounds for
| it, leak ID databases to undercut support, etc. Worst case
| we move to sneakernets and meshes and teach kids about old
| school floppynets. (When I was a kid all the best stuff
| came by floppy, sometimes by rogue BBS.) More likely we'll
| just distribute guides on using Tor and build a better
| ecosystem around it.
| AlienRobot wrote:
| When I went to school nobody gave me an ipad. We just wrote on
| paper, the teacher on chalkboard. That was a long time ago,
| though.
| 6DM wrote:
| In my opinion you're undercutting your own argument. You should
| be working to remove tablets from the schools instead of
| advocating for making us register our ID's all over the
| internet (which has proven to be insecure on an almost monthly
| basis now).
| ReluctantLaser wrote:
| It seems you want to talk about other things rather than the
| VPN age-gating or the online safety act this post is about.
| I'll engage with the content of this post.
|
| > but then force you to send your children to schools that give
| them ipads and other distractions
|
| What does the online safety act (OSA) or this VPN age check do
| to prevent this? Are the "ipads" at school giving the users
| "unfettered access to the internet"? That seems a bit
| irresponsible, however I would think that your ire should
| instead be directed towards the schools? Perhaps I'm
| misunderstanding?
|
| > In addition to the fact that phones are engineered to be
| addictive
|
| Is it the phones or the content? I interpret your views as
| someone who should be campaigning for phones and other
| "distractions" to be restricted in a school environment,
| however the OSA and this VPN age check do not appear to tackle
| this.
|
| > there's a huge problem with people addicted to phones and
| children are especially vulnerable
|
| I will assume this is true for the sake of conversation.
| Similar to my previous query, how does the OSA or this VPN age
| check tackle this problem? Will banning certain types of
| content prevent this, or perhaps shift it? Instead of social
| media, would it be preferable if children were playing games on
| their phone? If they were then "addicted" to gaming or
| socialising around a popular game, would the proposal be at
| that point to ban children from playing games on their phone?
| To me, it seems the problem is less the content and more that
| the environment is setup in certain ways that allows this. It
| is unclear to me how banning and gating certain content will
| prevent this.
|
| > different campaigners care about different aspects, so I'm
| going to talk about the one I care about: addiction, destroyed
| ability to focus, and dopamine desensitization
|
| What kind of things are you pushing outside of banning material
| and gating access? Is there a push for educating parents of the
| dangers of this "addiction"? Perhaps informing people about how
| to use parental controls to limit the access their children
| have? Is there a push on companies to provide robust, and easy-
| to-use parental controls? I feel that parents should have the
| tools, yet it seems that we consider the problem out of the
| parents control. Why is that? If parents make an informed
| choice and choose differently to you, should they be allowed to
| do so?
|
| > I don't care if adults are vulnerable, they have to make
| their own decisions.
|
| I feel that if you are caring about children accessing
| "addicting" material that you should also care about your
| fellow citizens accessing the same. How would those adults know
| that this material is addictive? Are they being informed by the
| state? What avenues are there for them to get help? It seems
| that the OSA and this VPN age check do not provide any
| assistance to people that are perhaps already addicted, or
| preventing people from falling into that trap. Does the care
| only extend to children and no further? Should we care about
| building sturdy adults regardless if they are currently
| children or not?
|
| My general thoughts on this is that there appears to be a lot
| of restriction and preventing people from accessing certain
| content, however very little on informing people on what those
| perceived dangers are. The UK government is especially keen on
| this restriction, yet I am seeing no push towards informing
| people, or providing assistance for those afflicted. To me, the
| proposed motivation and the implementation are incongruent with
| each other. The perception of safety, as opposed to an
| improvement in real world safety.
| ares623 wrote:
| Every time this comes up I always take the opportunity to suggest
| that it should've been a ban on _smart_phones. Not dumb phones,
| not laptops, not even tablets (i.e. those without sim).
|
| Easier to enforce, you don't have to rely on the very same
| companies that peddle the thing you're trying to ban in the first
| place. It can disrupt the network effects that could hopefully be
| enough to let people voluntarily cut it out of their lives.
| People are primed to get rid of it, but can't because it is so
| addicting and said network effects.
| qingcharles wrote:
| It is really hard to find dumb phones to buy. Even the dumbest
| ones in stores right now, flip phones that look like they are
| 20 years old, still have some very janky Internet features
| baked in.
| ares623 wrote:
| That's because smartphones are objectively superior. When
| they are banned, a niche will become available for dumb
| phones and manufacturers to fill. Still having access to
| janky internet is not perfect yes, but I would argue it is
| still way better than current smartphones. Just adding a
| little bit of friction can shortcircuit the addiction people
| currently have, and the social media corps definitely know
| this and are super obsessed with removing any friction at all
| at every step of their user journey.
| IlikeMadison wrote:
| China, Iran, UK. same stuff, different names.
| javascriptfan69 wrote:
| We will try everything except regulating the algorithmic content
| feeds themselves.
| causalscience wrote:
| Yo, I'm all for banning all of these companies from my country.
| That would be ideal.
|
| But then you'll have HN: NOOOO it's not effective, people will
| just use VPNs nanny state! Oppression! Freedom of speech!
| pibaker wrote:
| If algorithmic feed is so bad then why are you on hacker news,
| a website with an algorithmic feed that is notoriously non-
| transparent and often accused of being manipulated by bad
| actors?
| javascriptfan69 wrote:
| "If smoking is so bad then why are you smoking?"
|
| Because I'm addicted like everyone else.
| pibaker wrote:
| Go to your account page, turn on noprocrast and set minaway
| to a very large number. You effectively ban your own
| account once you click confirm. Now set up home firewall /
| device blocking settings and block the HN domain. The first
| step towards overcoming addiction is admitting that you
| have one. I pray for your speedy recovery.
| pibaker wrote:
| Every HN thread on social media or porn inevitably gets overrun
| with "but think of the children" comments calling for banning
| kids from social media, or the internet, or from having a phone
| at all.
|
| And then every time a country actually tries to ban children from
| the internet, they cry "but my privacy!!!" As if having to hand
| your id to the state to use the internet isn't exactly what you
| asked for. As if the regimes most interested in "protecting the
| kid" aren't exactly the ones who puts you in jail for a meme too
| spicy.
|
| You reap what you sow. Congrats on making the internet worse.
| iamnothere wrote:
| These are not the same people. I doubt that most of the people
| pushing for mandatory restrictions on child access care about
| privacy at all.
| pibaker wrote:
| You will be surprised by the number of people (even among
| self proclaimed libertarians) who think children have no
| rights and are essentially their parents' properties.
| SauntSolaire wrote:
| Granted, but that's different than thinking they're the
| states property.
| sadeshmukh wrote:
| Sounds like the Goomba fallacy:
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy
| AuthAuth wrote:
| You either ban children from social media through age
| restrictions or you ban the harmful content from social media. We
| cant just the next generation get cooked. Both are hard to
| implement and unpopular and attack freedom but you must pick one
| because the harm is so clear.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-26 23:01 UTC)