119
Rule34 blocked the UK entirely rather than comply due to the new law.
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Yeah, we're all mad, fuck the suits and all that.
But why does the distinction between "real-world adult material" and "creative, non-realistic", "artistic, animated works" that "do no harm" matter? Last time I checked, realistic adult material can be just as artistic, and the harm done by negligently letting children watch it seems comparable.
Are they in favour of age verification for "uncreative, realistic" pornography, or is the real distinction just between real-life and online?
I interpreted it as "can't possibly be doing harm to the people in the video" - eg as much of mainstream porn can do - since there are none if everything is animated fiction
Yeah, the “it’s just cartoons so it’s not harmful” argument falls flat pretty quickly. There are much better arguments to be made for why the law is dumb.
I think it's more about the legal distinction between drawn and 'real' porn.
TBH "negligently letting children watch it" seems like a sensless statement to me. The onus should be on parents to filter their kids' internet environments, not literally every accessible site on the open internet (which are never going to comply with a patchwork of age verification regs).
It's because some arguments against porn says the actors involved have it bad. Something that can't happen in a drawing.