jeffalyanak

@ChrisWere @robert @newpipe

Syncing is fine, but I want to be in control of what is doing the syncing.

@PriorProject @PorkrollPosadist

All the examples you provided were infrastructure, not social communities, so I think it's a poor comparison.

Instead, I'd compare AP federation to _social_ constructs. Communities, clubs, groups of friends. Even larger constructs like cities or nation states.

In _those_ examples it's clear that limiting association is commonplace and healthy.

I certainly never said that shared computers don't exist. What I said was that a session timeout could be used to make it unlikely that a child could access adult content after an adult did.

You're correct in saying that the system would be imperfect, but I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff in order to get rid of ID checks which are more invasive and more dangerous. Remember, I'm not advocating for porn blockers, I'm just trying to prove that it can be done without invasive ID checks.

As for ISPs getting information, what information would they haven't that they don't already have? Unless you use a VPN your ISP already knows every IP you connect to—and in a default configuration they probably also know all your DNS lookups—and if you _do_ use a VPN then you're just shifting that information over to your VPN provider.

No, they wouldn't get any additional information about who is viewing content. There would be a single login used by adults. What information would that provide to them that they don't already know?

As for a kid slipping in and watching porn on a shared computer immediately after an adult, it would be possible but not likely. My suggestion in a previous post is something like a 5-10 minutes timeout after traffic to an unblocked site stops. Adults would just have to avoid using shared computers for porn in situations where children might be using it immediately afterwards.

Also, remember that this isn't meant to be—and could never be—a perfect solution. It's meant to tick a box for right-wing politicians who want to say that the government is doing due diligence in reducing something they see as a problem.

I definitely agree that these types of blocking are ineffective and generally do more harm than good, but if governments are going to push for this stuff, it would be good to have a solution that doesn't harm people's security and privacy.

There are lots of ways around doing a full SSO integration, though.

In the simplest form, the ISP could simply use a captive portal of some sort directing the user to authenticate first.

While captive portals can't serve the correct certificate most browsers these days are smart enough to detect a captive portal redirect and give the user a smoother experience.

@Senseibu

It might hurt their bottom line, but the big companies operate in so many different markets and I don't think there's any risk of _all_ of them enacting these types of restrictions.

I'm on mastodon, so I can't downvote (only "like", which translates to an upvote).

@BlameThePeacock

It's the US republicans who want to do this, not me, I'm just approaching this as an interesting problem.

As for my suggested solution, the only database would be the list of sites with adult content. No new personal data would be stored about individuals.

I'm not suggesting that ISPs implement photo-ID checks, just a login with your ISP username/password (an account you already have).

I don't think there's any risk of _any_ of these schemes killing off internet porn.

The current government schemes all rely on porn companies opting in and on the government/ISPs to catalog all porn sites on the internet.

Yeah, it's quite the rabbit hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum