[DagsEoress]

This all or nothing mentality is so disconnected from the real world. Of course some people started using VPNs, of course some children even started doing it. No law can prevent all occurrences of what it tries to prevent. But it can make it more difficult, and heighten the barrier of entry for children that are introduced to the internet.

[Lio]

Kids don’t start out knowing that you type pornhub.com to get porn.

One of their friends sends them a link. Now they just send them a different link, one that goes via a free VPN.

You don't need any new skills for that and it's not a "speedbump".

All this law does is make it harder for adults to use non-porn websites like Reddit, Spotify or Bluesky.

It’s not a good law.

At the next election some portion of Labour voters will remember missteps like this and will vote for someone else because of it.

[ndsipa_pomu]

> At the next election some portion of Labour voters will remember missteps like this and will vote for someone else because of it.

Personally, I think their prosecution of peaceful protestors (Palestine supporters) whilst giving a free pass to right wing violent protestors will alienate their traditional left-wing base.

[ndsipa_pomu]

As far as I can tell, the purpose of the law is to push children to use either free VPNs and proxies (which will likely make them less safe using the internet) or to visit less famous porn sites that are too niche to be targetted. So, we're pushing children towards the most dodgy porn sites possible and encouraging people to upload identifying information to the less dodgy porn sites.

This law is not fit for the declared purpose at all.