Campaigners threaten UK legal action over porn sites’ lack of age verification

The UK data watchdog must introduce age verification for commercial pornography sites or face a high court challenge over any failure to act, children’s safety groups have warned.

The demand in a letter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) states that the government’s failure to stop children seeing porn is causing lifelong trauma and putting children at risk of abuse and exploitation. It urges the ICO to use the powers under the recently introduced age appropriate design code (AADC) to introduce rigorous age-checking procedures for publicly accessible porn sites.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-devel...rification

I guess it was inevitable. BS should've followed S66 and put these age restrictions in place sooner.

I did post this, only on Tuesday: https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...pid2634142
It would be wise to be suspicious of any "studies" or "research" supposedly supporting this effort. As there has been so much research in this area, generally undermining such a case.
Vague, voguish terms, such as "sexualisation", are merely moving the goalposts.
I doubt there has been a qualitative change, since I left school in the late 1980s. Or indeed, since the "swinging" 60s, or the 70s, which has become a dark decade, for some who adhere to a variant of the 'Whig interpretation of history'.
There has been significant change in how the wider world regards children and childhood. Adulthood has been pushed further back, with most people expected to be in formal education until their early twenties, at least.
With higher education increasingly seen to be protecting people from the wider adult world, rather than contributing to preparing them for it.
But whilst adults are being infantilised, children are also expected to be more adult, such as in weighing them down with concerns about climate change.
The border between childhood and adulthood has changed, in complex ways, but campaigns like that, aren't helpful in dealing with any problems, but one of the problems.

More from Gustavo Turner of XBIZ, on the people behind that Guardian article: https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurner...7383833605

The link from the Internet Site Regulation thread, in my previous post in this thread, is for a link to his piece about the revival of age verification, which preceded the letter that prompted this thread.

I'd previously linked Turner in that thread: https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...pid2524258 firstly last December, then in January, both on the same page, about Pornhub being cut off by Visa and Mastercard.
When even the BBC had a reporter who was sympathetic to those affected by it.

As Turner has written, this is a wider war on 'porn', about which I wrote in the 'New Rules' thread: https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...pid2621422 referencing precedents for credit card companies' censoring porn sites, and the most recent attempt in UK, several years ago, to outlaw certain acts on UK porn sites, which was overturned.

LONDON — The Guardian today again published a supposed news article advocating in favor of age verification of adult content that was, in fact, sponsored content for a shadowy U.S. foundation that pays the Anglo-American newspaper to further their alleged goal to combat “human trafficking.”

https://www.xbiz.com/news/263423/the-gua...ivist?s=03

I re-edited my previous post, (extensively, in my sleep!) to give a bit of a round-up of background, on the forum, and beyond.