Aside from the implications of turning an ISP into a decider of what you get to see rather than being a "dumb pipe," what about parents who want to view porn but don't want their kids to? Should they be forced to choose between 20 years of abstinence or potentially exposing their kids?
The "household" is a pretty bad level at which to have to make these decisions, given that people of all age ranges share the same household. It seems to me that age verification makes a lot more sense than this, (and ftr I think Utah's bill is ridiculous overreach and would have massive privacy implications that are highly problematic).
> what about parents who want to view porn but don't want their kids to
That was specifically addressed in my post. Temporary disable.
Remember that safe guards dont have to be perfect before being implemented. They just need to be better than the status quo. The status quo right now is 10 year old kids viewing porn and thinking that's what average intimate loving relationships look like.
Yeah the temporary disable isn't my complaint. That's not the worst part. My criticism is the system in place after the parent has made the choice. As a parent, do you choose your own freedom or to protect your children? Most will choose the latter and basically have to choose "abstinence" for themselves for many years. It's a pretty sucky choice to have to make given that such an artificial and unneccesary choice is being forced on them by the legal system and their ISP.
My point was at the moment of choosing they could either open the entire connection to $CONTENT or open the device (MAC address, DHCP assigned IP) up (afaik most ISPs control the router too) for traffic to those sites.
What I'm suggesting does not require abstinence from those who have the password.
The "household" is a pretty bad level at which to have to make these decisions, given that people of all age ranges share the same household. It seems to me that age verification makes a lot more sense than this, (and ftr I think Utah's bill is ridiculous overreach and would have massive privacy implications that are highly problematic).