A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I don’t think porn is to blame for that, rather social media but at least there’s learning.
I mean this sounds entirely sensible.
But I do worry what a bureaucratic system is likely to decide a normal relationship looks like won't capture reality either.
Hopefully they use it as a lesson in consent. And leave it at that.
I don't know enough about England's politics to form an opinion on how they will actually end up botching it, but I feel like it's going to be botched.
Waaay better than the porn bans and online age verification schemes, honestly.
I question why this is just for "children who show mysoginistic behavior", though. Sex ed should be universal, and this should be a major part of sex ed.
I assume the fear here is parents complaining about their kids being talked about porn, which may end up being a larger underlying issue than the porn itself. I guess you just have to trust that education professionals handle the opportunity well and this doesn't become a stern talking to for problem kids, which is likely to do as much as stern talking tos have done historically.
Yeah, I agree with you on this
I agree, at least they're actually focusing on an actual real world issue that widely impacts individuals. It is to point out, the highlight that only boys are talked about it - is oddly counter intuitive. If equality is the issue, then single sided efforts are going to further reinforce negative stereotypes.
And the point about sex-ed, is that it should be mandatory in education - it is a science like all and it prepares older children for when they become teenagers. Even so, stereotypical differences could be abolished if sexuality was formally talked in schools - after all we are all human, no matter what we have under there.
I guess one good thing will come of this porn panic in England.
Still think there's a lot better things the labour government could be doing with their massive majority.
The healthiest thing is a decent sexual education to tackle all the topics rather than only this issue in these cases... but very welcome anyway
Is porn really behind the misogyny? What about the tards in the so-called "manosphere" saying all sorts of crazy and immoral shit? Those have more reach than whatever extremely weird pornography is supposed to be at fault. Is this what not being able to say "this is objectively wrong/right" because of Western moral relativism leads to?
It's in the article and it's very good. You should read it.
Preventing young men being harmed by “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate.
Thing is the specific guy we're all thinking of ran a porn company. One with little consent.
I do think porn is a symptom not a cause and targetting it wont actually help. Mistreatment of women wasnt exactly rare in say the 50s, even if it wasnt filmed for money.
Futanari isn't misogynistic, so I'm assuming this law would be OK with it.
I think it is overall a good thing that the UK is trying to make some progress. It is disappointing that it’s come to teaching 11 year olds about pornography.
As much as porn may be a factor, there’s a lot more beyond that single factor that is involved - reminiscent of video games causing mass shootings.
Parenting and parental examples are a huge component of teaching kids to be responsible adults. When I was a kid, parental controls if they existed were a challenge that I worked on learning to circumvent (and I learned a lot about computers), but today they’re pretty bulletproof. But parents don’t use them at all. There’s not even an attempt made to limit screen time or exposure to pornography.
It’s not just parents of course; tech companies are absolutely responsible as well. It’s a complex issue.
reminiscent of video games causing mass shootings
None of the many scientific studies into this claim has found any evidence of its validity.
Instead there is evidence that it is a byproduct of good ol’ racism, as it is used most often to try to explain why a white child would walk into a school and start killing. Because there must be an external reason right? It’s not like Timmy was one of those inherently violent blacks.
Yes that’s my point.