Germany: States Pass Porn Filters for Operating Systems

2025-11-2110:5290162www.heise.de

State parliaments pass controversial Youth Media Protection Act amendment. Parents can now "secure" devices for children with one click.

Providers of operating systems such as Microsoft, Apple, or Google will in the future have to ensure that they have a "youth protection device". This is intended to ensure that porn filters are installed at the fundamental level of PCs, laptops, smart TVs, game consoles, and smartphones, and that age ratings for websites and apps are introduced. This is stipulated by the latest reform of the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media (Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag, JMStV), which the state parliaments passed on Wednesday after Brandenburg relented with the 6th Interstate Media Amendment Treaty.

The core of the JMStV amendment, which has been debated for years and to which the state premiers agreed almost a year ago: End devices that are typically also used by minors should be able to be switched to a child or youth mode by parents with filters at the operating system level at the push of a button. The aim is to protect young people on the internet from age-inappropriate content such as pornography, violence, hate speech, incitement, and misinformation.

The use of common browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, or Safari will only be possible in the special mode if they have "a secure search function" or if an unsecured access is individually and securely enabled. In general, the use of browsers and programs should be able to be "individually and securely excluded". Only apps that have an approved youth protection program or a comparable suitable tool themselves will be accessible regardless of the pre-set age group.

The Commission for Youth Media Protection (KJM) describes the filtering process as a "one-button solution". This should enable parents to "secure devices for age-appropriateness with just one click". The new operating system approach will come into force no later than December 1, 2027. For devices that are already being produced, a transitional period of three years for the implementation of the software device will apply from the announcement of the decision on the applicability of the provision. Devices already on the market whose operating systems are no longer updated will be excluded.

The states also want to prevent the circumvention of blocking orders by erotic portals such as xHamster, Pornhub, YouPorn, or MyDirtyHobby using so-called mirror domains – i.e., the distribution of identical content under a minimally changed web address. For a page to be treated as a mirror page and quickly blocked without a new procedure, it must essentially have the same content as the already blocked original.

Furthermore, the state media authorities can prohibit financial service providers and system operators from conducting payment transactions with providers, even abroad. This will enable media watchdogs, for example, to suspend payment transactions of users of erotic portals via credit card through banks. No action against the content providers themselves is required beforehand. The controllers only need to name the impermissible offers to the payment service providers.

Manufacturers of operating systems, tech associations, and the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) sharply criticize the draft law. They consider the filtering requirement, in particular, to be technically and practically unfeasible, as well as legally questionable. (wpl)

Don't miss any news – follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn or Mastodon.

This article was originally published in German. It was translated with technical assistance and editorially reviewed before publication.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By Nextgrid 2025-11-2111:368 reply

    Always funny to see the senile politicians blaming porn as the biggest threats to children and not their collapsing economies.

    I'm sure when those kids grow up and work long hours for the rest of their lives (if they can find a job at all!) just to be able to afford rent they'll at least be grateful they weren't able to access porn in their teenage years.

    • By tossandthrow 2025-11-2111:532 reply

      While the failing economies definitely is orders of magnitudes more important, the problem of hyper stimulants is definitely worth giving some attention.

      The effects of porn, SoMe, ultra processed foods, etc. Likely also affect the real economies in ways wondo not yet fully grasp.

      • By ryandrake 2025-11-2117:251 reply

        I love how the rationale for porn bans changes with the times: First it was bad because of religion/morality. Then the world changed a bit, people aren't as religious, so it became bad because the performers are trafficked and exploited. Then the world changed a bit, OnlyFans turned the tables, actually empowering and enriching performers. Now, porn is bad because of... "hyper stimulants"?? I wonder what the next reason is going to be.

        • By tossandthrow 2025-11-2119:03

          It is reframing of the same underlying reason to ban porn wrt. Hyper stimulants and religion - said in layman terms, people don't fuck when they can wank to porn. It is mostly a sociatal pressure to keep men motivated regardless of framed as hyper stimulants or religious reasons (which you can buy into or not).

          The trafficking is another category, though, and I think still very active.

      • By Nextgrid 2025-11-2112:131 reply

        > the problem of hyper stimulants is definitely worth giving some attention

        True, so we should start by not having every single computing device/service crave for attention, and not surrender our society's social fabric to Meta. Enforcing the GDPR would fix it overnight by making it not profitable, but instead we're relaxing it and doubling down.

        • By ffsm8 2025-11-2113:14

          And blaming porn of all things..

          Tbf, it's an establish pattern in Germany at this point. I mean you can't even sell games with explicit content in Germany, categorically... Though it's only selectively enforced. So you can still buy games like Baldurs gate or GTA, but some need to censor things etc.

    • By taneq 2025-11-2111:461 reply

      Teach your kids to code, build electronics or tune engines, and they won’t have time for porn.

      • By Nextgrid 2025-11-2112:25

        Don't worry, you will spend all your time working a dead-end job to afford rent (so some retiree can enjoy his life) and taxes (so politicians keep getting paid to propose such stupid bills) so there won't be any time to watch porn anyway.

    • By bko 2025-11-2112:082 reply

      Wouldn't the more reasonable argument be "The economy is failing. Keep the kids gooning to distract them"

      • By trallnag 2025-11-2112:28

        Maybe it's similar to the handling of home office. A person at home isn't spending 30 bucks for lunch in the city. The kids have to stop gooning and go back to lurking around in shopping malls

      • By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2025-11-2113:43

        Let the kids think they're getting away with something. It's actually in 1984, literally teens thinking they're rebelling by getting access to porn.

    • By soraminazuki 2025-11-220:54

      Why is this thread hidden? Many of them are reasonable responses to "think of the children"-type harmful policies.

    • By asah 2025-11-2111:442 reply

      I hate these kinds of bills too, but it's a logical fallacy to address only the single biggest problem (assuming you agree on what it is).

      • By thomasuebel 2025-11-2112:11

        True. The problem is there are no further bills. All other problems aren’t addressed…

      • By guy2345 2025-11-2113:00

        [dead]

    • By slightwinder 2025-11-2112:051 reply

      Who said it's the biggest threat? It's one of many problems which is taking care of. This reads like really poor whataboutism..

      • By Nextgrid 2025-11-2112:181 reply

        > It's one of many problems which is taking care of

        I hear about digital freedoms (for porn restrictions, chat message monitoring, etc) being attacked on a weekly basis, often with "think of the children" as a justification.

        I don't hear about the fact that Western economies being property-based Ponzi schemes on their last legs being discussed very often, if at all. Instead everyone is trying to extract even more out of it by screwing over the next generations, the very children they are supposed to be thinking of.

        • By slightwinder 2025-11-2112:34

          So you only hear what you want to hear. Noted.

    • By phatfish 2025-11-2112:312 reply

      [flagged]

      • By tomhow 2025-11-2113:36

        You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to. It's not what HN is for and it destroys what it is for. We have to ban accounts that keep commenting like this. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.

        https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

      • By anal_reactor 2025-11-2112:34

        I really thought that this website was beyond perosnal attacks.

    • By yubblegum 2025-11-2111:524 reply

      Porn is damaging at multiple levels, specially for young adults to say nothing of "children".

      +Should be clear is that exposing children to porn or normalizing porn in no way promotes "healthy economies" either.

      • By Asooka 2025-11-2112:27

        Mass surveillance is far more damaging. Also there are several porn block solutions on offer for parents to install on their children's devices. There is absolutely zero need for the government to be regulating mass surveillance on everyone to block porn for children. We are replacing the damage caused by porn on a small handful of people who are predisposed to get addicted and got exposed to it at a young age due to bad parenting, with damaging all of society with mass surveillance, which is not even guaranteed to stop kids from seeing porn.

      • By trumpeta 2025-11-2112:043 reply

        sure but so is social media and ultra processed food. Both with much greater impact, why not start there?

        • By em-bee 2025-11-2113:08

          because porn is primarily a moral problem, the others are only mental and health problems. surely moral problems are way more serious, right?

        • By thomasuebel 2025-11-2112:08

          Because no porn lobby?

        • By slightwinder 2025-11-2112:072 reply

          Imagine society is able to tackle multiple problems all at once.. Seems like fiction for some..

          • By Eddy_Viscosity2 2025-11-2113:081 reply

            But they don't fix multiple problems all at once. Most of the time they don't even fix one at a time. And often, as I think is the case here, they pretend they are fixing a problem when really they are doing something else. In this case its the usual 'save the children' wrapping on more rigid control and surveillance of peoples use of computers and the internet.

            • By slightwinder 2025-11-2113:151 reply

              > But they don't fix multiple problems all at once.

              No, they do, they do it the whole time. Those might not the problems you care about, and not all attempts might be successful, but each new or changed law/regulation is fixing something. And there are many new of them over the year.

              • By Eddy_Viscosity2 2025-11-2113:381 reply

                Each new law/regulation is indeed intended to fix something, the problem is what? I'd love to have the optimism that its the problems that population are experiencing, but in most cases its the problems that the rich and powerful are experiencing. Like 'the internet is allowing people too much power to communicate with each other without state intervention', so they fix it with laws to remove that power. Or 'I am very extremely wealthy, but I want to be in more wealthy, and other people to be poorer so my great wealth has more relative power', so they pass laws to cut social programs to fund high income tax cuts. And so on,..

                • By slightwinder 2025-11-2113:481 reply

                  You seem to have a concerningly narrow view on society and it's processes, to the point where it might be harmful. Maybe start fixing this first, before you complain about something you might not understand well enough?

                  • By Eddy_Viscosity2 2025-11-2114:51

                    I could say this exact comment back to you with implication that your view is naively optimistic, whereas at me its implication is I'm defeatistly pessimistic. Maybe the answer is that society needs both of us playing these parts.

          • By bdangubic 2025-11-2113:08

            society does not want to tackle any problems - especially when it comes to kids. you need continued social discourse to win elections so no one is actually interested in solving anything

      • By danaris 2025-11-2113:012 reply

        [Citation needed]

        Multiple studies have shown that porn, in and of itself, is not damaging. The phenomenon of "porn addiction" appears to come entirely from people who think they shouldn't be looking at porn for various (mostly religious) reasons still looking at it, and feeling shame.

        • By sixtyj 2025-11-2113:08

          Probably not dangerous for adults. But if you combine high-speed internet, unlimited mobile data - it's basically a debilitating affair for kids aged 8-18.

          The BBC did a documentary about the knowledge of porn among kids, and how 16-year-olds go to the doctor's office saying they don't have erections...

        • By poly2it 2025-11-2114:031 reply

          Can you also provide a citation?

          • By danaris 2025-11-2115:331 reply

            Sure, here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202207/...

            > People who believe they have a porn addiction typically think their sexual behaviors are abnormal.

            > In reality, however, their sexual behaviors tend to be similar to others'.

            > Porn addiction typically involves a moral incongruence between sexual attitudes and sexual behaviors.

            > By medicalizing problematic porn use, people can avoid taking personal responsibility for sexual behaviors.

            • By poly2it 2025-11-2116:28

              Thank you, it's refreshing to see a medical take on an unquestioned thesis I see oft repeated even by intellectuals.

      • By sixtyj 2025-11-2113:03

        BBC Channel 4 did some documentary about porn and damage it does to young ones.

  • By pndy 2025-11-2111:325 reply

    Might be somehow related-ish; in Poland by rmf24.pl outlet:

    > On Friday, the Sejm (lower house) passed an amendment to the bill on the provision of electronic services, which allows for the blocking of illegal content on the internet. The new regulations anticipate that the president of UKE (Office of Electronic Communications) and KRRiT (National Broadcasting Council ) will be able to decide on the removal of content concerning 27 prohibited acts, mainly specified in the Penal Code. Prohibited acts include criminal threats, incitement to suicide, glorification of paedophilia, promotion of totalitarianism, incitement to hatred and content that infringes copyright.

    > Under the bill, the author of the disputed content will receive a notification from the internet service provider about the initiation of the procedure and will have two days to present their position. The decision of the UKE and KRRiT to remove the content will not be subject to appeal, but the author will be able to lodge an objection with a common court.

    > 237 MPs voted in favour of the bill, 200 were against, and five abstained. The bill will now be debated in the Senate.

    This happens four days after Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Affairs Krzysztof Gawkowski said that "Poland strongly opposes the introduction of mandatory scanning of private messages in instant messaging services.".

    ---

    I don't want to wear a tinfoil hat but considering that chat control is unlikely to work at EU level, local "solutions" like above in Germany and Poland may give legal way to include scanning instant messengers in the future.

    • By general1465 2025-11-2112:351 reply

      > I don't want to wear a tinfoil hat but considering that chat control is unlikely to work at EU level, local "solutions" like above in Germany and Poland may give legal way to include scanning instant messengers in the future.

      That's because lawmakers think it has no impact on them. In Czech Republic a transparency law has been passed many years ago. This law effectively said that cities needs to disclose suppliers and agreements for services they are purchasing, like trash collection. Sounds pretty innocent.

      It has turned out that politicians did not think that through because people found a lot of cities are buying services from companies which are owned by politicians who are also part of city council. Whoops, massive conflict of interests. So then politicians were clamping the law down until this got hidden under wraps again. All these Chat Controls, porn filters are going to have exactly same effect.

      • By HeavyStorm 2025-11-2114:451 reply

        Do they? You mention something that affects politicians negatively much more than affect civilians. Chat control will be negative for _all_ of us, mainly of innocents, while bad actors will switch to other means of communication that evades the law.

        • By general1465 2025-11-2119:571 reply

          Technically you can just setup a political party and then offer membership in the party for a yearly fee like 100EUR - every member will automatically become a politician and thus won't be allowed to be tracked because that's literal exception in the Chat Control. If government will want to track them, it will need to expand tracking to themselves too, which they definitely don't want to do.

          So now government is not allowed to track you and you can also make quite a lot of money out of this stupid law.

          • By port11 2025-11-2319:10

            If this is true, I'll owe you a beer. Or 50.

            But honestly, if it were that simple wouldn't they think of it? Say, "only applies to politicians with a seat in parliament"?

    • By adrian_b 2025-11-2111:534 reply

      Every time when I see how these censorship laws are pushed, I cannot understand how it is possible that anyone of those who vote for them can believe that such laws can achieve their stated goal of "protecting the innocent children".

      Actually I cannot believe that the voters, or at least most of them, are so stupid that they no longer remember what they were doing as children, so I can only assume that the real purpose of the laws is not the claimed purpose, but something much more sinister.

      I am male, so I do not know about what young girls think, so perhaps they are innocent and they might be protected by censorship, but I am certain that the "innocence" of young boys cannot be protected by such laws, even if they were technically successful.

      I have grown in a country occupied by communists, like Poland. There existed absolutely no pornography whatsoever. There were no erotic movies, no erotic books, no erotic magazines.

      So one might have believed that the "innocence" of young children was "protected", but such a belief was terribly wrong.

      Due to the lack of any other kind of entertainment, a favorite pass-time was telling jokes, many of which had a strong pornographic content. I have no idea which were the sources of the jokes, but there existed a huge number of them. Starting from the age of 10 years, it was very frequent among boys to tell such jokes or listen to them.

      The content of the jokes included pretty much everything that can be seen in a pornographic movie today and any young "innocent" boy was very familiar with such content, even if most did not understand the meaning of many parts of the content, for lack of explanatory images.

      Of course, no boy would admit in the presence of adults of being aware of such things, but I would have expected that someone being now adult would remember his lack of "innocence" when young and would understand how futile is to expect that "innocence" can be "protected" by technical censorship, when the only means that could ensure "innocence" would be to be locked permanently in a prison cell, to avoid contact with any other humans.

      • By xphos 2025-11-2119:30

        I think man and woman perfer different pornography, if you ever read the fiction of the month book its basically some kind of erotica but in a read format the tension is different. The primary consumer is usually woman. There is nothing wrong with that either.

        I think the issue with laws like these is that there is simply no way to actually enforce that everyone uses the "legal" OS for all activities. I think we probably infantalize children way to much these day and pretend 17 year olds need 0 interaction with sex because sex bad. But its not an honest look at life and is vulcanization of puritanism. I think being unable to talk about sex in mature way has left children totally unprepared to handle things like pornagraphy which exist.

        And I do understand its parental togglable setting but I think its childish to think children are not going to find ways around such things. People are sexually interested when they hit puberty which is 10-12 in girls and 12-14 in boys (roughly). Acting like they are not is stupid and plans for failure much like your describing but in a 100% uncontrolled unknown way

      • By flag_fagger 2025-11-2114:55

        I saw someone on this site yesterday directly and enthusiastically express support for mass dragnet government surveillance systems.

        We need to bring back institutionalization so people like that have somewhere their antisocial tendencies can be contained.

      • By anal_reactor 2025-11-2112:45

        > Actually I cannot believe that the voters, or at least most of them, are so stupid

        Yes, they are. If you are an educated, intelligent person, most likely you live in a bubble of similar individuals. Step outside of the bubble and you'll quickly realize that most people are actually profoundly retarded.

      • By Asooka 2025-11-2112:301 reply

        > Actually I cannot believe that the voters, or at least most of them, are so stupid

        The majority of USAians voted for Trump. It would be the height of hubris to think of our average voter as noticeably smarter than one from the USA.

    • By bko 2025-11-2111:47

      They already do this with social media regulations. This is the venue, not these adult content filters.

      The UK already arrests 33 people PER DAY for social media posts and that was in 2023.

      If we're going to throw people in jail for posting political memes anyway, at least parents will have some control over what their children consume.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1mut3gv/12k_arrests...

    • By IsTom 2025-11-2111:47

      Isn't this about web hosting? That ship sailed long ago.

    • By Lapsa 2025-11-2111:40

      tinfoil hat doesn't help against hearing microwave transmitted voices

  • By tardibear 2025-11-2111:041 reply

    > Manufacturers of operating systems, tech associations, and the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) sharply criticize the draft law. They consider the filtering requirement, in particular, to be technically and practically unfeasible, as well as legally questionable.

    • By vmaurin 2025-11-2111:562 reply

      * you add an HTTP header saying "I am a kid" * porn web servers read and handle this headers * if they don't (easy to test), they get fined

      It is easy to implement, easy to monitor, and will probably just work if the government do the effort to monitor and enforce it. If not, it will just be an other DNT header

      • By trallnag 2025-11-2112:301 reply

        What stops a kid from saying "I am an adult" via this header without some draconian client-side enforcement?

        • By Asooka 2025-11-2112:331 reply

          You add draconian client-side enforcement via parent controls. You can even mandate that stores ask for whom the device will be and provision it accordingly with the flag being automatically removed in the future when the person is of age.

          • By Hizonner 2025-11-2115:262 reply

            This cannot, of course, be achieved with open, hackable software on the client device. So you have to outlaw that.

            Sorry, no.

            • By Voultapher 2025-11-2115:44

              I don't think it'll need draconian enforcement, parental controls on iOS and Android can co-exist with Linux. Having the option to enable specific filters on a client side and requiring a pass-code or OS level permissions to change them seems like a realistic way to tackle this that doesn't end in dangerous government power concentration.

              As always with security, perfect is the enemy of good. A good set of hard to change - for children - client-side filters would do wonders in terms of real improvement. As much as I'm tired of the LLM hype, they might actually be a good fit for such tasks.

            • By Tadpole9181 2025-11-2116:41

              I don't even understand what you're getting at; as if RBAC is an alien concept? Do you think everyone should have root access to any machine they touch?

              It's the parent's computer and they have a right to put a password on the BIOS and a child lock on the system that forces these types of headers, with no available bypass for the child account. Or, if they do please, have the router filter any website outside of a whitelist without a password.

              We do worse for OpSec all the time?

      • By woodpanel 2025-11-2122:25

        Exactly. I'd even go one step further: If it takes access to Pr0n for kids to become really sophisticated in tech, how is this not a win too?

HackerNews