This case just perfectly proves why this is such a flawed idea. 20 years ago, kids could just go to your elementary school library and read any entry in the encyclopedia. You didn’t have to prove...
This case just perfectly proves why this is such a flawed idea. 20 years ago, kids could just go to your elementary school library and read any entry in the encyclopedia. You didn’t have to prove to the librarian that I was over 18 and had access to all the same information.
Wikipedia is not an adult content site like Pornhub or even something like Facebook, which can have a lot of adult content. I can (theoretically) understand wanting to limit that to people of a certain age.
If anything, you’d want kids learning about adult things from Wikipedia, where they give you context.
But keeping kids safe not the point of these bills, so lawmakers don't care.
the hypothetical ban wouldn't be because of 'adult content'! It's about "verify[ing] the identity of its contributors" (which is also bad, for different reasons)
the hypothetical ban wouldn't be because of 'adult content'! It's about "verify[ing] the identity of its contributors" (which is also bad, for different reasons)
Can any Brits out there explain to me why the UK is so hot for a surveillance state? You guys were way ahead of the curve on CCTV, and it seems like whenever I hear of some boneheaded scheme to...
Can any Brits out there explain to me why the UK is so hot for a surveillance state? You guys were way ahead of the curve on CCTV, and it seems like whenever I hear of some boneheaded scheme to de-anonymize the universe, it either comes from some US-based security lobby ghouls or Lord Torygobble Fuckwit XII in the UK House of Lords.
I'd understand it better if you were still getting high on your own imperial farts and hadn't had multiple literary genius native sons who explicitly told you how bad an idea it is to let government monitor your every waking moment. Like, I understand why the American oligarchs are dumb enough to champion this nonsense; lots of them probably think George Orwell was the dude who made the microwave popcorn. You folks already had your humbling though. I expect a bit more sense out of y'all.
No. No I can’t. Really? Because you’re talking about a voting majority who thought brexit was a good idea, watched that whole shitshow play out, complained about all the face eating leopards...
Can any Brits out there explain to me why the UK is so hot for a surveillance state?
No. No I can’t.
I expect a bit more sense out of y'all.
Really? Because you’re talking about a voting majority who thought brexit was a good idea, watched that whole shitshow play out, complained about all the face eating leopards they’re suddenly being attacked by, and for some insane reason are now gearing up to make the main grifter behind it all our very own Trump in a few years time.
This is evidently not a group of people who can learn from a very clear, very obvious mistake - I think expecting an understanding of Orwell is sadly a stretch.
I mean, I see it in America too; the administration is so hot for it and it's outlined in 2025 to try and ban pornography. They just happen to also want to lump LGBT content with that label. Some...
I mean, I see it in America too; the administration is so hot for it and it's outlined in 2025 to try and ban pornography. They just happen to also want to lump LGBT content with that label. Some states are already making similar moves.
But this was also something that people from the 18th century saw coming and encoded into the rules of the land, precisely to prevent this surveillance state. And getting 2/3rds of everyone in all walks of life to agree on overturning that is still no easy feat to this day, regardless of propoganda.
It's not very much like a name a member of the HoL would actually have. By rights he should be "Sir Reginald Fuckwit, Twelfth Earl of Torygobble," but I was trying to make a point and the sentence...
It's not very much like a name a member of the HoL would actually have. By rights he should be "Sir Reginald Fuckwit, Twelfth Earl of Torygobble," but I was trying to make a point and the sentence was already getting unwieldy.
Specifically on OSA, it seems that for a very long time people in this country have believed that when a child accesses something they shouldn’t on the internet, it is not the fault of their...
Specifically on OSA, it seems that for a very long time people in this country have believed that when a child accesses something they shouldn’t on the internet, it is not the fault of their parents, but rather of the internet in general, or the state for failing to regulate it. OSA is the natural conclusion of this line of reasoning.
Not a Brit, but Britain (and derivative societies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) have always had a paternalistic, communal conservative streak. It’s probably the United States (and maybe...
I don't think this has anything to do with surveillance. It doesn't really help the UK government surveil on anyone. If anything, it helps other countries surveil on UK citizens.
I don't think this has anything to do with surveillance. It doesn't really help the UK government surveil on anyone. If anything, it helps other countries surveil on UK citizens.
OSA is clearly absurd and I expect we will see it fall eventually, but I think that will take a scandal - involving data used for user verification being leaked or stolen, or similar - for the...
OSA is clearly absurd and I expect we will see it fall eventually, but I think that will take a scandal - involving data used for user verification being leaked or stolen, or similar - for the government to actually be forced to reckon with the utter ridiculousness of it. Until then we will just have to suffer.
I wouldn't count on that. The absurdity is by design. They want to ban any content they see as unsavory, but "free speech" gets in the way. So instead, they make distributing unsavory content over...
I wouldn't count on that. The absurdity is by design. They want to ban any content they see as unsavory, but "free speech" gets in the way. So instead, they make distributing unsavory content over the internet so burdensome and risky that it becomes nonviable.
They start with pornography, because everyone agrees kids shouldn't have access to porn. But then it expands. Suddenly non-explicit content with LGBTQ+ themes gets affected. We're seeing that happen at itch.io as they purge their libraries of anything that might upset the payment processors.
I totally agree with you, I just think that the implementation of age checks for OSA is so impossible and dangerous in terms of random third party companies getting access to sensitive personal...
I totally agree with you, I just think that the implementation of age checks for OSA is so impossible and dangerous in terms of random third party companies getting access to sensitive personal information that that aspect of the law will become untenable.
I think it's 100% possible if we overhaul Government ids and build them on public key cryptography. This would allow people to cryptographically sign documents with their private key, attesting to...
I think it's 100% possible if we overhaul Government ids and build them on public key cryptography. This would allow people to cryptographically sign documents with their private key, attesting to things like "I am of legal age" without disclosing any additional information.
At least in the US, the people pushing these kinds of laws are also vehemently opposed to such a system, so we are stuck with grotesquely insecure social security cards.
If by some miracle we ended up with a proper privacy preserving and trustworthy government provided service for attesting age and similar personal information, then I would feel a lot less...
If by some miracle we ended up with a proper privacy preserving and trustworthy government provided service for attesting age and similar personal information, then I would feel a lot less negative about OSA.
It’s deeply frustrating knowing that these problems can be solved in robust, secure and private ways, but that the we choose not to do so.
supported by ~70% of people in the UK, even though only ~25% think they'll be effective. It'll take a big shock (maybe multiple) to shift public opinion...
Exemplary
clearly absurd
supported by ~70% of people in the UK, even though only ~25% think they'll be effective. It'll take a big shock (maybe multiple) to shift public opinion
Oh fucking hell I forgot about this one. 25% of people who think it’ll work, fine, they’re misinformed - I can understand that, it was a fairly niche issue outside tech circles, I’ll happily...
Oh fucking hell I forgot about this one.
25% of people who think it’ll work, fine, they’re misinformed - I can understand that, it was a fairly niche issue outside tech circles, I’ll happily believe a quarter of the country doesn’t know what a VPN is.
Half of the fucking country just like “yeah, do the pointless thing even though I know it’s pointless”. What? Why? What on earth is the thinking you’re trying to apply there? This isn’t a question of knowledge or even correctness, there are no external dependencies after the first question is answered. It’s the most basic logic test possible and you all just failed.
What's more notable is that the latest data came after Zia Yusuf, Reform UK's head of DOGE (yes, they're copying Elon Musk), tweeted this out in response to the OSA being used as a reason to...
What's more notable is that the latest data came after Zia Yusuf, Reform UK's head of DOGE (yes, they're copying Elon Musk), tweeted this out in response to the OSA being used as a reason to censor UK asylum hotel protest coverage on X:
Britain is now a country which you can enter illegally without ID, but need photo ID to watch a protest against people entering without ID.
I wonder how much public opinion will shift when Spotify, Xbox, YouTube, and pretty much every other social media platform follow suit and introduce mandatory age verification checks just to use their services.
It was never about safeguarding children from online pornography. The fact that they are pushing this shitty legislation upon platforms that do not allow pornographic content at all shows that this is all some push towards mass surveillance, censorship and corporate data harvesting.
Well, yes. People support it because they think it will make them/their children safer. A big data leak would show that OSA actually made them less safe. Then people would no longer support it.
Well, yes. People support it because they think it will make them/their children safer. A big data leak would show that OSA actually made them less safe. Then people would no longer support it.
I think the most interesting thing in the judgement is that wikipedia claims this violates human rights law and so could take it to the ECHR. It'll be interesting to see how populist labour are...
I think the most interesting thing in the judgement is that wikipedia claims this violates human rights law and so could take it to the ECHR. It'll be interesting to see how populist labour are willing to be, i.e. will they try and get some sort of exemption or even leave the ECHR? I really hope not.
Unfortunately, Labour have been trying to pander so much to right-wing populists lately that I think Starmer genuinely would try to drag Britain out of the ECHR if it avoided a Reform UK landslide...
Unfortunately, Labour have been trying to pander so much to right-wing populists lately that I think Starmer genuinely would try to drag Britain out of the ECHR if it avoided a Reform UK landslide in the next election.
Exactly! Not only is Starmer legitimising their talking points rather than calling them out for the bullshit they are, he’s acting as if there were some logical plan and course of action behind...
Exactly! Not only is Starmer legitimising their talking points rather than calling them out for the bullshit they are, he’s acting as if there were some logical plan and course of action behind the empty rhetoric that he can take before they get to it.
This case just perfectly proves why this is such a flawed idea. 20 years ago, kids could just go to your elementary school library and read any entry in the encyclopedia. You didn’t have to prove to the librarian that I was over 18 and had access to all the same information.
Wikipedia is not an adult content site like Pornhub or even something like Facebook, which can have a lot of adult content. I can (theoretically) understand wanting to limit that to people of a certain age.
If anything, you’d want kids learning about adult things from Wikipedia, where they give you context.
But keeping kids safe not the point of these bills, so lawmakers don't care.
the hypothetical ban wouldn't be because of 'adult content'! It's about "verify[ing] the identity of its contributors" (which is also bad, for different reasons)
Can any Brits out there explain to me why the UK is so hot for a surveillance state? You guys were way ahead of the curve on CCTV, and it seems like whenever I hear of some boneheaded scheme to de-anonymize the universe, it either comes from some US-based security lobby ghouls or Lord Torygobble Fuckwit XII in the UK House of Lords.
I'd understand it better if you were still getting high on your own imperial farts and hadn't had multiple literary genius native sons who explicitly told you how bad an idea it is to let government monitor your every waking moment. Like, I understand why the American oligarchs are dumb enough to champion this nonsense; lots of them probably think George Orwell was the dude who made the microwave popcorn. You folks already had your humbling though. I expect a bit more sense out of y'all.
No. No I can’t.
Really? Because you’re talking about a voting majority who thought brexit was a good idea, watched that whole shitshow play out, complained about all the face eating leopards they’re suddenly being attacked by, and for some insane reason are now gearing up to make the main grifter behind it all our very own Trump in a few years time.
This is evidently not a group of people who can learn from a very clear, very obvious mistake - I think expecting an understanding of Orwell is sadly a stretch.
Ok, let's say "I would've expected more sense out of y'all 15 years ago."
I mean, I see it in America too; the administration is so hot for it and it's outlined in 2025 to try and ban pornography. They just happen to also want to lump LGBT content with that label. Some states are already making similar moves.
But this was also something that people from the 18th century saw coming and encoded into the rules of the land, precisely to prevent this surveillance state. And getting 2/3rds of everyone in all walks of life to agree on overturning that is still no easy feat to this day, regardless of propoganda.
This is my new favorite thing.
It's not very much like a name a member of the HoL would actually have. By rights he should be "Sir Reginald Fuckwit, Twelfth Earl of Torygobble," but I was trying to make a point and the sentence was already getting unwieldy.
Specifically on OSA, it seems that for a very long time people in this country have believed that when a child accesses something they shouldn’t on the internet, it is not the fault of their parents, but rather of the internet in general, or the state for failing to regulate it. OSA is the natural conclusion of this line of reasoning.
Not a Brit, but Britain (and derivative societies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) have always had a paternalistic, communal conservative streak. It’s probably the United States (and maybe parts of Latin America and the Philippines) that is the aberration, due to the strong tendencies toward individualism.
I don't think this has anything to do with surveillance. It doesn't really help the UK government surveil on anyone. If anything, it helps other countries surveil on UK citizens.
OSA is clearly absurd and I expect we will see it fall eventually, but I think that will take a scandal - involving data used for user verification being leaked or stolen, or similar - for the government to actually be forced to reckon with the utter ridiculousness of it. Until then we will just have to suffer.
I wouldn't count on that. The absurdity is by design. They want to ban any content they see as unsavory, but "free speech" gets in the way. So instead, they make distributing unsavory content over the internet so burdensome and risky that it becomes nonviable.
They start with pornography, because everyone agrees kids shouldn't have access to porn. But then it expands. Suddenly non-explicit content with LGBTQ+ themes gets affected. We're seeing that happen at itch.io as they purge their libraries of anything that might upset the payment processors.
I totally agree with you, I just think that the implementation of age checks for OSA is so impossible and dangerous in terms of random third party companies getting access to sensitive personal information that that aspect of the law will become untenable.
I think it's 100% possible if we overhaul Government ids and build them on public key cryptography. This would allow people to cryptographically sign documents with their private key, attesting to things like "I am of legal age" without disclosing any additional information.
At least in the US, the people pushing these kinds of laws are also vehemently opposed to such a system, so we are stuck with grotesquely insecure social security cards.
If by some miracle we ended up with a proper privacy preserving and trustworthy government provided service for attesting age and similar personal information, then I would feel a lot less negative about OSA.
It’s deeply frustrating knowing that these problems can be solved in robust, secure and private ways, but that the we choose not to do so.
supported by ~70% of people in the UK, even though only ~25% think they'll be effective. It'll take a big shock (maybe multiple) to shift public opinion
https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-britons-reacted-to-age-verification
Oh fucking hell I forgot about this one.
25% of people who think it’ll work, fine, they’re misinformed - I can understand that, it was a fairly niche issue outside tech circles, I’ll happily believe a quarter of the country doesn’t know what a VPN is.
Half of the fucking country just like “yeah, do the pointless thing even though I know it’s pointless”. What? Why? What on earth is the thinking you’re trying to apply there? This isn’t a question of knowledge or even correctness, there are no external dependencies after the first question is answered. It’s the most basic logic test possible and you all just failed.
To quote Yes Minister: Something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done.
What's more notable is that the latest data came after Zia Yusuf, Reform UK's head of DOGE (yes, they're copying Elon Musk), tweeted this out in response to the OSA being used as a reason to censor UK asylum hotel protest coverage on X:
And came after Nigel Farage vowed to repeal the OSA, to which Labour politicians Peter Kyle and Jess Philipps branded him a paedophile.
I wonder how much public opinion will shift when Spotify, Xbox, YouTube, and pretty much every other social media platform follow suit and introduce mandatory age verification checks just to use their services.
It was never about safeguarding children from online pornography. The fact that they are pushing this shitty legislation upon platforms that do not allow pornographic content at all shows that this is all some push towards mass surveillance, censorship and corporate data harvesting.
This seems extra stupid because doesn't the UK usually have "ministries" not "departments"?
Well but an agency called MOGE would sound dumb.
:)
Maybe they should follow in Musk’s “unfunny old memes” footsteps and call it the General Office To Ensure Efficient Management
Well, yes. People support it because they think it will make them/their children safer. A big data leak would show that OSA actually made them less safe. Then people would no longer support it.
I think the most interesting thing in the judgement is that wikipedia claims this violates human rights law and so could take it to the ECHR. It'll be interesting to see how populist labour are willing to be, i.e. will they try and get some sort of exemption or even leave the ECHR? I really hope not.
Unfortunately, Labour have been trying to pander so much to right-wing populists lately that I think Starmer genuinely would try to drag Britain out of the ECHR if it avoided a Reform UK landslide in the next election.
Which it wouldn’t, because like so much of his right wing pandering it’s effectively saying “Reform are right. Don’t vote for them”.
Plus, populists like Reform are like a dog chasing an ice cream van.
Exactly! Not only is Starmer legitimising their talking points rather than calling them out for the bullshit they are, he’s acting as if there were some logical plan and course of action behind the empty rhetoric that he can take before they get to it.
Nightmare