54
votes
imgur.com geoblocks the UK
Imgur appears to have geoblocked the UK. This is likely in response to the stupid Online Safety Act (brought in by the previous Conservative government) which requires age verification for "adult" content - not just porn, it's a bunch of other poorly defined other stuff too.
My guess, based on very little information because imgur don't appear to have said anything much officially at this point, is they've had a letter from Ofcom (UK telecoms standards agency) and decided an IP ban is easier than compliance and I totally understand their decision. But urgh.
I didn't have much stuff on there and it's all backed up but still. Annoying.
That's unfortunate. I'm not in the UK, but as an outsider this is the response I've been personally wishing was more common. The closer the Internet feels to unusable under the OSA the more pressure there would be to get rid if it.
To give a larger example that I think could have huge effect: a statement from Apple like "We believe in the privacy of our users and it is not possible to maintain our high privacy and security expectations under [insert various UK big brother laws]. Effective [date] we sadly will no longer service the UK." feels to me like it would induce a panicked forced rollback as millions and millions get immediately pissed at their legislators about their soon-to-be-broken iPhones.
I agree, I feel like these kinds of responses are the kind that actually enact some decent pressure due to how it impacts everyone, including some of those making the decisions about these laws- and if not them, if the services are widely-used enough, it builds pressure from the general public too
It makes the effects of such legislation very tangible
Absolutely. Additional to that, it's a lot easier for someone to write to their MP and complain that their photo/meme hosting site has vanished than do the same about their favourite porn site.
Great point- it helps reframe the conversation outside of just the stigmatized things it impacts. Sadly I feel like porn/etc is purposely used as a way to try to reduce/deflect complaints about these kinds of laws because they know for a fact less people will be inclined to loudly defend them.
The stigma around such things should be fought, of course, but especially for OSA in particular, the broadness of its application is one of the massive problems with it and it deserves to be criticized and complained about on its own dystopian terms
...typing from a cartoonishly-red state, i celebrate every time i see our regressive laws countered with overt geoblocking: the effects of legislative overreach must be brazenly transparent in order to foster civil policy...
I own an iPhone and I fully support this. I currently live in the UK and the OSA is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
Can't wait to move back to mainland Europe next year.
The British generally support the OSA. This is despite a very small minority thinking it will be effective, so its not like there's some misconception that it is actually helping. British people just support the legislation anyway.
Waiting for the British public to get outraged about this and demand change is just wishful thinking.
It is possible you're right, but I suspect the general populace doesn't really know what it is beyond that it claims to protect children. It's easy to get people to agree with "we should protect children" when you focus on that over what the legislation actually is. Legislation branded under "think of the children" is quite effective specifically because it is difficult to publicly oppose no matter how problematic the details within actually are.
I think the average person tends to just not care until they have to, like if services they care about stop working. Pushback like Apple claiming that some legislation is invasive enough to conflict with their stance on user privacy would, at least in my mind, make many more people seriously question what's really in there.
It feels somewhat similar to the Patriot Act in the US to me. Of course people would say they supported legislation labeled as antiterrorist after 9/11 regardless of having any idea of what it contained in practice. Optics are not great on publicly opposing antiterrorism and they're similarly terrible on opposing child abuse protections, and that's sadly the case even at times that those labels aren't even accurate.
nope, specifically age verification when polled after implementation rolled out, has ~70% support https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-britons-reacted-to-age-verification
That's the same issue. They're told it'll protect children, even though as your link states few think it will, and few people think about what it entails or are willing to publicly oppose a "protect the children" act.
Based on the numbers from that page a majority of those polled think it won't even solve the problem. Assuming I'm reading the numbers right, at least 33% of respondents in support also said it would be ineffective. Why would so many people support something they don't think will work? It being potentially damaging to say they oppose it paired with not really understanding the wide-reaching effects explains that gap far better than the idea that people want to give up privacy for something that they don't even think will be effective.
The government flat out called people paedophiles if they express doubt over their wonderful Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kyle
Kind of chills discourse and steers the general public really.
are.....are they stupid or something?
"We don't think this will work, and it will cause a lot of problems. Let's do it anyways!"
https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-britons-reacted-to-age-verification?utm_source=website_article&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=52693
Bro I don't know. But at least 45% of the population will say they think the OSA is ineffective and then says they support it anyway, assuming that literally everyone who thinks it is effective also supports it.
This law is probably going to stick around for a while, and I wouldn't be surprised if the EU tries to copy it.
Just to clear any misconceptions up - this isn't due to the recently introduced OSA but instead is due to a previous investigation by the ICO into Imgur and how it "uses children’s information and its approach to age assurance"
Here is more info
(Not that this makes it any better)
That weasel statement from the ICO is offering clarity in no meaningful way.
You can use rimgo to access imgur content, similar to nitter for twitter. I'm not sure what the best alternative is for uploading your own files, image hosts tend to come and go or enshittify.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills whenever I think about this. Why isn't there a browser user agent flag that either lists that the user prefers not to view adult content or showing adult content to this user may violate local laws and then it's up to guardians of said users to ensure that the protections are enabled. Feel like this would be a slam dunk think of the children setting that could be implemented at the OS level on phones or desktop that major browser would be keen to support. Literally no databases of users PII, 3rd party services, or AI face scanners required. This situation is so pants on head I'm worried they tightened the belt and are in danger of asphyxiation.
Probably because this is only nominally about protecting the kids. All this is pretext to mass surveillance and consolidation of control, which a browser header wouldn't accomplish.
Surveillance state aside, that would require parents to take on all the burden. The reason these laws have popular appeal is because they externalize (a small bit of) the social burden of child-rearing away from the parents. Given such a large portion of society either are parents, were parents, or are sympathetic to parents (of minors), and the popular idea that raising children is overly burdensome and constantly getting harder (due in part to cultural trends of infantilization), anything that can allow parents not to deal with the mental overhead and real labor of navigating modern technology/security while still keeping their children "safe" is going to be popular. The long-term effects of such legislation on the internet as a whole is in contrast a very abstract, nebulous concept and further removed from the day-to-day of the average person.
While in theory it's a matter of a checkbox, that presupposes you have a proper admin/user setting on computers, have their phones locked down, keep the credentials secure, have awareness of the various ways to work around it (like a browser extension to add the header), know how to allow them limited access to the things they legitimately need, and regularly check to make sure they haven't done something sneaky like bought a cheap burner or reset it.
This is important to get out there! I've seen people blame Labour for this since they are currently in charge, unaware that laws often take years to go into effect.
If only there was a way they could have stopped it. Labour thought the policy didn't go far enough, they're just as complicit in this as the Tories.
Excellent point! Vote Reform!
(Actually don't vote Reform. They suck even more than the Tories who suck even more than Labour.)
Well the question does arise doesn't it. I don't know how acceptable UK politics is hereabouts, both sitewise and postwise, and threadwise, but...
I have been a long time supporter of Labour, since forever really. Came from a mining family. Member of a trade union. Strong sense of worker empowerment. You know, traditional labour values.
Next time though? I really don't think they represent me any more (I'm sure they don't actually). But Reform aren't the answer. I really don't know where to go next. I'm leaning Green but they have some bits of problematic policy. They may be the lesser of two weevils though.
Everyone has some amount of problematic policies - some far more than others though! I'm one payday away from joining the Green party. Polanski is saying a lot of the right things and going up against the massive (and likely at least partly illegal) amount of money Reform have, they'll need my handful of pounds to make any kind of difference. They do seem to be broadly against the OSA as it stands now, although they do (like every party) seem to want some kind of legislation about who can see/do what online. Which I'm not sure is an entirely bad thing per se - the devil is always in the details though.
However, I do feel like doing nothing and just hoping things will be OK is no longer an option. Active - aka financial, largely - involvement is the only way we're going to avoid having Farage in No.10 in a few years time. A well-funded Green party who aren't afraid to say the things Labour and the Lib Dems won't - obvious things like "hey Reform are sounding pretty racist" and "perhaps let's not continue providing weapons to Zionists" and "maybe let's not keep putting shit into the rivers" - I think can provide some much-needed balance.
Labour is now a neoliberal party. Maybe you should get a new liberal socialist party? Maybe support YourParty + Greens?
What's your opinion on Your Party, especially with the drama going on with them?
I feel my current party doesn't represent me at all now, I don't recognise them. Hence the need for change from me personally. I'm probably going to go green. I've been vegan for over twenty years of my 50+ , but labour always seemed to be covering more of my bases than did the greens. That's swung the other way now I think.
Edit: wait! Your Party, not My Party. Got it. Read right past that.
I liked Jezza's domestic and social agenda. I could jive with that. His foreign policy was too batshit to even consider though. Dangerous even. At least from what I remember at the time, I've not paid much attention to what Your Party are doing now, I'm waiting for them to settle a bit before digesting their position.
You mean NATO and nuclear weapons?
Yeah, disarmament makes sense in that I too would personally never choose to push that button with a civilian target. On the other hand, nuking approaching Russian fleet seems like a no-brainer.
As for the NATO, it's mostly just US. Have you seen US lately? We should be building EU defense pact right now. Not giving in to the protection racket.
So yeah, he's not considering wider regional stability, only direct impacts on labour. That sucks.
I'm starting to wish I worked at a VPN provider. Business must be booming these days.
Yeah except Imgur blocks at least some VPNs (i’m on mullvad) and doesn’t tell you why (it gives a vague technical reason).
I despise how some websites out there like imgur and reddit (unless you're signed into an account*) block VPNs, like... A lot of us use VPNs not out of malice but out of necessity, yet these websites contribute to the enshittification of the internet by blocking our VPNs.
I'm on Mullvad as well, best VPN.
Edit: corrected info re: reddit
Reddit only blocks VPNs for unauthenticated access to the site. You can create a Reddit account whilst using a VPN and then log in.
Yes you're right in that it only blocks for unauthenticated access, I misremembered
Though they banned my latest account and I can't be bothered with making a new one, so I just got to VPN hop until I find a server that isn't blocked
The whole thing is so poorly implemented is my biggest frustration. Completely ineffectual at its stated purpose (because...you know...VPNs), only adds frustration to general use because of an insanely broad policy definition. Overall poor policy. It's not even good for the suspected reason of increasing state surveillance because the government itself doesn't store most of the data. It's just a stupid way to lose political capital for basically 0 gain, and I'm really surprised the government hasn't U-turned on it yet.
I don't get why people thought it was about surveillance. A government doesn't need to announce an elaborate cover scheme for doing digital surveillance they can just... do it. Like, y'know, they have been caught doing via Snowdon et al, and that they are almost certainly still doing today but somewhat more covertly. GCHQ doesn't have absolutely vast data processing facilities for funsies.
Same goes for "it's about control" because it's clearly not that. The state has more and better existing mechanisms which could be turned to that purpose, should they want that - although I don't believe they do. The whole thing was just done so stupidly that it appears malicious.
I do think the OSA was genuinely well-intentioned, and it's existence is making a lot of people feel better about the big scary internet even though it's basically useless, but those people are Old and Old People VOTE. If the under 35s turned out to vote in anything like the numbers the over 60s do, the political landscape would be a lot different.
Just as an aside, when my kid is capable enough to bypass the access controls I have in place - because as a parent it's my fucking job to look out for them online - then they're mature enough to deal with what they can find behind those walls. Also at that point they're going to have to sit through a painfully embarrassing conversation about porn vs reality with me, which may be the worst consequence of all (for the both of us).
I definitely agree with both of your points.
Though I don't agree that the OSA was well-intentioned. I believe it was deliberately devised to regress social boundaries by inventing or reinforcing social limits around sexuality and sexual expression that did not previously exist or were in the process of being eroded. See also the extremely wide-ranging definition of "production of extreme pornography" to include of all things fisting and face-sitting (though restricting the appearance of things like choking was a good thing). It's a very socially conservative view of the country, and not one that actually bears much relevance to society as a whole. Of course none of this was a cabal sitting there going "how can we get rid of these deviants?", it was much more a "I don't understand this and I don't think anyone should want to". Precisely the same drive that gave rise to section 28.
I also do agree that the young should vote and should vote hard. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Also also were I to have kids, that is exactly the rules I've always had in my head: if they are technically minded enough to get around basic parental controls, they're mature enough to have a conversation about the world beyond.
Is it? I think those are still fairly taboo in the UK, and were undoubtably taboo say 20 years ago.
This is also not new, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiovisual_Media_Services_Regulations_2014