I don’t understand how this is a controversial opinion, but maybe parents should actually parent their children instead of expecting the Internet or the government to decide what their kids should see for them? Maybe talk to your kid about safe and ethical sex, the dangers of porn addiction, and not to take anything away from pornographic content instead? Maybe we shouldn’t be giving children smartphones and tablets with unfettered internet access in the first place instead of spending time with them? Wild concepts I know.
because these laws aren’t about protecting children they’re about elimination of access to things the government doesn’t like… like queer spaces
This, right here. It’s like Nixon’s “war on drugs” that went on, and on, and on… The goal was not drugs, per-se, but to use drugs as a pretense to police people of color.
And giving them sweeping ability to track everybody via their identity papers, to see what websites and services they’re using, what all their online identities are, etc.
They claim the info isn’t being saved or passed on to the government to form a big surveillance database to one day use against people - sure, it’s legal to, say, be gay or a socialist or of a particular religion today, but societies and regimes change, and the info they collect on you today may become ammunition against you in 10, 20, 40 years time.
But I don’t for a moment believe their obvious lies.
This is nothing but authoritarian police state monitoring and control. It’s extremely obvious. Yet, who are we to vote for in the next election? Not Labour, thanks to this (and a few other big reasons perhaps), not the Tories because, well, you’ve seen what they’re like.
It’s not impossible for a third party to be elected of course, not as impossible as places like the USA that have a very worryingly solidified two party system, it’s just very unlikely.
Knowing the British people and their seeming apathy and poor judgement at scale these days I wouldn’t be surprised if they elect the racist bigots at Reform - who ironically would be even more authoritarian and evil than what we have now.
As usual, there’s no hope for the future and no possibility of good outcomes.
Humanity is doomed to repeat it’s failures for all of history again and again, and we’re just along for the miserable ride.
Don’t give your children unrestricted acces to a smartphone until they’ve proven they can use it wisely. No smartphone before age twelve. Limited use until age 15. And ffs. Ban smartphones at school.
Teach your kids about the internet. It’s part of sexual education.
And don’t leave it up to private companies to identify me and collect sensitive data on me. Fuck that. If you really want age verification. Deliver the framework.
completely agree, if kids want a phone at school they can get a dumbphone
I’ve been saying this a couple places recently, but why not pass legislation requiring every site to provide a content rating. Then parents can choose if they want to restrict content by ratings or not. Yeah, you could have malicious actors, but it makes it easier and simpler for everyone to work than having ID laws.
But that would actually solve the problem and not enable massive government overreach. We can’t have that.
I imagine it would work about as well as YouTube Kids would.
Which is to say not at all
My 5 year old son does have access to an android tablet, but i restrict, selectively, what he can do on it and time limit his usage so it locks down after a few hours. I curate his youtube and frequently spend time watching kids content to decide if i want him watching it. If its good and educational i will share it to his kids youtube account. He cant browse the web, he cant buy things on the play stores. He has to get me to approve any app install and i will always install first and play to ensure it safe.
Its hard work, but its worth it to protect him online. And this has lead to it just being another one of his toys, it doesnt absorb his whole existence. He can take it or leave it. Which i am chuffed about.
When he is older and i can help him understand for himself how to be safe, i will help him however i can. Rather than restric, i will help him understand what the internet is, the good the bad and the ugly.
It’s yet another step in seeing the Internet becoming owned by big corporations. Only big corporations can implement these things.
Art, creativity, people doing internet things as a hobby, that is dying more and more everyday.
I miss the 90s internet :(
I tried gemini protocol for a bit to see if it did a decent job addressing this, but it doesn’t. We do legit need a ‘smallweb’ non-commercial sort of thing, but I suspect retreating to a BBS model is probably what is required.
Me too, so much!
A big reason why I’ve come to like Lemmy communities so much is really because they give me some old internet feeling. It’s not super crowded, it’s an app that isn’t design for brain rot, it allows interesting online discussion etc.
I think projects like this can continue to exist, even in a bleak corporate owned internet.
Yeah, it’s a lot of admin for most small providers to be bothered with. Less of a hit to just block the whole UK.
Which is why big tech is actively lobbying for these laws because they know that they will be the only ones who can comply and therefore exist.
Part of me wants every website to do this. The UK just gets blocked from majority of the internet then people in the UK can get angry and rebel.
There’s a UK Parliament petition to repeal the Online Safety act. There’s no guarantee it’ll do anything but might be worth a try for anyone in the UK.
Don’t forget to write to your MP - being polite but angry helps. Explain the issues, shortcomings and why you feel this should be repealed and a better user-friendly and privacy respecting alternative needs to be found BEFORE implementing stupid asinine knee-jerk legislation like this.
My poor MP is getting it in the jugular because they boasted about working in data security and I’m exploiting the hell out of that statement so they can’t easily weasel their way out of it.
This is the second time in my life that Labour have gained power after a long Conservative tenure, only to dive straight into enacting policies that were more right-wing than their predecessors.
if i had a nickel for everytime a labour government came into power after a prolonged tory government and immediately started governing further right id have two nickels which isn’t a lot but it’s weird it happened twice in a row
It’s less of a left - right thing (that’s mainly economics). It paternalism Vs liberty thing. Labour have always had a very strong “we must protect the populace” theme to their policies. Conservatives have it too, but they want to do it in a different way.
Sadly it’s a really difficult thing to stand against. Who wants to be labelled the person enabling paedophiles, when all you want is the right to private communication.
Paternalism vs liberty. Tell me more. I haven’t heard of this comparison before.
The full spectrum is really more like “authoritarian vs libertarian”. Political policy should really be split into two different spectrums. On one spectrum, you have financial policy. On the other, you have social policy. The two normally get lumped together because politicians campaign on both simultaneously. But in reality, they’re two separate policies. So the political spectrum should look less like a single left/right line, and more like an X/Y graph with individual points for each person’s ideology. Something more like this:
On this graph, as you go farther left, the government has more ownership and provides more, (and individuals own less because the government provides more for their needs). As you go farther up the chart, social policy gets more authoritarian. So for example, something on the far right bottom corner would be the Cyberpunk 2077/The Outer Worlds end-stage capitalist where megacorps inevitably own everything and have their own private laws.
Once you separate the two policies into a graph (instead of just a left/right line) it becomes clear why “small government” doesn’t necessarily correspond to “fewer laws” when dealing with politicians.
To be honest I don’t think much of this is about catching or preventing paedos, and is just straight up authoritarianism.
Meme photo of two astronauts in space, one holding a gun to back of the other’s head. It is overlayed with the text “Always has been.”
You’re right. It’s not, but that’s what you’re labelled when you stand against it.
Don’t get me wrong, but why are matters of governmental surveillance and control inherently “right-wing” rather than a totalitarian policy not otherwise directly connected to wing politics? Extremists on both sides have a history of creating totalitarian, Big Brother states (which the UK is certainly headed towards).
Big Brother states (which the UK is certainly headed towards)
When the Snowden Revelations came out, the UK had even more civil society surveillance than the US.
As a consequence of those revelations, in the US some of the surveillance was walked back, whilst in the UK the Government just passed a law that retroactively made the whole thing legal, issued a bunch of D-Notices (the UK system of Press Censorship) to shut up the Press, got the Editor of the newspaper that brought it out in the UK (The Guardian) kicked out, and the Press there never talked about it again.
Also, let’s not forget the UK has the biggest number of surveillance cameras per-capita in the World.
Oh, and they have a special and separate Surveillance Tribunal (the Investigatory Powers Tribunal) were the lawyers for the side other than the State are not allowed to be present in certain sessions, see certain evidence or even get informed of the final judgement unless their side wins.
They easily have the most extreme regime of Civil Society Surveillance in Europe, and in the World are probably second only to the likes of North Korea and China.
Britain is well beyond merely “headed towards” Big Brother and has been for at least a decade.
Illusion of choice.
Perfect response. This gets the message across, “governments of the world, the Internet doesn’t need you, you need the Internet”.
Oh no, what ever will I, resident of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, do.
Boots up Tor.
hand wringing over objectionable video games is why queer artists are now having their platforms removed. if you dont want to see certain kinds of fictional porn, then either avoid the website it is hosted on, or make an account and edit your blacklist. also, if youre worried about your children having access to gay yiff, then restrict their access
This is sadly the way to handle it, users of these places need to learn how to vpn instead of giving their private information for age verification online.
VPNs aren’t going to be a practical solution going forward. You are creating dependancies that governments can target, spying on traffic and enforcing censorship for these relays is something any country can and likely will implement at some point. The clearnet is dying because the evangelicals are killing it.
That’s what everyone should be doing.
Respect.
Fuck off with your device based verification system. That’s just the same service, but as a more invasive app installed on your phone.
Instead of scanning a face or ID and uploading it to a service, we’re expected to run unverified closed source code on the device we carry everywhere in our pockets?!
To be fair, this already applies to any baseband blob.
Fuck off with your device based verification system. That’s just the same service, but as a more invasive app installed on your phone.
not necessarily. you give a phone to your children. you partly lock it down by setting it up as a child account, with its age. you make sure to install a web browser that supports limiting access to age appropriate content according to the age set in the system, maybe taking a parent allowed whitelist. the website is legally obliged to set an appropriate age limit value in a standard HTTP header.
that way, the website does not know your age. the decision is on the web browser.
the web browser checks the configuration in the system, that only the parent can change. it does not send it anywhere, only does a yes/no decision. if the site is not ok, it’ll show a thing like when the connection is not secure or it was put on the safebrowsing list, except that you can’t skip it, only option is to request parent permission.
and finally the age is set in the operating system, without verifying its truthiness, but once again requesting lock screen authentication.
oh and app installs need parent approval for kid accounts, like it should almost always be.this way it’s as private as it can get. the only way a website can find out information about you from this, is to log if your browser loaded the html but not any other resources, because that means you were caught in the age filter. but that’s it.
there’s multiple pieces in this that is not yet implemented, but they should be possible with not too much work.
this is all possible with open source code, if you make sure the kid can’t install anything without parent approval. stores like fdroid could have some badge or something if a browser supports this kind of limitation.This is kinda genius
All’s well until other countries try to implement this and you will very quickly see how nearly none of them agree with each other on which age limit goes where. In my opinion, the best way to ensure that children don’t go to certain places on the internet is to either not give them access to the internet at all or to only let them use whitelisted websites that you review yourself before adding.
how nearly none of them agree with each other on which age limit goes where.
that’s the task of the website to figure out, the device does not have to be aware of the laws. but I think is still much easier to manage than id verification.
I habe an other idea. don’t make the websites send agelimit http headers, because as you said that can easily vary by country. instead send http headers that tell what kind of content is available there. only the categories that could be questionable. that way the device (actually the browser) would decide if with the kid account’s age that kind of content is accessible.
that way the browsers need to know the age limits, and maybe it’s easier to handle it this way.In my opinion, the best way to ensure that children don’t go to certain places on the internet is to either not give them access to the internet at all or to only let them use whitelisted websites that you review yourself before adding.
ok, and I agree, but only very few parents will do that unfortunately. especially considering that their kids could be discriminated against by their
limitedclasates who don’t have their access so broadly limited.and then, you still need such a whitelisting capability, which I think does not really exist today in firefox and such browsers. addons cant solve this because they can be removed.
Who said the device based service has to be closed source?
It doesn’t have to be, but the businesses making it claim it needs to be.
So of all the fucking things to restrict, why this? Facebook is a hundred times more dangerous than any porn. Ban that shit instead.
because Facebook is an abstract danger, porn is (relatively) well defined
Because it’s something where the current government can claim they’re “doing something” or “addressing a real problem” but it also doesn’t threaten the rich and powerful.
Going after Facebook would threaten the rich and powerful, for who it is an important tool for manipulating people, who think they can use it to mold culture to what they want it to be my breaking the minds of children.
The current UK government is desperate to say to the public that they’re governing and fixing problems, but they also really don’t want to piss off the rich and powerful.
