11–20 of 22 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for me, bing refuses to turn off safe search. Lowest it lets me go is "moderate". Google does but doesn't show me pron.
Probably it depends on your geolocation? I'm not in UK and Google image search shows me everything in a Private Window, after I turn off Safe Search
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I turn Safe Search off it does (doesn't require age check).
for me, bing refuses to turn off safe search. Lowest it lets me go is "moderate". Google does but doesn't show me pron.
I always thought political parties were very sensitive to electoral issues and therefore played everything overly safe, in terms of attempting to avoid consequences for their potential electors. So this legislation actually getting to this point today was very surprising. I think it speaks volumes of a strong bias in their analysis teams, as well as indictating they're even more out of touch than expected. What they'…
It's hard to know how it'll work in practice without trying it.
I always thought political parties were very sensitive to electoral issues and therefore played everything overly safe, in terms of attempting to avoid consequences for their potential electors. So this legislation actually getting to this point today was very surprising. I think it speaks volumes of a strong bias in their analysis teams, as well as indictating they're even more out of touch than expected. What they'…
I think you'd be surprised how many people are actually in favour of this bill. Mainstream press totally fell for the "think of the children" angle pushed by a mixture of legitimate children's safety organisations, anti-porn activists, and intelligence apparatus. Meanwhile the privacy argument got little to no lobbying or public discourse. E.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/15/digital-g... https://…
I always thought political parties were very sensitive to electoral issues and therefore played everything overly safe, in terms of attempting to avoid consequences for their potential electors. So this legislation actually getting to this point today was very surprising. I think it speaks volumes of a strong bias in their analysis teams, as well as indictating they're even more out of touch than expected. What they'…
People no longer start their own forum, but create a Facebook group etc.
I always thought political parties were very sensitive to electoral issues and therefore played everything overly safe, in terms of attempting to avoid consequences for their potential electors. So this legislation actually getting to this point today was very surprising. I think it speaks volumes of a strong bias in their analysis teams, as well as indictating they're even more out of touch than expected. What they'…
I think you'd be surprised how many people are actually in favour of this bill. Mainstream press totally fell for the "think of the children" angle pushed by a mixture of legitimate children's safety organisations, anti-porn activists, and intelligence apparatus. Meanwhile the privacy argument got little to no lobbying or public discourse. E.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/15/digital-g... https://…
I always thought political parties were very sensitive to electoral issues and therefore played everything overly safe, in terms of attempting to avoid consequences for their potential electors. So this legislation actually getting to this point today was very surprising. I think it speaks volumes of a strong bias in their analysis teams, as well as indictating they're even more out of touch than expected. What they'…
British voter here who voted Labour and could change. I'm not wholly against nerfing the web a bit to protect kids. I haven't read the bill or analysed the details to try to figure if it'll work. I think that's not so atypical for voters. Grown ups can always VPN etc. It's hard to know how it'll work in practice without trying it.
I always thought political parties were very sensitive to electoral issues and therefore played everything overly safe, in terms of attempting to avoid consequences for their potential electors. So this legislation actually getting to this point today was very surprising. I think it speaks volumes of a strong bias in their analysis teams, as well as indictating they're even more out of touch than expected. What they'…
British voter here who voted Labour and could change. I'm not wholly against nerfing the web a bit to protect kids. I haven't read the bill or analysed the details to try to figure if it'll work. I think that's not so atypical for voters. Grown ups can always VPN etc. It's hard to know how it'll work in practice without trying it.
until they can't because they're also made illegal
don't forget this is also the same government that has effectively tried to ban e2e encryption by forcing companies to install backdoors into their algorithms under gag orders
it is no longer (if it ever was) about the children
Earlier quoted context omitted.
British voter here who voted Labour and could change. I'm not wholly against nerfing the web a bit to protect kids. I haven't read the bill or analysed the details to try to figure if it'll work. I think that's not so atypical for voters. Grown ups can always VPN etc. It's hard to know how it'll work in practice without trying it.
I feel like the law should change to prevent children from having devices that can freely access the internet. i.e. they can still access devices but not own them. Then its about parental supervision. We're only here because parents give their kids smartphones with zero oversight.
For a year that has seen student protests, protests for Palestine, an inflation crisis worsening and more..an act condemning free speech under the guise of protecting children is a horror.
The UK Online Safety Act proposes that to access any information on the internet deemed for adults, an individual must prove their age as being 18+. How is this done? Through verification using YOUR ID. Surely it's a good thing? Ensuring the younger generation does not have access to harmful media and conversation IS a good move.
But this act was NEVER to protect the children. The role of protecting children from harmful content are the adults and people around them and features already EXIST for such a thing, that need only be accessed and monitored by responsible adults in children's lives. It is a guise to gain more control of your activity and data, by either restricting what you see to what is deemed morally appropriate or linking what you view, interact with and post about to your personal ID. It is an invasion of privacy, and an absolutely tragic spiral into censorship.
I find it startling that this is happening and by making the front of this Act to protect children from online pornography is a fantastic way to undermine anyone who would oppose it.
It will lead to consequences that limit thought, speech and freedom of creation. So many video games, books, content and websites will be restricted OR Linked directly back to a personal ID. All this at the same time could only mean a few things, and the government is not in your favour in it.
I believe technology is a burden to humanity in many ways, and we should seek to create a better world with genuine connections and systems that make it safe so we can be present, instead of an online space to supplement this. BUT the answer isn't ruining the internet. We use it as a platform to communicate and supplement where our real life society has failed...a support system, connective space and a communicative one. I don't even have social medias on my phone anymore due to these beliefs (all on my laptop I use about once a week like this post) but I acknowledge it's benefits. This act will deeply maul that.
And it'll impact..
Safe online spaces for discussing issues and recieving support like sexual assault (under the act is not accessible to under 18 year olds due to sexual nature and is currently in accessible in some cases like on the app Reddit) posting and organising protests about the political climate and war (which under the act are classified as violence, and have already censored videos about protests - which I have physically seen myself), out speaking against issues relevant to you and holding an opinion against the favour of the government, and much more..is arguably under threat, at many levels. All of it is determined by those in power. I can't comprehend the negative consequences of this all. Because from the surface it looks a great move.
The answer to the horrific issues we are facing, that coencide with the internet and being absorbed in technology...like disconnection, isolation and lack of meaning..isn't in censoring this technology. It is in creating a better environment and society to exist in, so that people will actually attempt to do so. This act will NOT do that. It will remove what freedom people have. Once again, removing a coping mechanism instead of addressing why it exists.
If you have a moment, sign. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903