111–120 of 817 posts
Am I missing something here? 4chan is available in the UK so has to follow UK laws there, where is the problem? Regardless of whatever it is they are enforcing.
Just because UK internet users are able to establish a network connection to 4chan’s server via ISP peering agreements does not mean 4chan are subject to UK law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then they could ship with filters enabled All mobile network connections already come with content filters enabled in the UK, adult or not, and has to be explicitly disabled.
Yes but to be clear, using wifi or a VPN can bypass that. It's not an on-device filter.
I bought a 4chan pass today just to support the effort. If there's ever a hornets nest you don't want to fuck with it's 4chan and i can't imagine a better poking stick than ofcom.
the rasion d'etre of 4chan can probably be discussed forever, but i can't imagine donating money to such a vile, hate-filled platform. surely there are better causes fighting for the same things, right? i know, freedom of speech, it's your money and not mine, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That "unlabelled whack-a-mole" problem is exactly what a system-level visual classifier would block.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying a daemon would recognize a video player that is streaming porn from within a video game? Who is installing this daemon? A client checking for a header is more than sufficient to block small children from seeing porn and that is 100% more than we have today. No extra memory or CPU required important on tablets or phones handed to children . No privacy invasion by daemons or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are. Technical cookies don't require any consent so every time you see a cookie banner the website owner wants to gather more data about you than necessary. Furthermore, these rules don't require cookie banners, it's what the industry has chosen as the way to get consent to track their…
Or the website owner doesn't want to take the risk and ads a banner even if the site strictly doesn't need one.
"Irony is overwhelming" does not appear within the article; should be removed from the title here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>By who, and for who? ages 0-6, increased vocabulary with increased screen time https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.13927 > My kids (ages 5+7) watch significantly less TV than their peers (as well as currently almost zero internet access), and are frequently complimented on their command of vocabulary and ability to express themselves. Compliments are nice I suppose, but theyre a poor metric when re…
Have you read the paper you linked? It indicates at best a slightly positive outcome on average, with many caveats (video is worse, the younger the kid the worse the effect, removing educational content results in a negative correlation, etc). It also links to another metastudy that covers a larger age range, and indicates a negative correlation. >theyre a poor metric when regarding vocabulary size. I'm talking about…
Follow the science bud. The science is telling you to give them screentime
>I'm talking about school reports, among other things.
well yeah, you are now.
> It's something I struggle with daily,
this actually explains a lot
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All phones (the network account attached to the SIM actually, not the phone itself) comes with a content filter enabled by default in the UK, adult or not. Neither resident nor frequent visitor to the UK, so I'm behind the times when I ask: I beg your fucking pardon? Is there further reading on this inane nanny-state horror, ideally via a Wikipedia article on the law or gentleman's agreement amongst the carriers? F…
> I beg your fucking pardon? Yep, my thoughts exactly when I first encountered it. > Is there further reading on this inane nanny-state horror I tried to look something up but it seems the articles and news about the (new) Online Safety Act has taken over all of the search results (and it's not something I want to search too hard at work). I even asked an LLM but it couldn't provide sources and simply said it was "vo…
> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…
There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying a daemon would recognize a video player that is streaming porn from within a video game? Who is installing this daemon? A client checking for a header is more than sufficient to block small children from seeing porn and that is 100% more than we have today. No extra memory or CPU required important on tablets or phones handed to children . No privacy invasion by daemons or…
The phone manufacturer. I don't think it would otherwise be possible without root. And it's quite a computationally heavy thing where security and privacy are important. It'd have to be secure (no sending information). That's why I suggested Apple, they have the vertical integration to do this kind of thing. In theory. Also it's a good counter to governments trying to censor the internet itself if children can be pro…