Does Online Safety Act covers only HTTP? I mean does it cover say bittorrent? Or any outgoing TCP connection?
Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
381–390 of 887 posts
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but its not going to get blocked. AFAIK all the big porn sites are happily implementing age verification. Why not? Its an excuse to gather data, to increase numbers of registered users or some other form of tracking, and to raise a barrier to entry to smaller competitors. Other aspects of the OSA have similar effects on other types of sites such as forums vs social media.
> AFAIK all the big porn sites are happily implementing age verification I don’t know what you had in mind by “big porn sites”, but the biggest one I know of (Pornhub) is not doing that. They decided to voluntarily withdraw from the US markets where age verification became required (TX, GA, etc.), and wrote a pretty good blog post explaining their rationale (which revolved around the idea that letting third parties t…
I just tried to visit pornhub and was prompted to verify my age.
> Please verify your age > > To continue, we are required to verify that you are 18 or older, in line with the UK Online Safety Act. > To view your verification options, please visit our Age Verification Page. As part of this process, you will be asked to create a new account on Pornhub - this will automatically create a new account on AllpassTrust as well. > By proceeding, you acknowledge and agree to Pornhub’s and AllpassTrust’s Privacy Νotices and Pornhub’s and AllpassTrust’s Terms & Conditions.
> Pornhub is dedicated to developing state-of-the-art security features to protect its community. Pornhub is fully RTA compliant, which means that devices with appropriately configured parental controls will block access to our content. We encourage all platforms in the adult industry to use this technology, along with all available safety and security protocols. We also recommend that all parents and guardians use technology to prevent their children from accessing content not intended for minors.
> Our parental controls page explains how you can easily block access to this site.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't about something not agreeing with my vibes. I don't appreciate when people put words in my mouth. I never said all. I obviously meant some. Firstly in my original post I stated why I don't believe YouGov to be accurate. It isn't just me that has an issue with thier polling. Secondly, It is well known that many people are swayed by peer pressure and/or what is perceived to be popular. Therefore if you can man…
Are you against any kind of content restriction whatsoever or just porn?
They may not be against content restriction, instead they may be against removal of user privacy or anonymity. If the proof of age thing was some kind of zero knowledge proof such that the age verifying group has no knowledge of what you're accessing, and the site you're accessing has no knowledge of you as an individual (beyond tells like IP address etc.) then perhaps they'd be more open to it?
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#384Somehow this rhymes with the US's "War on Drugs", and it makes me very afraid:
Similarities I see:
* In the years leading up to government action, a mass hysteria was well cultivated in the media (evil drug users committing abhorrent crimes).
* When launched, the public was overwhelmingly in favor of it (In 1971, 48% of the public said drugs were a serious problem in their community [1]).
That's where we are now. THEN:
* It got worse for decades (By 1986, 56% of Americans said that the government spent "too little" money fighting drugs [1]).
* Following many years of lobbying, some rights are slowly restored. (NORML and other groups fighting for legal medical, then recreational use; mushrooms are legal in few places, etc).
* It's still going on today. (Over 100,000 people currently serving prison sentences for drug-related offenses [2]).
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from...
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#385Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no". > The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and eff…
Possibly naive question, why should Wikimedia do anything at all? Do they have a legal presence in the UK?
If not, why not just say "we aren't a UK based organization so we have no obligations under this law"
Let the UK block Wikipedia.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me guess - ‘do you support violent prisoners being given work in proportion to their crimes’ or something similar?
Oh far more deceptive than that. "Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offenses?" Now let's play tldr with the law! Luckily it was non binding and stands forever as an argument against binding referendums.
If a new law mentions victims I assume they're trying to appeal to my emotions. The joke is on them because I am a robot in skin form.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me guess - ‘do you support violent prisoners being given work in proportion to their crimes’ or something similar?
Oh far more deceptive than that. "Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offenses?" Now let's play tldr with the law! Luckily it was non binding and stands forever as an argument against binding referendums.
Yeah, there are many terrible legal abortions in California with the referendum setup too.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaving the market never works - in Russia, once another Western site or app gets blocked, several local competitors instantly pop out. That's how the market works, there are always people hungry for money.
The Russian market is artificially distorted.
China has the same story - all Western companies are successfully replaced with no issues (except for CPU and GPU vendors).
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't about something not agreeing with my vibes. I don't appreciate when people put words in my mouth. I never said all. I obviously meant some. Firstly in my original post I stated why I don't believe YouGov to be accurate. It isn't just me that has an issue with thier polling. Secondly, It is well known that many people are swayed by peer pressure and/or what is perceived to be popular. Therefore if you can man…
Are you against any kind of content restriction whatsoever or just porn?
I am generally against content restrictions. I am actually OK with restrictions on pornography.
The UK government has engaged political censorship throughout my lifetime.
e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...
I still remember the stupid Irish dubbing on the news. I thought it was hilarious when I was 10.
Some of it the public are often unaware of e.g super injunctions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
The internet has made it much more difficult to censor. It is quite obvious to me that they wish to end online anonymity, which makes it easier for them to target people and thus easier to censor.
I believe that this is the precursor before massive political censorship.
As stated in my first reply on this subject. Even if you don't buy into that there are obvious problems with handing you ID over to third parties. There is no guarantee they can keep your data safe (and often haven't).
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is trying to cast the illusion that anyone that doesn't believe the YouGov polling on here (e.g. me) is suffering from cognitive bias. While that is possible, it doesn't negate the fact I have good reasons to be suspicious of polling organisations such as YouGov.
> I have good reasons to be suspicious of polling organisations such as YouGov You have secret reasons to suspect all polling? If that is the case, and where suspicious means automatically rejecting anything that doesn’t agree with your vibes, then yes, that is a deep and flawed bias and statistical illiteracy.
> If that is the case, and where suspicious means automatically rejecting anything that doesn’t agree with your vibes, then yes, that is a deep and flawed bias and statistical illiteracy.
What if you're suspicious of all polling regardless of whether it agrees with your preferences or not?
It's well-understood that leading questions and phrasing will get you any response to a poll that you want. That being the case, what good are any of them? They're only telling you something about how the issue was put rather than anything about the true preferences of the population.