441–450 of 735 posts
WhatsApp, Telegram and everyone else should pull out of EU in protest of Chat Control. Then EU will be forced to make its own chat app, UX will be terrible, and citizens will finally feel enough pain to contact their representatives ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you being sarcastic about this. Obviously that will be a legal requirement at some point, just like constantly supervising the driver for tiredness is.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm predicting a trajectory of never-ending increase of regulatory requirements for any human activity which I don't like. Only big players have deep pocket for lobbyists and lawyers to avoid them or resources to implement them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm predicting a trajectory of never-ending increase of regulatory requirements for any human activity which I don't like. Only big players have deep pocket for lobbyists and lawyers to avoid them or resources to implement them.
Complexity increases in every system till it fails. Avoiding this entropy may be impossible.
I don't think these laws are being made with the will of the people. There's been no groundswell of opinion, no technically minded authority pushing expert opinion. The same people lobbying for the online safety act were pushing age verification tools. The government is exceptionally unpopular, even by the standards of already deeply unpopular governments in recent years. I despair of the situation in the UK. How hav…
I’ll take your relative minor concerns over privacy over the freedom less, police state the US is becoming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how has Australia ended up in a similar situation[1] - coming this December? My guess is that the common factor is News Corporation pushing an agenda on behalf of the very, very wealthy. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1nu68je...
At least recently[1] most Australians and an overwhelming percentage of under-16s supported the ban. Similarly in the UK[2]. This is a topic in which it appears it is the online discourse that's wildly out of alignment with broader public opinion and I'd argue potentially one of the reasons may be that it will make it harder for bot-nets to mass-manipulate public discourse so easily. [1] https://au.yougov.com/politic…
There's an opportunity for a service like CloudFlare here give people a simple toggle that manages geoblocks on legal liability factors. It's way too much for every organisation to individually track every country's laws day by day in case just by being accessible there you incur a liability. And it sounds like the UK would have just self-selected out of the list of "safe" countries. If something like this was in wid…
Not Claudflare though, let's not feed another monster monopoly :)
Oppan North Korean Style. In Poland we had no access to "western" electronics since 1989 because we had been part of the "Warsaw Pact" i.e. subordinate to USSR. This was hard, so I pity for you guys in UK
I think you meant "until 1989"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how has Australia ended up in a similar situation[1] - coming this December? My guess is that the common factor is News Corporation pushing an agenda on behalf of the very, very wealthy. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1nu68je...
In a vacuum, the policy had really high opinion polling. In reality, the technical implementation will undoubtedly be a privacy and surveillance disaster. In a vacuum, people thought "social media" meant "Instagram and TicToc and Facebook etc." In reality, the eSafety commissioner thinks "social media" includes platforms like GitHub. Yes, really. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-24/digital-dilemna-socia...
It's just another layer in the stupidity of this all that GitHub would be blocked but steam, discord and Roblox are exempt because they're for gaming despite being infamous environments.
---[1]
(1) For the purposes of this Act, age‑restricted social media platform means:
(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users;
(ii) the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users;
(iii) the service allows end‑users to post material on the service;
(iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
(b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;
----[2]
For the purposes of paragraph 63C(6)(b) of the Act, electronic services in each of the following classes are specified:
(a) services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to communicate by means of messaging, email, voice calling or video calling;
(b) services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to play online games with other end‑users;
(c) services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to share information (such as reviews, technical support or advice) about products or services;
(d) services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to engage in professional networking or professional development;
(e) services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the education of end‑users;
(f) services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the health of end‑users;
(g) services that have a significant purpose of facilitating communication between educational institutions and students or students’ families;
(h) services that have a significant purpose of facilitating communication between providers of health care and people using those providers’ services.
> The ICO also confirmed that companies could not avoid accountability by withdrawing their services in the UK. This is quite a slippery slope. If I host a website in one country, I do not necessarily care where people access my website from. It is not like I actively provide a service to them - they just use internet (decentralised network) to access it. What if I publish a newspaper here, someone takes it where the…
They're leaving and they're getting the fine. Implying if they didn't leave and implemented changes, that there is a chance they may not have been fined.