711–720 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats a common fallacy because we tend to care about issues that are 50/50 or divisive. Most opinions are not divisive but thus dont get attention.
That seems like an implied constraint? You don't run polls asking if the sky is blue.
The correct time for major service providers to shift their weight and start pulling out of any jurisdiction necessary to get their point across has already come and gone. The second best time would be as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Internet world we live in today isn't the one I grew up in, so I'm sure things will just go according to plan. Apparently a majority of Britons polled support these rules, even t…
This is how we should have stopped the cookie banners
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because the bedrock principle on which modern government is based is… drum roll Lie whenever it’s convenient because the public are children anyway and won’t or can’t understand. Through this lens many things make more sense. They’re comfortable with lying because there are zero repercussions for lying.
They are not only children, but also goldfish who forget everything after 5 minutes
I was just vacationing in the UK last week and ran into this ridiculous thing trying to browse (entirely non-pornographic, fwiw) Reddit threads. Which I opted not to read rather than going through the hassle and privacy breach. Also got to experience the full force of the cookie law, which I hadn't realized I was only seeing a fraction of here in Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely thought that Farage would finally fuck off after brexit happened. I hadn't really figured that he's in it for the attention rather than the politics
UKIP was dead when BoJo was in power. But of course, the Tories under May, BoJo and Sunak amped up immigration to record levels, so now there's a stronger case for Farage to contest. While UKIP was largely about Euroscepticism, Reform has openly racist undertones in their pitch to voters.
Or rather euroscepticism was the dog-whistling for racist arguments that, since Brexit happened, don't need to camouflage anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't it better than UK legislation? Not at all, because SIM cards are bound to your real identity. So the government knows exactly which websites you visit.
I don't understand your comment, the government knows which sites you visit anyway because it can see the SNI field in HTTPS traffic. The main point is that the verification is done on the device. The device has a digitally signed flag, saying whether it is owned by an adult user or not. And the OS on the device without the flag allows using only safe apps and websites sending a "Safe: yes" HTTP header. User doesn't…
ECH (the successor to eSNI) is becoming more and more common and with Let's Encrypt soon offering IP certificates, any website will be able to hide their SNI.
Digital verification exclusively on-device doesn't work because addons and alternative applications make it possible to bypass those checks. There's no credible reason to trust local software to protect the kids.
The point of the Act is that the UK government no longer pretends to believe that the "I am 18 or older" checkbox is actually stopping anyone, and that there are no better alternatives. The public (in most democratic countries, not just the UK) doesn't want kids to be able to freely access porn the way you can now and the government is acting in the interests of the public here. If the tech industry had felt any responsibility, they would've been working on a solution to this problem somewhere in the last thirty or so years of internet pornography, but so far they've done nothing and are all out of ideas.
The EU's reference digital wallet representation seems to be the best solution so far (though it's not finished yet and has some downsides as well), hopefully the UK will set up a similar (compatible?) programme so UK citizens can skip the stupid face scans and ID uploads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>parents You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids. Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet. The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic. If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into ques…
Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.
I think UK OSA in its current state is bad, but I also think Wikipedia losing this case is good. Here is Wikipedia's original case: > The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. Rather, the legal…
This is a loss, but only really a technical loss. What happened is that Wikimedia have been told that they haven't been told that they are Category 1 at this point and, given that they've already made a submission to Ofcom which makes an argument that they aren't Category 1 [1], then they need to wait and see if Ofcom agrees. If Ofcom doesn't agree, then Wikimedia is invited to come back again, with a fairly strong h…
The Online Safety Act is a hideous piece of legislation. I hope Wikipedia block the UK. (I am a UK citizen).
Act like an authoritarian regime, get treated like other authoritarian regimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.
That's not cognitive dissonance unless it's the same people saying both.