Age Verification Is Coming for the Whole Internet
-
where did you read that it's the topic of the forum that matters?
I've read what seems like 30+ articles and explainers about the UK law the last few days - this has some lousy (official) defintions. I think the most recent episode of Power User with Taylor Lorenz might cover some of this enough to get the overall sense.
The topics under scrutiny of the "user-to-user" site is extremely vague beyond obvious porn, but it amounts to if it allows the sharing of links of basic news of any topic, it counts. Because in terms of categorizing "harmful content" for minors, seeing fucking protests happening anywhere, at all is "controversial adult content." But if the links are limited to a very specific topic, say Honda Ridgeline owners, privacy and cyber nerd shit no one cares about) etc., cooking, and other innocuous things, it's a grey zone that doesn't demand compliance. YMMV, but even for a fascist wannabe set of policies can't justify "harmful" material for kids with a Linux forum or a forum for owners of the Honda Ridgeline (WTF?)
-
Not sure about what the norms are where you live, but most people in the US have to sign 1-year agreements for Internet service, and those who don't typically either pay more or would pay before because they're on a cheaper, older rate that is grandfathered in and is no longer offered by the Internet service provider.
I pay for mine in cash, they don't even know my name.
-
Uh huh. People are addicted. I'd bet even the people with petabyte home media systems will go into withdrawal within picoseconds after not being able to get more more more more more more
Better would be to reject sites like reddit. Make them suffer instead.
-
If Hating pedos = Trumper then consider me one. Mind your p3do self I'm not even from the USA
Can't tell if meth addict or rage bot.
-
If they threaten server admins with legal action based on the global user count of lemmy rather than their local server user count I'm sure plenty of owners will fold.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Lemmy is probably not complying with UK law already. But if hosted outside the UK you can just ignore them.
Some instances have blocked the UK but you can also just ignore it because wtf are they going to do
-
But this scene was set by capitalism. The family friendly, market friendly internet is the basis for this entire issue. Yeah, government is the one finally pulling the trigger on sanctioned, total control, but we’ve been surveilled and profiled and censored for decades at this point by countless corporations for ad dollars. We’ve gone through the cycles of outrage and acquiescence and outrage and acquiescence as things have gotten worse and worse—same goes for the quality of politician, all bought and paid for by telecom companies neutering everything we can do to make the market and internet more favorable while the politicians got worse and worse and we began accepting it and just laughing it off.
And here we are. Don’t be fooled, this is 100% at the feet of capitalism.
Yeah "family friendly" = advertisable.
-
No.
Well, technically yes, but that's not happening.
wrote last edited by [email protected]And that kinda sucks, because that could actually be useful. For instance, you could set up a forum for people above the age of 40 or whatever while still letting everyone post pseudonymously. A third party public service that can blindly attest that a person is over a certain age could be a great and convenient thing. It's difficult to imagine such a thing happening, though.
-
And that kinda sucks, because that could actually be useful. For instance, you could set up a forum for people above the age of 40 or whatever while still letting everyone post pseudonymously. A third party public service that can blindly attest that a person is over a certain age could be a great and convenient thing. It's difficult to imagine such a thing happening, though.
Sure, but it'll be used by pearl-clutchers to enforce their morality on others.
-
Sure, but it'll be used by pearl-clutchers to enforce their morality on others.
Right, I'm imagining it as a service set up to be used if wanted/needed with no broad mandate. There are people running NSFW sites and channels that genuinely do not want minors interacting or accessing, and many would integrate this type of verification voluntarily if there was trust that it worked correctly and did not collect and distribute data about individuals. But I agree, that's not what is on offer. So far from the UK it seems like they are letting private businesses figure it out.
-
It's fucking ironic that this article is asking me to register just to read it.
Can was please fucking stop needing accounts to exist online? So fucking dumb
Way Back Machine is your friend. I don't visit sites directly anymore.
-
I pay for mine in cash, they don't even know my name.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You can do that in the US as well, but it will cost more because you wouldn't be agreeing to a fixed term. For example, my ISP charges $25 a month for 200 mb/s if you agree to a one-year term, but it's $40 a month if you do not agree to a one-year term. And there's also the added inconvenience of having to go to one of the ISP's physical stores every month and put cash into their kiosk.
They will ask for your name here when signing up, but nothing prevents you from lying about your name if you're going to be paying in cash. They ask for an e-mail address as well, but you can say you haven't got one, and they'll create one for you using their own e-mail service and assign it to you. You don't actually have to use it, but it is for receiving their bills and notices.
-
I mean, wouldn't lemmy qualify as darknet because it isn't the top 10 websites? We should be growing the Federation anyways so I'm down for that. At least they won't ban me for making Trump jokes.
No, Darknet is just a website that's not listed anywhere. Lemmy is listed in many places.
-
It's not about actually protecting children. It's about data.
This is the correct answer. Notice that they have no compunction about punishing parents who secure gender-affirming care for their trans kids, but there has been zero discussion of holding parents responsible for their kids' internet usage.
Far-right groups in the US have been crying "Big Brother" about everything for years because their whole plan has been to create a surveillance state where to gather information about dissenters. Every accusation is a confession with these people.
-
Right, I'm imagining it as a service set up to be used if wanted/needed with no broad mandate. There are people running NSFW sites and channels that genuinely do not want minors interacting or accessing, and many would integrate this type of verification voluntarily if there was trust that it worked correctly and did not collect and distribute data about individuals. But I agree, that's not what is on offer. So far from the UK it seems like they are letting private businesses figure it out.
Right, I understand the idea, it's just very common that any capability that is created will be misused.
-
The real goal is to eliminate anonymity from the internet.
It’s about control. They can grant you access or revoke it based on your id.
The powers at be hate that they can’t control the narrative as well as they used to so this is their solution.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
-
No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
wrote last edited by [email protected]They mean most of the internet for most people
Only the vast socially relevant parts of the internet -
It's not about actually protecting children. It's about data.
They're using children as human shields while they attack our human rights.
-
I don't see how anybody could come for lemmy. I feel this just attacks centralized services
Lemmy is still very centralized,
sure there are many servers
and that takes care of the /u/spez problem
but very little else, most topic generally have one big community
and it's on the one big serverYou can go elsewhere, if you like speaking into the void and nobody even hearing you.
-
If it was so trivial why would they even bother making everyone show their IDs?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not a static target. What we consider a profile today is vastly more comprehensive than what was deemed sufficient a few decades ago. Ad networks today would put intelligence agencies back then to shame. They can always get more info. Adding biometric face data is useful to them. In a few more decades people might be talking about if Google and governments should be allowed to read your thoughts. The tech making this possible is already being developed and further along than many might expect.
