Age Verification Is Coming for the Whole Internet
-
It's not about actually protecting children. It's about data.
The purpose is to protect the mainstream media.
-
Can you have age verification and still be anonymous on the Internet? (Fixed fukted typo)
Yes, but the legislation specifically rules out that technology. The purpose is to remove anonymity.
-
They mean most of the internet for most people
Only the vast socially relevant parts of the internetelite nerds who use lemmy will be able to circumvent
if the snobs are fine, why care?
those people kvetching about how the endless September ruined everything will have their wish
-
ah ha! Guess that's how we beat the system.
People would need to sub to your instance though for you to post content right?What would the pros and cons be?
People would need to sub to your instance though for you to post content right?
I think there is some way to automatically forward your content but I don't self host and am not an expert.
Pros are that while you could be "defederated", you can't be banned. You make any decisions and could also let others use your system.
-
Can't tell if meth addict or rage bot.
Can tell that you're a nonce, chomo
-
elite nerds who use lemmy will be able to circumvent
if the snobs are fine, why care?
those people kvetching about how the endless September ruined everything will have their wish
Well if they enslave everyone else, we are going to feel it too, no matter what cracks of the system we hide in
-
The US government created the internet
It is so complicated that you're both correct and incorrect. US government added to it, yes. I'd argue the fundamental work was independent researchers from multiple countries (UK, USA, France). I'd argue the critical infrastructure was multiple non-profits.
Also the question is "what exactly is the beginning of the internet". Is it usenet? Telnet? Arpanet?
-
Can tell that you're a nonce, chomo
Meth addict.
-
Meth addict.
Ask yourself why you are so triggered when I call you a chomo do some introspection
-
This post did not contain any content.
Gotta show me the relevant RFC for BGP first.
-
No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
It's the Internet. There are internets, but just one Internet.
-
No one needs the internet outside of work.
As someone with a disability (and no car), the internet has played a massive role in allowing me to live independently, which in turn has a profoundly positive impact on my mental health. There are a wide variety of circumstances in which the internet has enhanced life experience - let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm sorry. I suppose I should have said "I don't need the internet outside of work."
-
No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
For some people "the whole internet" is like half a dozen websites.
-
For what ? Opposing pedos.
For the csam on your hard drive you projecting freak
-
I'm sorry. I suppose I should have said "I don't need the internet outside of work."
All good! There's probably far more people in your boat than mine; it was a pretty natural conclusion to draw
-
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?)
ok but my point is that if someone posts a protest article link to the honda forum, then, as I understand, the forum will become legally liable for that too. so if the forum guarantee that the link won't even get publicly visible for a second, that's when they don't need to do age verification
-
For the csam on your hard drive you projecting freak
I was Today years old when I found out what that abbreviation means. The fact that you know it so well is alarming Sam
-
This post did not contain any content.
What sucks is that once these laws are in place repealing them will probably never happen. There are far too many people who will benefit financially from this to allow that to happen.
-
For some people "the whole internet" is like half a dozen websites.
I worked in tech support. For some people Facebook is the internet
-
ok but my point is that if someone posts a protest article link to the honda forum, then, as I understand, the forum will become legally liable for that too. so if the forum guarantee that the link won't even get publicly visible for a second, that's when they don't need to do age verification
wrote last edited by [email protected]Forums have mods and admins. As long as they don't allow a topic habitually then, per my understanding for the UK law right now, that would make it exempt.
Compliance with the ID law is actually quite expensive if you contract Persona as the ID checker. If 1 user of a site not based in tje UK or about UK things posting 1 news article a mod deletes in 10 minutes is enough to trigger a $50,000 compliance contact, then it's enough to be amazing standing for an easily won lawsuit about burdens on small business.
