>>102726

Clever word filters, eh.

>>102726
How did young women survive in the pre-online safety act days? We just don't know.

>>102726
>>102728
Despite what Raynor says "intimate image abuse" was already illegal, and had been for several years. I was going to go into more detail about why I hate the OSA, but you can just read this if you like: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/americans-be-warned-lessons-rudgwicksteamshow.co.uks-chaotic-uk-age-verification-rollout

Why don't porn distributors run thier own crypto currency? Buy in proves age, coin value yadda yadda. Seems like a good move to me, with correct oversights.

>>102730

Could give new meaning to the term "rug pull".

>>102730
>Why don't porn distributors run thier own crypto currency?
Because they're not grifters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAd-OOrdyMw

>>102733

Historically the Germans have been massively against linking real world identity to online presence hopefully they will keep the doors open for us.

If this technology is allowed to normalise there will be no putting the genie back in the bottle, once infrastructure becomes dependent on it.

Apparently the volume of searches for VPNs has been peaking at 1am every night since the Online Safety Act kicked in. I would have thought that was too late for most people so I guess a lot of us need help getting off (to sleep).

>>102742
Troubled to think this has come down the grapevine from OFCOM itself. What're they thinking about this data?

>Valve has started to comply with the UK’s Online Safety Act, by rolling out a requirement for all Brits to verify their age with a credit card to access “mature content” pages and games on Steam. UK users won’t even be able to access the community hubs of mature content games unless a valid credit card is stored on a Steam account.
>While platforms like rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk, Bluesky, and Discord have opted for age verification checks using selfies, Valve is restricting its age checks to just credit cards, according to a support article. “Among all age assurance mechanisms reviewed by Valve, this process preserves the maximum degree of user privacy,” says Valve. “Having the credit card stored as a payment method acts as an additional deterrent against circumventing age verification by sharing a single Steam user account among multiple persons.”
https://www.theverge.com/news/767980/steam-uk-age-vertification-online-safety-act-credit-card-mature-games

Remember when these same companies suddenly decided to ban their use for adult games.

Does britfa.gs have a contingency plan for if its hit with the porn block? VPN doesn't work when the site is blocking foreign IPs.

>>102763

Maybe they'll do a soft approach and VPN providers will have to do an age check with UK users. They do know your real IP address and where it is located. You could then still daisy chain two or more VPNs to obfuscate your true location, but many VPN providers specifically won't let you do that if they detect it.

>>102763
Would it be acceptable to just get rid of /x/ and /y/? Surely if we all just start clicking /sfw/ instead of /*/, we’d be okay, although this feels like a very naive suggestion I am making here.

>>102763
>>102765
I used to think that it was labelling them x and y had bought us some time but we're not exactly running a youth club either so we probably pass any age estimation that Ofcom can throw at us. I mean think about it, have you ever seen a young lad slobbering over fat women? Does anyone under 30 know who purple Aki is?

>>102764 Why not just go with the fact that most people using paid VPNs are at least over 16 given that you need to be an adult to get a debit card in the first place? And reject any connections that aren't from a VPN? I mean 16 year olds looking at grot is not good but they are young adults so it's not like it's a ten year old; is this feasible?


I need some advice; what's the best argument to convince your arrogant bullish Dad about this? The best part is he's one of these people who thinks the grooming gangs scandal involves a governmental coverup far bigger than the real one in Rotherham Council but he's okay with this law that, well, sort of covers it up. What's the snappiest and shortest refutation I can give? He's a shouty bastard and I have ADHD so I'm shit with my words. What do you do?

>>102767

Because of the Online Safety Act, videos from asylum hotel protests are being blocked on social media, because they're "harmful to children". That isn't the law being misinterpreted or misused, but the law working exactly as designed. Reform are campaigning against the Online Safety Act, because they believe that it's an attack on freedom of speech.

There you go, gammon dad convinced.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2087246/reform-uk-chief-zia-yusuf-migration-hotels-protests

>>102767
>given that you need to be an adult to get a debit card in the first place?

You can get a basic debit card as a child. It will be flagged as restricted, and so various credit-like things won't work, such as pre-authorisation, but you can likely get a card from 13 upwards that will allow use of ATMs and basic debit functionality.

>>102767

>Why not just go with the fact that most people using paid VPNs are at least over 16 given that you need to be an adult to get a debit card in the first place?

If it was about that. You would think that me paying for the internet and having to confirm to the ISP that I don't give a shit about locking content off for children, would have been sufficent.

It peversely is the Big tech companies pushing for this legislation because they want to be the ones holding the data and consequently to have total and verifiable user data.

>>102772

> they want to be the ones holding the data and consequently to have total and verifiable user data.

Pretty much. As they day, data is the gold or crude oil of the future. The big money is going to be in data mining, and the Online Safety Act (and laws in other countries that are likely to follow) is 100 percent about providing the raw resources for it. It isn't going to save a single child or woman in this country from abuse.

>>102772

The data and shutting out competition. If people don't want to verify on more than one site, they will only use that site; and not to mention it makes the barrier to entry for any would-be competitors that little bit higher. We've already seen a load of smaller sites throw in the towel because it's just the kind of hassle you can't be doing with if you're not even a business, but just some random forum or chan board.

The whole thing is the most obviously stinking rotten case of corruption. I don't think I can actually think of a better example of regulatory capture in action.

Luckily, 4chan and KiwiFamrs are coming to our rescue, and suing OFCOM. That'll be a laugh if nothing else.

Steam now requires a registered credit card to view and purchase sexual games now. Even though my account is 16 years old, I can't even view the store page of a game I've already bought without getting a credit card. There's no other means of age verification either.

>>102778
Won't somebody stop thinking of the children.

>>102778
This isn't really any different to the requirement that would be in place if you were buying age-restricted goods at a physical location, except that Steam doesn't have a person who can see your filthy neckbeard and receding hairline and press the "customer is clearly over 25" button, or to whom you could transiently flash your driving licence.

I've heard about people being asked to verify their age on YouTube but I haven't seen anything, which I assume is because it's linked to my Google account and I've had Gmail for 20 years.

>>102781
Yeah, but at a supermarket I don't have to leave my ID lying on the floor for a week to buy paracetamol, nor is the ultimate rationale for having to do this "parents can't be arsed to learn basic computer functions".

>>10278

>I've heard about people being asked to verify their age on YouTube but I haven't seen anything, which I assume is because it's linked to my Google account

Pretty much. When you access youtube via a browser while not logged in, occasionally you will come across an age restricted video where they will ask you to log in to prove your age.

>>102781
It strikes me as silly that I can view and buy 18 rated games like Resident Evil games (scenes of realistic explicit violence and gore), Silent Hill 2 (sexual violence, realistic explicit violence and gore), Outlast series (explicit nudity, sexual violence, gore). I can view and buy unrated but lewd and lascivious Beyond Citadel which has lots of sexualised gore. I can buy Manhunt for fuck's sake.

Yet I can't view some shitty RPG Maker femdom game with 2D sprites.

Anyway I'm over it now, I just checked the one adult game I want to buy in the future, and it turns out to be a SFW giantess dating sim instead of smut, so I will be able to buy it.

>>102788
I think YouTube have said they have an algorithm that estimates your age based on various things. Which is... Insane, frankly. Don't need actual proof of age, just need The Machine to chinny reckon you're old enough - not better than using death stranding screenshots. I guess the companies don't actually care and don't have much incentive to fix it.

>>102790
Given that it's been thrown about quite a bit, and even Ofcom have conceded that it would be considered a reasonable thing to do, I would hope they're including account age in their model. The closer an account gets to having been in use for 18 years, the more likely it is that the person using the account is over 18.

Though it does sound hilarious to say they're going to decide whether you can watch videos for adults by seeing whether you watch enough videos for adults.

>>102790

The law only requires "highly effective verification", with the precise definition of that being a matter for Ofcom. Ofcom's position is that they're largely agnostic about the particular technological approach, as long as it can be shown to be accurate, robust, reliable and fair. It doesn't have to be 100%, Ofcom just need to be satisfied that it's good enough. Social media sites (Part 3 Services) are subject to slightly less stringent rules than sites which permit pornographic content (Part 5 Services).

As >>102797 suggests, account age can be highly reliable - I've been paying Google for a Workspace/G Suite account for more than 18 years, so it's a safe assumption that I'm over 18. GDPR permitting, there are loads of other data points you could use. There's a mobile phone number associated with my account for two-factor verification, I've already verified my age with my mobile phone provider, so (with my permission) my mobile network could share that data with YouTube.

The vast majority of what I watch on YouTube is men pottering about in sheds, lengthy talks about history and old documentaries, so I think it'd be totally reasonable if their algorithm said "there's a 99.99% chance that this user is over 18" based purely on my watch history. Realistically, what are the odds that anyone under 18 would watch an hour of Fyfe Robertson in one sitting?

Imagine how devastating it would be if Youtube decided to call you a child.

>>102799
Is that more or less devastating than idiots in the comments calling you a child?

>>102800
I suppose it depends on if you have one of those Google homes that will start sending you to bed at 8pm.

>Sir Keir Starmer is expected to announce plans for a compulsory UK-wide digital ID scheme in a speech on Friday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g6vgpdo

I'm going to enjoy not voting for this man. How long do you reckon it will be until the digital ID can be used to access porn?

>>103049
It's meant to be used to stop illegal immigration. No, I'm not an AI bot or last night's strokeposter; he really thinks that.

Also, whoever wrote that BBC article (Paul Seddon, apparently) needs to be immediately sacked, along with any editors, for spelling "manoeuvrings" the American way.

I should be more annoyed by the digital ID scheme. However, I'm caught on private CCTV four-trillion times a day, which doesn't even include the Ring™ Doorbells, while the state rents my arse out to Palantir, and all my "private" information from my employer to my previous addresses going back to childhood is indexed on the dark web, so it's like... I already lost. I'm already in the surveillance state, and most of the state is privatised. Make me install a little AI integrated black box I have to scan in and out of every time I leave the house, let the coppers track me and everyone else through a chip in our ID cards, if we're going to surveillance state, let's not do it by halves, yeah? Put up a big fuck off screen at Manchester Piccadilly and have a Starmer Cast that tells everyone that the rogue anarchist known as "Burnham" has been dealt with.

I'd been tricked into sending a date attached, I presume deeply, to my IP. Age verification, networking.
rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk can suck a dick. I feel like I'm being unfairly tracked for a desire to make friends. Or is it just telling me not to entertain sex via the internet?
I can't even tell if it's taking data from here, either.

Ahhahaha and now Imagefap is blocked! Absolute cunts, it's impressive.

>>103051
>I'm caught on private CCTV four-trillion times a day
I will never get over the time (both times, in fact) when my bike was stolen in full view of multiple CCTV cameras, and the police didn't even want to know. It's not about stopping crimes; companies just want to film you for what turns out to be no reason at all. The phrase "humiliation ritual" comes to mind.

Meanwhile, there was a report on BBC News about half an hour ago about a gang of teenagers in Southampton who just walk into shops, attack people, smash things up, steal things, and act completely feral, and nobody can do anything about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0q751vlxw1o
I went to university in Southampton, so I know it well. That accompanying news article says the kids are in Shirley, which I now find doubly concerning since I recognised the street where the reporter interviewed them, and it was Portswood / Bevois Valley, where students go drinking and which is several miles away from Shirley. So it must be widespread.

Alright, I'm in favour ID cards now. What do you mean "Why should we trust the government to have access to our personal information"? Was this geezer habitually dropped on his head as a child?

As I said last night, in a fit of hysteria, here >>103051 , the game's gone. All your information has been leaked, left lying around online and is already indexed on the Dark Web somewhere. If you were legitimately worried about this stuff you would have been complaining about it twenty, fifteen or even ten years ago. Now? You might as well be complaining about the mechanisation of farm labour, or the printing press.

>>103054
This. People complaining on facebook, using a smartphone, they have on credit or debit, through a bank. Everything is already connected to everything.

>>103054
>>103055

Oh right may as well just not worry about it then I guess.

That's weird, I thought we were all making fun of China for this years ago but now it's ok I guess. When did we get so many bootlickers?

I can easily set privacy concerns aside and still loathe the idea of digital ID cards. You're wasting a chunk of money (and everyone's time faffing about registering with it) on a system that won't solve the problems it's supposed to solve, compromised in ways that only make the concept worse, just to satisfy some weird fetish Tony Blair picked up in the 2000s?
Then there's the branding, which you know will be an embarrassment. flag.png taking up half of the screen for no functional reason, supposed to generate patriotism but actually just highlights how hollow the whole thing is.
Three things that make us uniquely British: our flag, our suspiciously universal values like fairness and democracy, and our Britcard™, proudly featuring our flag, which stands for our values...

>>103056
Kind of, yeah. I'm not best pleased about the state of things either, but the reality is this fight has been over for a few years now. I dipped out of social media ages ago, and I thought a lot of other people would start thinking like me around the time of the Snowden leaks, but no one paid it two minds besides Shami Chakrabarti.

There was a window of time to tell the governments and corporations who harvest your private info to piss off, but that time has passed. These days people are more than happy to give whatever random apps any permissions they ask for, they use their name plus "123" for a password still, and give their credit card details to any website that wants them. You might not be, but almost everyone else is, and unless you want to spend more than a decade with me on No Social Media Island, then there isn't much you can do to fight back. And, frankly, I wouldn't recommend you waste your time here, because it's got less popular support that that 99% inheritance tax I remember someone mooting on here, long ago.

>>103057
Unless you're daft enough to agree with the Torygraph article I posted this afternoon, the one where the author alleges you'll be stopped from eating for getting into arguments on Twitter, what does this have to do with China?

>>103058
I definitely have concerns as well. Cybersecurity is the big one, both illegal and the technically legal stuff tech companies get up to. But, like I keep saying, Palantir probably already have a Precog recording of me wanking away on Rule 34 dot XXX. There's also the issue of what happens if someone else gets hold of your "Britcard". If it's a skeleton key to your entire life, are you completely doomed if your phone is robbed?

Remember when they used to give out cards with your National Insurance number on them? I'd much prefer that, but an actual ID than anything digital.

>>103058
>Then there's the branding, which you know will be an embarrassment. flag.png

Come to think of it, did they do any consultation about these 'Britcards' in Northern Ireland?

>>103060
If it was Morgan McSweeney the electoral autist's idea, probably not, because people in Northern Ireland don't vote for Labour anyway.

It's a good thing there are no other nationalist movements anywhere else in the UK to lose votes to then.

Had a look at rudgewick and they're all in favour of ID cards, must be bots.

>>103055

The difference being that they are private companies and your agreement to use their services are completely voluntary - just accept the terms and conditions. Or don't and move on. Private companies aren’t going to initiate violence against you or steal your property (unlike the government and you don't get a choice on the terms).

>>103101
>Private companies aren’t going to initiate violence against you or steal your property
Not with that attitude.