>requiring pornography sites to stop children viewing content by checking the ages of users.

This generally doesn't work, if you look at other countries. The only way you can really make it waterproof at a web site's level is by giving a porn web site your personal details including some sort of proof that they are correct, i.e. a photo of an ID card or your credit card details.

Both of which are a very bad idea, not only because the porn industry is inherently seedy, but what if somebody sets up that porn site just to get those kinds of details from people.

Most porn content producers have simply left countries where age verification is required, or at least their web sites are hosted in countries where laws are more lax.

>>16014
Yeah I'm not even sure the UK is known for its porn sites. Still, technically /x/ and /y/ count as internet porn bushes should Ofcom ever come knocking.

>>16013
Isn't practically all of this stuff illegal already? What makes the government think platforms aren't already removing antimal cruelty and extreme sexual violence? Perhaps it's a real stroke of genius; just make crime illegal. We should have thought of it years ago!

I hope you all understand that they already know that none of this stuff is implementable so they're just going to block any site that doesn't or can't comply.

>>16017
I'm thinking it will just be a nice way to take out or block websites the Government doesn't like. If everyone is a criminal then all you need to worry about is where you choose to enforce the law.

>>16017
No, there is a massive difference. We've had CleanFeed by agreement of major ISPs with the IWF doing the stewardship.

And yes. I'm not involved enough in what MPs are up to, but I'm starting to feel like I'm in fairyland when The Government™ talks about the UK as a digital powerhouse. Sure, FinTech, right? But fucking with encryption again and [i]again[/], in a boneheaded, gin-addled kind of way that "We Decree, reality will submit"?

It would be nice, for once, to finally have a minister that knows their fucking shit (pardon my french).

>>16019

>It would be nice, for once, to finally have a minister that knows their fucking shit (pardon my french).

Or a minister who will actually listen when industry and academia unequivocally says "what you're asking for is impossible. Not difficult, not impractical, but literally impossible in the same way that 2 + 2 cannot equal 5". It's like they're so used to lying that they cannot imagine the possibility of objective truth.

>>16019
>We've had CleanFeed by agreement of major ISPs with the IWF doing the stewardship.
This was something entirely self-inflicted, and is also why we've got the whole site-blocking by court order bollocks happening.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer

https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/19/uk-man-first-to-be-jailed-for-cyberflashing-under-new-legislation-in-england

>>16085
Sounds good to me.

Also this happend March. What took you so long?

>>16085

Seems like he only got sent down because one of the lassies was 15 and he has previous. With the prison system straining as it is I can't see them putting people away for dick pics without extenuating circumstances, as much as fisherlad would love them to.

I know the OSA is due to come into force gradually this year - at what can we expect .gs to go offline?

We need to prepare by downloading and storing everything in our shed bunkers across the country.

WHY IS NO-ONE PANICKING

>>16151
These are the same people who spent tens of billions to not even build a train line from London to Birmingham. And most of the Internet is shit anyway.

>>16152
Really? Then why are you people here?

>>16151
You cried wolf too many times.

>>16154
Not sure what furrylad's supposed to do about this.

I was suprised to see the Urban Dead developer decide to discontinue the game because of this Online Safety Bill. I couldn't ever enjoy the game but it was a mainstay of longform multiplayer browser games.
First they came for the something or other, and I did not speak out.

SpankBang required me to verify my age using Yoti to access the grumble. It was a straightforward enough process, but if I were a user of loads of porn sites, and if there are other verification providers, that is quite inconvenient.

>>16167
Holy shit you actually did it?

>>16167
They've got your face now, lad. There'll be CCTV footage of you shooting up a school next week.

PMVhaven still almost works by Proxy so a VPN would likely have no problem. NordVPN is the go to, isn't it? Reccomend another - I'd rather pay.
"To protect the kids" for sure, but there're so many avenues for malapplication as >>16169 points out.

>>16170

Nord is actually one of the ones to avoid if I recall correctly. They either had a data leak or got caught selling it, can't remember quite what it was, but either way. Defeats the point if you can't trust the VPN company to keep your info safe.

Besides that when I used to use them, it would take me about ten refreshes to find which one of their mirrors worked to get on here.

>>16168
Yeah I really needed to look at porn as I woke up at 3AM, and Yoti seemed legit. Now "sniff my ass sbbw" is perhaps connected to my face in government records.

>>16168
Looks like pegging lad will have to find a good VPN.

>>16173
This brings up an interesting point on BDSM which is illegal in this country. Now that the government is going the Australia route on pornography the next step will be to force sites to block extreme pornography.

We've already seen the pearl-clutching about anal sex so that should be the first thing to go - to protect the children.

https://pornbiz.com/post/17/the_scam_of_age_verification

>>16175

Now, I was pondering on this as I read the page, and I found one of their arguments pretty compelling. But then I realised the implications, that themselves feel even more dystopian; and I can't help but think all this is a way of getting Big Tech what it has wanted all along.

>We agree with Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Aylo (Pornhub), and many others that the only effective solution to the problem of minors accessing porn is a systematic approach — applied at the device level, or at least at a higher layer than individual sites, such as app stores.

>There are many ways to implement AV at the device level — and there’s no question that any of them would be far more effective than site-based AV. Because they apply system-wide, device-level controls scale across all apps and browsers — not just one site at a time.

>However, we don’t share Aylo’s position — or others’ — that Google and Apple necessarily need to implement something new. Traditional parental controls have existed for ages, they work, and their usage can easily be expanded, as we explain further below.

Well, pretty sensible, yes, sure- But what I forsee coming out of that if they get their way, would be rolling together a bastard homunculus of DRM, walled garden apps, and privacy invasion all rolled into one. A solution to all the problems of the internet, not just porn, but the whole lot of it- Dark web, crypto, anonymity, freedom... Everything they don't want us to have, by having every device sold be essentially bricked in "kid mode" until you supply your name, date of birth, address, CRB check, fingerprints, and retinal scan. Then it's tied to you, no matter what. Nevermind IPs, VPNs or onion networks, you will be identifiable at the hardware level.

Am I being paranoid here? I want to say I am, I really do. But I was one of the people who were warning you about fucking Facebook and Myspace in 2008, and everyone rolled their eyes. I was thoroughly vindicated then. I hope my predictions do not keep coming to pass.

From https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903:

>The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.

Most places I've seen implent age restriction implementations did not give a flying monkey about Ofcom, since they were based outside of the UK.

This needs to be disentagled from porn, because that's not what it is about in practice. The "harmful content" part is a much bigger deal, no more sex education, no more talking about LGBT things, no more talking about drug abuse, and many more topics are now verboten. It's a massive overstep by government, supported by pearl clutching knuts. It's once more legislation without as solution, further privatising this country.

>>16191

>knuts

Like the coins in Harry Potter?

>>16192
Let's not get into TERF island but if you wish, sure, coins.

>Spotify has threatened to delete people’s accounts if they fail new age verification checks.

>The music streaming app, which has nearly 700m users, said it would remove accounts that fail age estimation checks within 90 days as it seeks to block younger teenagers and children from accessing explicit music and videos.

>“You cannot use Spotify if you don’t meet the minimum age requirements for the market you’re in,” a new page on Spotify’s website reads. “If you cannot confirm you’re old enough to use Spotify, your account will be deactivated and eventually deleted.”

>On Wednesday, social media users began reporting a new pop-up appearing within the music streaming service asking listeners to verify their age using Yoti, a smartphone app that uses face-scanning technology to estimate a person’s age. Those judged to appear underage will be asked to complete a further ID check. The accounts of users that fail to pass an ID check within 90 days will be deleted.

https://www.I need to find an archive link for this.co.uk/business/2025/07/30/spotify-threatens-to-delete-accounts-unless-users-prove-the/

Coinbase wants me to verify my identity with photo ID as well. I assume this is related. There's nothing pornographic or controversial about Coinbase, but oh well, there we go. First they came for the horny MILFs in my area, and I did not speak up because I was not a horny MILF. Now they're coming for me, and there are no horny MILFs left to speak up.

>>16195

They've always done that, as part of KYC for AML purposes. Igave into that one a long while ago because otherwise it was just a pain in the fucking arse to get hold of crypto.

But it's fine as long as you are transferring your coins to a self custody wallet, which you are then using to exchange them for monero, to then transfer to the escrow wallet, when you buy your drugs. As far as mummy government can see, you just like investing in Litecoin.

>>16196
This. Also, gambling sites are the most hilarious for this. They only insist on doing checks when you withdraw. They want to make sure that you aren't paying in dirty money or third-party funds and then winning. Of course, if you lose, they're perfectly happy to keep your dirty money or third-party funding.

AdultWork.com are now blurring images and asking for age verification, how is one to judge the looks of a prostitute now?

>>16198 Vibes, I guess?

>>16198
Judge them on their personalities, shitlord.

It's harldy a niche opinion, but this is fuck all to do with "protecting children". Thast is already possible and once a child is smart enough to circumvent those protections I think they can see some genitals. If your MP supported the OSA let them know why they will not be voted for again. Ideally in person, spit on the ground they walk on.

>>16201
From what I have been able to find, the vote for the Online Safety Act went entirely along party lines, so every Labour MP voted for it and the other parties all voted against it. This seems odd to me, especially as the Conservative Party famously also support it, but I think only the Reform Party currently say they will abolish it again.

On further investigation, if this was the vote in question, then 91 Labour MPs were not present for the vote, including mine:
https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1926#notrecorded

Kemi Badenoch also didn't vote, and James McMurdock of Reform voted in favour.

>>16203
There's a decent chance that around 91 opposition MPs were also not present for the vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_(parliamentary_convention)

Thanks to the OSA I literally can't get upon one of my Discord servers which doesn't even contain adult content.

This is something straight out of a dystopian cyberpunk novel.

Teens will get a hold of porn by trading it upon physical media, what are the government going to do next, outlaw USB sticks and memory cards?

>>16205
>what are the government going to do next, outlaw USB sticks and memory cards?
Shush, don't give them ideas.

>>16205
>>16206

I think really what they wish they had pushed for way back in the 90s, and they are making a belated push for today, is to have a nice new government agency, that operates essentially as the BBFC of Internet. BBIC you might say. Where since the Internet is a form of publishing, you'd need to have anything to do publish certified. You'd have to submit your tweets to be rated. If they are too racy you get them restricted and people have to ask for them over the counter in a hushed voice at the internet cafe.

I have a feeling they will eventually come around to that for things like YouTube and Twitch etc. Because if you think about it, why is it that you couldn't just transmit a bit of amateur TV for a laugh back in the day? Why was getting a transmitter and blasting a mixtape out of your high rise flat a serious crime? No, only respectable people, the right sort of people, wealthy people who rub shoulders with other decent and respectable sorts, were allowed to broadcast things. The internet fucked all of that up didn't it.

Anyway enough thinking for me today. I'm off to eat chocolate.

>>16207

At least in theory, the internet is regulated by OFCOM in the same way as TV or radio. The issue is of course that the internet is a) fucking massive and b) international, so it's completely impractical for them to even attempt to regulate anything except the biggest sites.

>>16208
This is precisely why I never expected the Online Safety Act to do anything.

>>16205
Might be for the best if you didn't manage to get on discord:

>One of Discord’s third-party customer service providers was compromised by an “unauthorized party,” the company says. The unauthorized party gained access to “information from a limited number of users who had contacted Discord through our Customer Support and/or Trust & Safety teams” and aimed to “extort a financial ransom from Discord.” The unauthorized party “did not gain access to Discord directly.”

>Data potentially accessed by the hack includes things like names, usernames, emails, and the last four digits of credit card numbers. The unauthorized party also accessed a “small number” of images of government IDs from “users who had appealed an age determination.” Full credit card numbers and passwords were not impacted by the breach, Discord says.
https://www.theverge.com/news/792032/discord-customer-service-data-breach-hack

This begs the question of why Discord's third-party customer service was holding people's IDs instead of immediately deleting them but the North Korean guy traveling on your passport told me not to worry about it.