>>102611
The thing is, mate, I don't start off being "revealingly crass" do you pair say "gosh" as well?. I start off making reasonable and considered arguments in an earnest attempt to convince others, before realising that some of you are, and I'm sorry if this offends you, social media users. You possibly even use rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk and other imageboards besides this one. Once the penny drops and I realise you're just repeating things you saw on Twitter, it's hard to take your whinging and moaning about people being "doxxed" seriously, when that's not what talking about people in private channels is. None of you ever back up your claims with a shred of evidence, but instead you expect me to take everything you say at face value. Well, I won't, and I definitely won't start trying to prove those claims on your behalf just so I can be a better .gs poster. I'm not looking to become the unofficial head of disinformation around here.

It also doesn't help that whenever I decide to get a bit blue someone insists on getting all Mary Whitehouse about it.

>>102612

Examine yourself, lad. You are just making a shitload of assumptions and then spewing shit based on it. It's childish to start calling somebody names just because they don't immediately agree with you, much less because you have already imagined in your head exactly what kind of person they are based on one paragraph of an anonymous post.

What's ironic is that the kind of instant dismissive judgement and descent to insults is exactly the kind of low bar of tone that makes me avoid places like Twitter. If you dislike Twitter and its users so much why are you bringing the quality of Twitter here, by acting like one of them.

>>102613
I don't imagine anything. When folk on here start defending the hacking and harrassing of thousands of people because they think it's "ironic", then I'm not making assumptions, I'm being told what kind of person they are.

I'm never instantly dismissive, but I am quite tired of hearing about the "ugly behaviors" women are getting up to, like discussing abortions on a private messaging service, that are apparently in need of correcting. Why shouldn't I call people like this names? These people are surveilence freaks, they admit as much: "a gossip network primarily aimed at doxxing men", is an invention to justify the genuine invasion of privacy we see with the hack itself. The people doing this stuff are not exactly carrying on the noble traditions of Aaron Swartz, are they? They're just pricks.

>>102615

You are, at the very least, taking a massively biased overly charitable view of one side, and overly uncharitable view of the other. This is the kind of thing that makes it very hard to persuade anyone, no matter how passive aggressive you get towards them, because it's the very first thing someone sniffs out about your post and then it's hard not to mentally dismiss the entirety of it.

For instance, you're downplaying this gossip aspect like it's just harmless information sharing or like 100% of it was fully evidenced and factual reporting, and absolutely none of it was made up or catty or just plain vengeful. But frankly, if there's one thing I have learned in my life, it's that people who are drawn to gossip (and this is regardless of gender here), it's that their motivations are overwhelmingly malicious. Gossip is fundamentally an ugly behaviour, it is a socially negative act, I have seen too many times how it is used as a form of passive bullying to victimise people who don't actually deserve it.

You can hide behind this ironic detachment that they're all just pricks and you don't care but you've clearly got some kind of cutting implement to sharpen using friction haven't you. Are you Gemma from HR? Are you actually a woman trying to false flag post in the boys only club? Is that why you get so hysterical whenever your cuntish behaviour is called out, because you're just not used to it?

Okay yes I'm purposely antagonising you in that last part, and it pisses you off doesn't it. That's what I'm talking about.

>>102616

No point trying to talk sense into her m8, she's probably on the blob.

>>102617
Talk about longstanding issues, that's one that lasts about 40 years.

Ofcom's going after 4chan. I suspect nothing funny will come of it, but it might.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content
https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914
Can't decide whether or not Byrne & Storm, Attorneys-at-law is a great name or just BS.

On reflection, I think Storm & Byrne would be ideal as it makes more logistical sense (you wouldn't storm a place after you burn it) and also avoids being BS, but I have to assume there's a reason they're in the order they are, probably to do with seniority of partner or whatever traditional nonsense American prostitues use.

>>102706
I mean it's not like Ofcom actually expects 4chan to pay or make any changes. It's just the procedure to stick an ISP block on the website so that children don't get radicalised by cartoon frogs. Good thing I bought a 3 year pass this year.

I've sort of joked about it for years, that the government will one day use "somebody think of the children!" as the pretext to basically ban anything they like fully 1984 style, but I was never actually serious about the thought that it might actually happen. It feels really weird and just deeply sickening that we actually do live in the reality where they are actually doing it, though.

You'd only have to be half joking to suggest that as many people have been radicalised by Mumsnet as 4chan. So come on, fair's fair. What if we sockpuppet a load of accounts to post nasty stuff on mumsnet so we can get it taken down?

>>102711
>You'd only have to be half joking to suggest that as many people have been radicalised by Mumsnet as 4chan

There's a reason Glinner went there when he got booted off Twitter.

>>102707
>I have to assume there's a reason they're in the order they are
Most duos put their names in alphabetical order. Mitchell and Webb, for example, or Armstrong & Miller, Flanders & Swann, Ashford and Simpson, Lennon and McCartney, etc. You shut the fuck up about Laurel & Hardy.

>>102718

Yes, but this isn't a comedy duo, it's a law firm. The internet gives no conclusive answer but order of seniority is one that it suggests more often than most.

>>102706
Never mind Byrne & Storm, I'm just impressed that they've got Ronnie Coleman as their lawyer.

Do you reckon people still call Moot Moot? Like I still have a couple of old timer acquaintances who call me my internet username from 20 years ago, and school friends who just call me my surname instead of my first name.

I recall reading that he works for Google or something like that now, and being the guy who invented 4Chan must have landed him a decent position in the company, but I can't imagine him escaping moot#faggot.

>>102722
He left Google in 2021, according to this link:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/4chan-founder-chris-poole-moot-has-left-google.html

I think this is the most recent photo anyone has of him, and it's several years old. There will definitely be people asking him, "Are you moot?" when they meet him, but he has been a borderline recluse for several years now as far as I can tell.

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-08-16/reform-will-fail-women-if-they-scrap-online-safety-act-angela-rayner-says

>Jim'll Fix It risks “failing a generation of young women” if the party scraps the Online Safety Act, Angela Rayner has said.

>The Deputy Prime Minister demanded Jimmy Savile explain how his party would keep young women safe when they use the internet if it repeals the legislation as promised if it wins the next general election.


Serious question - have we heard anything other than overblown dogma from Labour in defending their shite new law?

>>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.