> Trust them?

This idea has well and truly died. No one trusts the scrbe. Everyone can just get idea fed into them by whichever channel and feel like rebels, and then putr in the, and pardon me here, cast their fucking vote by getting out here and make that fucking cross because you voted and, the pencil is right there.

What went wrong with democracy anyway. It seems like such a good idea in theory but then I don't think I can name a single place where it's working out instead of getting massive amounts of corruption, curtain twitching and people seemingly just having every incentive to be evil and not give a fuck. Like how much of a lizard do you have to be to think giving your ID to porn sites and letting people on the internet know your real name to post on social media is a good idea, it's not even a political difference, it's just a disaster you'd read about in India or Russia.

I'm not saying democracy should be done away with but surely just pulling random people off the street like conscription would have better outcomes at this point.

>>101800
Meritocracy. They tell you that we live in one and that it's all about having the best man for the job, but really it's about a self-selecting elite administering things with no regard for popular will. The term was cloned in a satire for a reason and the fact that it's now aspirational, that you sound mad for being anti-meritocracy, should have alarm bells ringing.

There are people who think you should have a second chamber selected by sortition - basically grabbing people off the street - and having them do the job currently done by the house of lords, scrutinising legislation and government actions. (With their own independent advisors etc, naturally.) Sadly, they're pretty marginal.

>>101800
Democracy was fine until someone realised that if you spend enough money, you can change people's minds. You don't even need to change everyone's minds; just convince the idiots (which is easy) and they will outnumber everyone else.

My suggestion would be to abolish all political parties and make every MP independent. Then, they would only have to answer to their voters, rather than have to try and persuade their voters to agree with whatever their other boss tells them.

>>101800 OP here- I don't know what's happening to democracy right now but it will probably end if we tell dodgy porn sites to keep a record of literally everyone's wank habits, with no guarantee of deletionwhen our businesses are being targeted by Putin;s cyber warfare goons every week for personal details!

Half of them are based in Russia

ANd if you can't afford ID or you can't get it because you're disabled that's great; if a guy with Downs wants a wank but can't sign in and navigate the labyrinth he's screwed; if he's able to do it well done - he doesn't understand the Terms and you have a photographic database of every disabled person's porn habits you could blackmail them with

How long til that gets married up with disability benefits claimant's bank account data under Kier's planned scheme for the DWP to just go into all their bank accounts? Aside from all the problems above some work coach (pic related) could deny them a hardship payment because they spent £20 on pornhub three months ago on the basis they don't need a payment if they can do that (really just because the work coach finds it distasteful)

>>101803 For further reading look here; https://novaramedia.com/2025/04/24/labour-wants-to-force-banks-to-spy-on-their-most-vulnerable-customers/

Power to look through anybody's accounts for fraud or overpayments - again this includes people in wheelchairs or people with Down's Syndrome - and pre-emptively tell their bank to TAKE THE MONEY OUT and even confiscate driver's licenses;

So you'll have disabled people stuck at home unable to work, unable to buy food, and if they cannot navigate the ID checks on social media, can't complain publically about it either

>>101800
I'm increasingly unconvinced that Britain is a democracy. I'd point to Australia or NZ or to a lesser extent Canada as countries with a sliver of democracy deciding which faction of the elite get to govern, and I'll accept that's close enough. Britain can't pass that test. Johnson was clearly bullshitted into power in 2019 because Corbyn was too scary (even if, frankly, I think he'd have lost anyway and if he didn't the PLP would've bounced him instantly) and then Johnson himself was toppled, conveniently over a personal indiscretion rather than for reasons that would bring into question the people who helped him into power (many of who got into the lords for services rendered!) Truss was a loony and an imbecile, but she was selected by the members of the governing party only for institutions to go "nope, wrong, pick again" and put in Sunak, who went to the same party as Johnson but apparently that's fine now. He got to sit in the big chair until Starmer was bullshat into power despite nobody wanting him there or liking him, journalists openly saying on podcasts that they were all hoping that he was lying and secretly had a better plan, but not daring to ask in case it upset the pre-decided outcome of a Labour majority, and now that he is in power his popularity is sinking to its actual level. I'm no blinkered Corbynite: by default I spend most of my time in this view arguing that the Tories have been treated too harshly, Cameron was just as bad and got away with it all... But equally, back to Corbyn, journalists are now printing books admitting that Morgan McSweeny gave them a PowerPoint about how he was going to fuck Corbyn and lie Starmer into power back in 2017-19, and you'd think that in a democracy one of them might've thought the public deserved to know that back then.

Sometimes when I get really crazy, I think you can track how fake UK politics is by looking at the UKIP/Reform vote. Strategically deployed to scare but not kill Cameron, disappearing in 2017, re-appearing only where it hurts Labour in 2019, massacring the Tories in 2024, and now gobbling up everyone. Maybe in 2029 they'll have their plug pulled so Labour can slink back in on 26% of the vote and 329 seats.
I don't think there is any grand conspiracy (the biggest conspiracies are just lazy journalism and party factionalism), but I think the institutions of this country are delivering outcomes that are desired by almost nobody, and if the public don't like it it's because they're wrong, the electorate just don't understand the aspirations of racist austerity mondeo man - while other developed commonwealth countries still trust voters enough to let them pick between coke and pepsi.

>>101806
>I'd point to Australia or NZ or to a lesser extent Canada as countries with a sliver of democracy deciding which faction of the elite get to govern

How the fuck is Australia suddenly getting so much good PR. Is someone paying you?

>Truss was a loony and an imbecile, but she was selected by the members of the governing party only for institutions to go "nope, wrong, pick again"

She was forced into resigning by elected MPs. That seems like a better outcome than a US-style presidential system where we probably would've kept Boris in office.

>>101808
In response to the video: I didn't say it was paradise, I said voters were at least offered a choice between coke and pepsi. That's supposed to be bleak and depressing, but still highlight a contrast with Britain where voters have more or less had the box ticked for them before polls opened in 2019 and 2024.

Truss being toppled by her own MPs is an understated way of putting it: her MPs were half purposefully panicked into doing away with her, half unwilling to accept that party members had picked her at all. I can accept that this was a predictable outcome of her being an idiot and a liability: I cannot accept that it was democratic. The precedent of Truss and Corbyn is that political parties exist to serve MPs, that MPs and insiders get to parachute in candidates for constituencies, and that the job of party members is just to deliver leaflets and do call center work without being paid for it. If you thought you could mitigate the worthlessness of your vote by joining a party and getting involved yourself, think again.
The 2024 election is not the kind of outcome you get when a system is offering voters a relatively meaningless but real choice between competing parties. It's the kind of outcome you get when MPs, journalists, lobbyists, and so on have all gotten together (more by tacit understanding and shared self interest than by conspiracy) to foist something on the public. The 2025 Australian election, by contrast, is just a mostly normal election: coke beat pepsi. (and if you think that's an endorsement, look up coke's death squads.)

>>101824 Ausfag here. We have to protect white teens from extreme racists on facebook so we're going to ban under 16s from using it and hope the problem of 1 in 4 Indigenous deaths being suicide goes away now they can't talk to their mates online anymore...

>>102398
To add to this - your PM just suspended a prominent black MP in his party for A YEAR. AGAIN. For downplaying the racism Jewish people get a little bit. And on the same day he suspended four others for voting against his disability benefit cuts.

It goes to show - some of the people who really vocally oppose racism are control freaks who jut don't like people speaking their mind, so will bring down the hammer on others who disagree with them even they're enabling fucking bigotry in doing so, and as such give antiracism a bad fucking name.

>>102400
Here, wasn't bluesky designed to be twitter but without the authoritarian leanings and sympathy to fascists? And wasn't it specifically for people who went there away from Elon? And the furry artists and so on? Why are they bending the knee to the British Government and doing something that will drive those people back to twitter?

>The online message board 4chan is being investigated by the UK communications regulator over failure to comply with recently introduced online safety rules.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgqwlvq180o

Pack your rice, /iq/ won't be containing the coming wave.

>>102400
Diane Abbott is a racist, even black anti-racist campaigners would agree on that and she should have been banned from the Labour Party after her comments about nurses. She wasn't attempting any legitimate 'you can't equate being opposed to Israeli policy as antisemitic' she was literally playing a wholly unrelated racism Olympics that included downplaying discrimination of gypsies. Now she's been suspended again for refusing to say she did anything wrong which challenges the entire party disciplinary process.

>>102406
>Here, wasn't bluesky designed to be twitter but without the authoritarian leanings and sympathy to fascists? And wasn't it specifically for people who went there away from Elon? And the furry artists and so on?

No? The great migration from Twitter started when Elon Musk was still viewed as relatively positive and was because he started talking about free speech online and trying to reign in the sites biased moderation. People like to talk about some mass movement of slurs and bots but the former was overblown from edgelords and the latter was a problem long before the takeover. Had Elon Musk not been forced for buy the platform then I don't doubt it would still be pretty bad and likely seeing it's own unique spin from a new owner.

We were warned about social media nearly 20 years ago just like anyone who remembers the last Labour government could tell you that the party were a bunch of authoritarians who hardly stopped supporting the Tories own measures while officially in the opposition.

RE: Diane Abbot, I dunno why the fuck they let her back in again in the first place. They had all the grounds they needed to boot her, and doing so would have been entirely beneficial, because she's crucial in one safe seat and she's a complete fucking liability otherwise.

Every single fucking thing that comes out of her mouth is a gift to the right wing press, and that's why the press love getting her to talk about things so much. She must think she's profoundly important and influential with the media constantly inviting her for interviews and so on, and she has no idea that really they're just exploiting her as a loony lefty quote generator.

However, the fact she was let back in, only to subsequently be suspended again for basically the same thing, goes to show that the current party leadership are indeed more simply idiots than tyrants.

>>101797
Funny how ofcom will go after some obscure website from the US but allow some arsehole to say the disabled should be starved on GB News and won't even follow their own impartiality guidelines. It's almost like they don't care and they have their own isolationist agenda.

>>102411
the stupidest part is that none of these sites are legally challenging it when they used to, and so far only Wikimedia are, which means people will start accusing the NON-PORN sites of being complicit in paedophilia and only trust the grot sites. The same grot sites they said that can't be trusted. Anti-intellectualism at its finest.

>>102408
I have respect for what Dianne accomplished, but she should have gracefully stepped away a decade ago.

>>102408
If the Labour Party wants to play make believe that white minorities are effected by racism in the same way non-white minorities are, that's the Party's problem.

>>102417

Romani and Jewish people have been more severely affected by racism than any other groups in modern history, by an extremely large margin. The total Jewish population is still lower than it was in 1939.

>>102418
There's something cheap about this argument. You can't say it's better to be Jewish than to be Black in Britain circa 2024 because of what happened in Germany 80 years ago? Come off it. I'd take the point if we were heading in the same direction, but we're manifestly not.
I'll split the difference on Romani or Irish travelers. It's certainly more socially acceptable to be openly prejudiced against them than it is to be openly prejudiced against black people. You don't need no-longer-modern history from a foreign country to figure that out, a Yougov poll is plenty. 44% of British people have openly negative views of 'em, that's 22% more than for any other group.

I would note that at an institutional level the UK at least pretends to take antisemitism seriously (we just barely avoided our foreign sec claiming the BBC was institutionally antisemitic!) and laughs in your face at accusations of Islamophobia (in the Tory party? never!) or, say, if you deport British citizens born in this country because their skin is black and they were born, or in some cases their parents were born, in the Caribbean. It's alright though, we ran a compensation scheme... badly. That makes up for the fact we detained and deported British citizens in the first place. You can't call that racism, can you? Could've happened to anyone. Luck of the draw - if it had been a Monday it'd have been Scots deported to Ireland, but it wasn't and now whiners are making it a racial thing...

(Yes, yes, it wasn't just Germany being mean and Britain being clean, we were cunts in the 1930s-40s, didn't believe the holocaust was happening for a while, and even told a boatload of refugees to fuck off, condemning many of the people on it to their deaths. I'm glad we'd never do anything like that again in our modern, enlightened age. Well, not to the same people anyway.)

>>102418
Many Jews pass for white. Unless they're in the full orthodox garb, or wearing JIDF t-shirts, or if the observer knows physiognomy, they can blend in as the majority. A normal Jew walks down the street in normal attire, nobody knows they're a Jew. They have a level of safety from that.

Africans and Asians have a different skin colour. Their facial structure is very distinct from white facial structure in many cases. They can't blend in with the majority. Everyone can immediately see if someone is African, or Indian, or Chinese.

Many Jews, and Irish travellers, have the luxury of being able to conceal their identity to pass as just another white person. Not great if people have to conceal their identity, but they have the option. An African can't just stop being black if it's convenient.

>>102419

The key difference is that Jewish and Romani people face an ongoing existential threat that doesn't affect other ethnicities in the West. You don't have to look very hard on social media to find people calling for the extermination of Jews. People who are racist against Africans or Arabs might call for them to be deported, but very rarely call for them to be rounded up in camps and gassed. Saying that Jews in Israel should "go back to Poland" carries an implicit genocidal undertone, for very obvious historical reasons.

>>102421
There is no existential threat to Jews in Britain in 2024, nor is there a plausible pathway to one coming about. It's (perfectly publicly acceptable) hysteria to imagine otherwise.
Romani are a different case: Not because someone's going to round them all up into camps, but because neither the government nor the public have any time for them or their way of life, and both would much prefer they just cut it out and disappeared. Frankly, they're inconvenient for the state to accommodate as citizens in a way that Jewish people just aren't. It's not that weird to have to clock off early on Fridays and not work Saturdays, but it's very awkward to ask local authorities to make provision for camping spaces for people who don't usually live in that area, because when they do turn up they're going to need somewhere to camp.
Instinctively, without for a moment thinking it's prejudiced, people will wonder: Why? Why not just get a normal house and live a settled lifestyle like everyone else? Why should you get special treatment?

You bring up Israel, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. An "implicit genocidal undertone" in a tweet from a random member of the public doesn't measure up to much against an ongoing genocide perpetuated by the government of an allied state.

>>102420
>Their facial structure is very distinct from white facial structure in many cases

Uhh, those 'other cases' might be something else entirely, if you weren't aware.

Honestly all this talk of racism just reminds me that there's only two things I hate in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch

>>102423

That's actually pretty good blackface makeup. Usually it turns out more spotty.

But yeah. Don't do blackface.

>>102425
'Blackface' could be a wonderful thing for all people, if we let it.
Tell me you can't imagine a black faced person walking serenely and sincerely in a field, toward your village, through town or city. The kind of character you could imagine as benevolent in a childrens book.

Do they not exist?

>>102426
I see the Classlad manifesto is coming along nicely.

>>102426


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKzTaZLEKd4

So are you two having one last tug on pornhub before midnight tonight? I've already got a VPN but it won't be the same.

>>102429
Oh, nevermind.

>>102429

Never used Pornhub tbh. There's loads of other tube sites that are a bit more niche and that seem to work fine still.

Won't say any names. .gs being a family frirndly place, and all that.

This is insane. Ever harder to have privacy even online now.

>>102429
ThisVid is back; it was completely blocked last night. Now I can watch my quality content, hidden among 40,000 gay Indonesian voyeur bummings, and all I have to do is verify my age. Which, admittedly, I don't want to do, but I probably will at some point.

>>102428
Thanks for the education.

>>102429
> one last tug on pornhub
You know, I'm not. Not because PornHub promoted the worst of high quality bland pornographers, but because I'm coming to terms with having limited access to porny things. I absolutely will miss hyperporn gooning, it seems to have done something important for me, but it's probably safer for everyone if this sort of thing is .. if not restricted, at least.. I don't know, only that if I had found this shit in my teens I'd have been radically warped.
Seeing Rocky Horror way before appropriate age did enough, thanks.

Overexposure to porn has an intense effect on the brain. Messaging can be implanted, People can be changed. It's just another warfront.
https://www.thereismaninstitute.org/porn-as-erototoxic - I haven't actually read this yet but if you do be sure to come back and ridicule my ignorance.

>>102434

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman

Judith Reisman was a right wing, conflicted, sexually repressed, homophobic old hag. Not somebody who should ever have been allowed to act as an authority on sexuality.

>>102435
>right wing, conflicted, sexually repressed, homophobic old hag.
What more qualification would a person need to teach sex education?

>Occasional consultantion to the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services
In earnest, this person has connected to a far greater degree of state organisation than probably you, certainly I, ever have.
Their dedication to exploring the potential sciences around 'erototoxins' may clear the way for other researchers of your particular ideological bend.

Porn shouldn't necessarily be banned but neither should it's harms be ignored. Like I say, I feel that I've lost private access something I'd only just began to use positively for growth - but I can't deny the necessity of safeguards for vulerable people. That's why we have age ratings, after all.

It wasn't many years ago that someone used the other place's /gif/ board to source material for what they called 'fapcine' - an attempt to 'vaccinate' the horney out of viewers with images of gore interlaced between eoritc scenes. You can imagine how that might turn out; I believe they had alternate intentions.

>>102436
Being hired by the state means nothing. States go for policy based evidence, not evidence based policy. I'm not sure the Reagan and Bush-Jr. administrations consulted a weird anti-homosexual obsessive (she thought gays "employ recruitment techniques that rival those of the United States Marine Corps", advocated that Oregon amend their constitution to declare homosexuality "abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse" and exclude it from anti-discrimination laws to stop the gays "recruiting" children, thought gays caused the rise of the Nazi party and the holocaust, and considered both the scouts and homosexuality to be equivalent to the Hitler youth.) on the basis of her rigorous academic research.

I don't think porn is harmless, but "erototoxins" aren't the mechanism by which they cause harm. That's like postulating the harms from sugar come are the result of "sucrotoxins" which attack your teeth, make you fat, give you diabetes, and make you want more sugar. You don't need that kind of contrivance to explain why problems might result from exposing people to a superstimulus.

If I was inclined to conspiratorial thinking, I'd suspect the real aim here is to track people's online activity. Ban porn if you must, I don't really care, but what happens when you've got to show your face to some random company (itself a massive security risk even before Keir Starmer gets to look up dead-eyed pictures of a bloke posting about this at 7am) every time you want to access britfa.gs because it incidentally contains NSFW content? block pornhub if you must, by why make bluesky unusable too?

>>102437
>she thought gays “employ recruitment techniques that rival those of the United States Marine Corps”
I believe the Village People even did a song about this.

>>102437

>If I was inclined to conspiratorial thinking, I'd suspect the real aim here is to track people's online activity.

The key to understanding all of this is that PornHub's parent company Aylo actively lobbied to make it happen. It's a straightforward case of regulatory capture. The government took the obvious kneejerk "think of the children" moral panic stance, but they were having their strings pulled by a monopolistic corporation that owns most of the big brands and the leading age verification platform. Aylo have spent years cosying up to governments in an effort to position themselves as the safe, corporate face of the porn industry; the Online Safety Act has been a success beyond their wildest dreams.

Why would Aylo be in favour? Firstly, this makes life much harder for their competitors. Once you've verified your age with PornHub (or YouPorn, or any of the dozens of sites that Aylo own) you're less likely to go elsewhere because of the faff of signing up for verification. Secondly, people are much more likely to pay once they've verified their age - the key barrier isn't the money, but the inconvenience of signing up and the trust involved with giving your payment details to a porn website. The master plan is to become the Netflix of porn, with brands like PornHub becoming the dominant middleman between independent producers and paying subscribers.

Why the UK? Our government is well known for being reactionary and authoritarian, particularly when it comes to technology. The country with the highest number of CCTV cameras per capita is the obvious place to start. We're the test bed for a model that Aylo want to export internationally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylo#Age_verification_in_the_UK

>>102439
POTY nomination.

>>102439
>parent company Aylo
What happened to MindGeek?

>>102441
Wiki says rebrand in 2023. You're welcome to look into it, report back.

>>102441

MindGeek was bought out by a private equity firm in 2023. They rebranded to Aylo, in large part to distance themselves from previous scandals in the US.

https://www.ethicalcapitalpartners.com/news/mindgeek-becomes-aylo

>>102437

>States go for policy based evidence, not evidence based policy.

Although that goes both ways, for both ends of the political spectrum.

Ultraconservatives hate sexual expression that doesn't conform to their beliefs, which are usually rooted in tradition and religion, and with similar consequences, so do many extreme leftists, who come at it from the direction of free sexuality being inherently sexist and patriarchic.

If pornography is your only sexual release, then obviously that's a bit sad. And if you think that every woman yearns for a dickslapping to her face just because you saw that in a video clip, then you might need a bit of a talking-to. But everything else is just owed to the systemic vilification of pornography both by Conservatives and the Left.


>>102439

>Why the UK? Our government is well known for being reactionary and authoritarian, particularly when it comes to technology. The country with the highest number of CCTV cameras per capita is the obvious place to start.

I wouldn't say when it comes to technology in general. It's really more about surveillance and a public safety fetish, and there being no consideration that complete safety is an illusion, something that will remain unattainable and elusive, while the freedoms you trade away for that illusion of safety are quite real.

Will police catch a few badduns with roadside ANPR that otherwise would have kept eluding authorities? Yes, of course. It'd be naive to think they won't. But does the idea of nicking somebody in every 200th car that drives by justify intruding on everybody else's privacy in the process? In a free country, the government must be able to live with the fact that it doesn't know what its citizens are doing at a given point in time as they go about their daily lives.

Will CCTV catch people doing illegal things in the act and help identify them after the fact? Yes, in a few cases. Although it has had a measurable effect of a lot of crime simply being driven into dark corners where there are no cameras. Either way, does it warrant having turned the entire country into a big open air panopticon where there's about one camera for every ten people and the average person apppears on over half an hour worth of CCTV footage every day?

What does make the UK an ideal test lab besides our safety fetish is probably that personal privacy has no real lobby here. There are some grassroots movements in other European countries that have far more successfully taken the edge off their governments' plans to monitor their citizens, and in some instances effectuated the complete scrapping or repealing of such laws. We need more of that here.

>>102444

>I wouldn't say when it comes to technology in general. It's really more about surveillance and a public safety fetish

I think that's overlooking a lot of other kinds of weirdness. Britain just loves getting into a tizz about something and demanding that it's banned, in a way that is (sadly) summarised by the phrase "OI M8, AV YOU GOT A LOICENSE FOR THAT?". We're the only country in the world with the "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles", because for some inexplicable reason we were convinced that the mere use of the word "Ninja" would turn innocent children into Nunchuck-wielding assassins.

We love arbitrarily banning knives because they look scary and locking people up semi-randomly for mean tweets and off-colour jokes. The Psychoactive Substances Act banned anything that could possibly give you a buzz, with a load of predictably unforeseen consequences. We banned protests in Parliament Square, then protests near Parliament Square, then created a bunch of new laws to restrict protests anywhere near anything. Every few months we have a new piece of "specific legislation" to ban something that's already illegal. We are on the one hand constantly pushing for harsher sentences, while also releasing prisoners early because we've run out of cells. There's a knee-jerk pathway from tabloid headlines to vaguely-worded, ill-conceived and heavy-handed legislation that just doesn't exist in other democracies.

There are plenty of police states, but we aren't one of those, because police cost money - we're a legislative state, a country obsessed with the idea that everything can be fixed if we just create enough laws. We don't care if those laws are reasonable or enforceable or will actually address the problem they're intended to address, we just have a magical belief in the power of making things illegal.

>>102445

>I think that's overlooking a lot of other kinds of weirdness. Britain just loves getting into a tizz about something and demanding that it's banned, in a way that is (sadly) summarised by the phrase "OI M8, AV YOU GOT A LOICENSE FOR THAT?".

I remember reading about an experiment where subjects were given questionnaires with a list of certain behaviours and pastimes that you could say were anything from slightly questionable to a bit dodgy or even mildly offensive, but still legal under the law. They then had to tick off the behaviours they engaged in regularly. And then, without knowing it beforehand, they were given the same list again and this time had to tick behaviours that they thought needed to be banned.

To the complete surprise of nobody, most people wanted behaviours banned that didn't affect them. Things that were just as questionable as the ones they liked doing. Only a minority ticked some of the behaviours to be banned that they themselves had just admitted to, along the lines of, yeah, I do that, but it should probably be banned.

The bottom line was that if everybody had their way, then before long almost everything would be made illegal. Every slightly dodgy thing you and I do but which somebody else thinks we shouldn't get to do would be banned.

I'm not sure that's the kind of world we want to live in. There should be an understanding that an attack on a single one of those freedoms is an attack on all of them, and could limit what you still get to do in the future just as much as it will limit your neighbour from doing thing A or thing B that you hate.

You'll have to forgive the source but Peter Kyle has now claimed that the UK Government has the power to shut down any website:

I've noticed that the BBC own coverage of this has been biased e.g. here's a debate between a pro and anti campaigners with the addition of a 20 year old student who thinks she can spot pornography users by looking at them:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-bfe8d0c8-c977-483c-a074-c15fafb654e8

>>102439
>>102444
I think the proliferation of CCTV in this country tells us a lot about how this all comes about. In that case the grainy CCTV footage of the murder of James Bulgar did nothing to actually prevent the crime but the impact on the public mind killed the debate.

Whelp there's a petition to repeal the Online Safety Act:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903

Might as well make a petition to stop the tide coming in really.

Well, exactly what I thought would happen has happened. Porn, that doesn't require handing over my details, is incredibly easy to find. The difference is now instead of notorious dark web enclaves like rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk and Pornhub, you have to go to random websites who couldn't care less about the law, meaning people are more likely to be exposed to criminality of all stripes. Bravo, government.

>>102449

>I think the proliferation of CCTV in this country tells us a lot about how this all comes about. In that case the grainy CCTV footage of the murder of James Bulgar did nothing to actually prevent the crime but the impact on the public mind killed the debate.

It's the old killer argument tactic. "What, you don't want CCTV in public places? Do you want people being able to snatch children and brutally murder them?".

Why not physically put a policeman behind every citizen and have them look over your shoulder and watch your every move. Surely then crime rates would go towards zero. Why does that seem absurd and like the stuff of a North Korea-style police state to most people, when we're not far from exactly that with modern technology.

>>102452

I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that part of my business involves installing small CCTV systems. Domestic customers always say that they want CCTV because they're worried about burglary, but it's entirely useless for that purpose, because burglars have figured out this genius life hack called "wearing a mask". I think on some level they know that, but they don't want to admit that they're just nosey and want to digitally enhance their curtain-twitching.

A surprising number people (invariably pensioners) are getting second tellies installed in their living room just for the CCTV. One bloke wanted a proper commercial-grade camera on top of his chimney that he could remotely control with a joystick, but was bitterly disappointed when I told him that he'd need planning permission.

I think it says something profound and fairly bleak about Britain in 2025. We're an increasingly lonely and atomised society, being driven further into isolation by a cycle of paranoia and alienation. People would rather watch their neighbours on a screen than talk to them in the street. I don't really worry about being watched, but I do worry about the people doing the watching.

>>102444
>>102445
I think a lot of this comes down to the fact we're basically governed by our newspapers, both directly (through the incestuous relationship between politicians and the press) and informally (where they'll whip up a massive PR disaster for you if you don't bend the knee, or randomly decide it's time for trial by newspaper). If you don't want to be monstered by our press, and our press are freaking out about ninjas, it's better to change the name than to risk it. If the press are freaking out about retail crime, announce you're going to make it a crime to assault a shop worker, despite the fact that's already a crime called "assault". I won't deny the average person has an authoritarian streak, but I feel like the outline of what we go after and when aligns more with the press than with public opinion.

Coordinate your immigration crackdowns with The Sun, tell the Daily Mail you're banning porn, tell the Mirror you're standing up for workers rights, tell The Guardian they can double dip by printing your latest press release and their own article, an exclusive scoop that you've just written a press release in The Guardian, tell the Daily Telegraph you were dismayed by Paedogeddon despite the fact you were out of the country when it aired, and always, always brief against your colleagues. Then maybe they'll choose you for high office. Or at least hold off on printing about your sex life for a few more years.

>>102453

I got my mum a wireless CCTV camera for her front door with a small LCD monitor. She wanted to be able to know who was at her door without having to stick her neck through the kitchen window. Which seemed reasonable. Especially because one time there was somebody at the door who claimed to be collecting donations for some charity and when my mum opened the door he was suddenly trying to force his way in. The only thing that then dissuaded him was my mum pointing at the alarm system panic button behind the curtains and telling him to get lost or police would be there within minutes.

Now that I've taken over the house, I've thought about upgrading the system to a whole array of cameras to give me a 360 degree view of the house and the entire property, but then again, why. Anybody who wants to break in here and cases my house beforehand will know that there's a 250 lbs 6'2'' bloke living in it who isn't going to be a pushover.

This is very amusing:

https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/brits-can-get-around-discords-age-verification-thanks-to-death-strandings-photo-mode-bypassing-the-measure-introduced-with-the-uks-online-safety-act-we-tried-it-and-it-works-thanks-kojima/

>>102456

It's just not very smart to post it all over the Internet.

How long do you think it's going to take before that loophole, and others like it, are closed.

>>102453

Maybe I'm just an odd pervert but I do like that I can sit in my bunker (garage) and see what's going on around the property. But my house has a relatively large amount of land for a suburban plot and there's trees and stuff so I do feel a little justified in having a way to know if anyone is skulking about. Realistically as you say if someone wants to come and murder me they're going to though.

I assume it might help my insurance claim for a burglary, maybe? I don't know, but I bought the cameras for my grans house when she was living alone and I didn't want them to go to waste.

Yeah we probably all look at the other place from time to time, but britfa.gs can host this too.

The Labour government just attacked the britfa.gs discord.

ITZ

>>102461
>>102462


The best way to get a law repealed is to enforce it strictly.

- Abraham Lincoln

>Hackers leak 13,000 user photos and IDs from the Tea app, designed as a women's safe space

>Hackers have breached the Tea app, which recently went viral as a place for women to safely talk about men, and tens of thousands of women’s selfies and photo IDs have now seemingly been leaked online. A spokesperson confirmed the hack Friday afternoon. The company estimates that 72,000 images, including 13,000 verification photos and images of government IDs, were accessed.

>Tea is designed to function as a virtual whisper network for women, allowing them to upload photos of men and search for them by name. Users can leave comments describing specific men as a “red flag” or “green flag,” and share other information about them. It’s recently gained such popularity that it became the top free app in the Apple App Store this week. The app claimed Thursday to have recently gained nearly a million new signups.

>Signing up for Tea requires users to take selfies, which the app says are deleted after review, to prove they are women. All users who get accepted are promised anonymity outside of the usernames they choose. Taking screenshots of what’s in the app is also blocked. The hacker accessed a database from more than two years ago, the Tea spokesperson said, adding that “This data was originally stored in compliance with law enforcement requirements related to cyberbullying prevention.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tea-app-hacked-13000-photos-leaked-4chan-call-action-rcna221139

Oh no, that thing everyone warned would happen has happened!

>>102462
I'd show you an easy workaround but I don't understand why .gs needs a discord server other than for gossiping like fishwives and trying to form cliques like we're back in 00s forum culture.

>>102464

>I'd show you an easy workaround but I don't understand why .gs needs a discord server other than for gossiping like fishwives and trying to form cliques like we're back in 00s forum culture.

"Oh I'd show you but ur a total grade-A lozer becky!"

I don't think you have a work around, or if you actually do know one is an irrelivant point because if you were going to just share it you would have, not that I asked you anyway. I think you just enjoy power games because you are a cunt.

>>102465
It's done the same way you block the Burberry background on /101/. Ask your dad to help you, Becky.

>>102464>>102466
Is this the kind of miserable fuckwit usually found in the Discord, or are the rest of them worse?

>>102467

Cannot say I've met anyone that obnoxious on the britfa.gs server, but since its open to everyone I guess there is a risk they turn up.

>>102466
"you are correct" would have been less words.

>>102467
I tried blocking the Burberry background and it took two seconds. Do you have uBlock Origin?

It then took me ten minutes to re-enable it, so I can assure you I am not an especially 1137 h4><><0r.

>>102469
Shush they have to work it out for themselves.

>>102469
It wasn't about whether or not it's simple. It was about the strange desire to not share that information with someone who wasn't aware of it, and to act like this info was both piddlingly straightforward, but also made someone who did know tremendously superior. It is an attitude completely alien to me and one that I find utterly intolerable. Every success our entire species has enjoyed since we were banging rocks together for fun and hiding from big snakes has come about due to a desire for cooperation. This might seem over the top, but when I see someone flouting that, just so they have an excuse to be an arsehole, I want to blast them with the hose from a fire engine. Pic related, in short.

I love the Burberry background, personally. I wouldn't change it for the world.

What do you think this is connected to Muslamics, the USA government and the Epstien list?
The muslim world has achieved a huge condition on modesty, while the fuckin.. conservatives in America get a trial before rolling theirs out.
What did Britain get from this? There's so many gaps in my knowledge that I obviously assume blackmail.

>>102472
I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds exciting. Can you say some more?

>>102473
You couldn't hope to have an idea what he said, because what he said made no sense.

>>102471

Precisely cunt being a cunt purely because they are a cunt.

>>102464

The Tea leak is dramatically worse than that. Their entire database was in a public S3 bucket with no access controls whatsoever. There's a 59GB torrent in circulation of that database - not just the selfies and copies of ID, but all usernames, passwords and messages sent in the app. The images were stored with the geotagging metadata intact, so there's now a map circulating that shows the exact location of all their users. If Tea were actively trying to leak the maximum amount of sensitive data, they couldn't have done a better job.

>>102474
You think Trump hasn't come over here to discuss something important and that age verification won't come up - something that's a shared interest between the USA and the UK?

I am indeed pulling from my arse especially with the muslims, but they're gaining a moral victory that surely wasn't coincidence.

>>102473
>Can you say some more?
I'm wondering if this age verification thing is a basic safeguarding measure against the seed of corrpution, not intended to stop 'savy teens' but to sanitise a general populace and keep corruption from seeping into regular society.

You gotta think about it from the perspective of the guilty (that's quite a presumption) - a huge dossier has been publicly mentioned which compromises potentially an entire control establishment. Those people have lost their kicks and contacts. So they had to seed a new generation of human trafficers and corruptable peoples. To do that they promote LGBT and fertilise the ground for bad actors, the most skilled of whom may fill vacant positions in the aformentioned structure. Hide a tree in the woods.

Age verification, not the process itself but how people are dis/engaging, reduces the reach of 'corruptable agents' into regular society. They turn to the dark web where the government, private agencies and bad actors have ever increasing and valuable tools to combat one another. Instead of unbarred access to every persons wank dungeon, they're fighting privately at the cutting edge, isolated from the regular world.
Age verifications obstructs extreme sex being normalised, and extreme sex can corrupt people as they increasingly require harder kicks.

Age verification is fine for monitoring most people and catch the lowest hanging fruit, which is fine for tackling immigrant lad who's disproportionately fantasising about schoolgirl rape every night using pornhub then goes and does it, or the Holly Wiloughby kidnap plot - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngp983q4xo
It's not great for me who has an unusual fetish but fuck it, I'm used to being outcast from communities.

This is my tinhat ignorant understanding of what's going on at the moment.

>>102477
It truly is an outstanding exercise in ironic punishment that an app where the sole purpose was to share and discuss highly sensitive information about people without their consent had its own user data leaked.

Although I think everyone needs to understand that these risks are the norm outside of specific trust-based institutions like banking. Trusting a US start-up with data, or even that it will delete data, is hopelessly naïve because the culture famously puts safety third and the assumption online is always that everything posted will be leaked - something our government doesn't seem willing to acknowledge.

It'll be interesting to see how deep porn verification has gone because even with a better culture the risk of compromise is absolutely enormous. Imagine waking up one morning and being able to look up what porn your local MP wanks to.

>>102471
>It is an attitude completely alien to me and one that I find utterly intolerable

Are you new here?

>>102480

>Imagine waking up one morning and being able to look up what porn your local MP wanks to.

I imagined Serena Grandi and Donatella Damiani kissing and a man from the government said I had to stop.

>>102487

In a properly functioning authoritarian state, that wank fantasy would be recognised as official proof of age.

>>102481
>Imagine a Prime Minister you know is not a politician because he's so lacking in self preservation he demands you give your ID to twitter to prove you're old enough to discuss sensitive topics like antisemitism despite being Jewish and seeing Twitter's AI become a Nazi.

So that petition that immediately got 300k+ signatures got a response:

>I would like to thank all those who signed the petition. It is right that the regulatory regime for in scope online services takes a proportionate approach, balancing the protection of users from online harm with the ability for low-risk services to operate effectively and provide benefits to users. 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.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903

So:
1. All political parties are marching in lock-step on this and if anything Labour wanted to go even further than the Tories original bill to dismantle encryption
2. Industry, even Apple and Wikipedia bringing it to the courts is ignored
3. Public opposition and petition are ignored and instead further measures are being brought in as fast as possible

Outstanding democracy we have isn't it.

>>102487
What happened to Italian pornography anyway?

Used a video online to verify on Discord. How completely pointless and obviously just a data grab.

It's not just porn, man. How fucking dare they decide they know better about my own personal safety. Conscience and morals must be practiced to remain relevant. I'm old enough to know why you best keep away from nasties in the garden.
I daren't download wikipedia lest it confirms my faith in this Online Safety Act.
Absolute cunts.

>>102492
If they repeal the law now, they won't be able to repeal it just before the election when they're desperate. I don't think anyone will vote for the party that did this, and polling will reflect that.

On a side note, it turns out Opera's free VPN lets you completely bypass the geoblocking limitations. As do a variety of other tricks, including using AI to generate photos of a random over-18 person, or getting your kicks from any website that isn't on the naughty list, such as YouTube or Twitter.

>>102495
Wow, 'it turns out' a VPN does what everybody already knew it does!

>>102495
>Reform UK has promised to repeal the Online Safety Act, arguing that measures intended to push social media companies to limit false and potentially harmful content would instead make the UK “a borderline dystopian state”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/28/reform-uk-vows-to-repeal-borderline-dystopian-online-safety-act

>Jimmy Savile refuses to guarantee the state pension triple lock
https://archive.is/uvPts

Help I'm being radicalised!

>>102496

I was listening to The News Agents and was quite amused to hear them discussing VPNs. They obviously had the journalistic instinct to paint VPNs as something sinister and subversive, but that instinct was completely tempered by the fact that they're sponsored by Nord VPN. It's quite funny to see how the VPN industry has semi-accidentally bought a great deal of political legitimacy by sponsoring literally everything - Jon Sopel and Emily Maitlis have to at least pretend to understand the product they've been reading adverts for.

Personally I kind of hope corporate bullshit and government interference work together to enshittify the normal internet far enough that normal people just give up on it, and it becomes a sort of brief but short lived novelty people remember like teletext. Then, when the nerds have all migrated over onto the dark web, or whatever else we take up as an alternative, it will be like the good old days again.

Except it wouldn't would it. We can never go back to those innocent times before, where it was a promising new technology, but still awkward and niche enough that only the nerds were interested. It will just slowly die, like those 1960s housing developments, that were utopian for maybe the first 5-10 years after they were built, but then inevitably every single one of them became cesspits full of junkies and petty crime.

That's the internet, that is. The 1960s tower block of the 21st century.

>>102499

I think your analogy is exactly backwards. The early internet was, for the most part, a slum. Anyone could turn up with a pallet of breeze blocks and a few sheets of corrugated iron and set up home. For better or worse, it was anarchy. It was full of scumbags and weirdos, but it was terra nullius for anyone who wanted to do anything interesting.

The modern internet is rapidly turning into a shopping mall - clean, safe, family-friendly, but ultimately only serving the interests of the landlords. It's a bright, gaudy simulacrum of a public space, but it is a private enterprise that is purely extractive and neither fosters nor serves any community. The ordinary shoppers are unperturbed by beggars or buskers or street preachers, but only because they are being constantly surveilled by private security enforcing a set of undemocratic pseudo-laws.

>>102499
You can't complain about enshittification while posting AI junk. Well, you can, but it's a bit like complaining no one makes "real music" anymore, before citing Benson Boone as someone who's bucking the trend.

>>102506

And yet you don't even put spaces after post numbers. Curious.

>>102500

I am old enough to remember the late 90s and your description of the Internet of those days is pretty accurate. I wouldn't use the word slum, maybe it was the Wild West of its time. Where there were few rules, and where anybody could try their luck in creating something. And where laws and regulations by governments and other entities were struggling to keep up.

The early Internet did foster a culture of homebrew hobbyists. You had places like Geocities where anybody could throw a few lines of HMTL together that were nicked from somebody else's pages, and in blissful ignorance create websites laden with dozens of kilobytes of Java menubar applets and animated GIFs that were really testing your patience with your 56K dialup modem. E-business was just starting to pick up, as more and more people didn't see it as a playground for hobbyists but as a new promised land where new fortunes could be made. But fundamentally, it was still a shanty town.

I'd say the Internet reached its first milestone of maturity in the early to mid-2000s, where some of the big names had established themselves, where the first rules and conventions emerged, and where we find the first grandfather social media sites like Myspace, and then of course facebook. Where Geocities and others like it had been a community-run free-for-all playground, social media became the corporate, for-profit daycare centre version of it.


>The modern internet is rapidly turning into a shopping mall - clean, safe, family-friendly, but ultimately only serving the interests of the landlords.

The entire Internet has in a way gone corporate minimalist, as most things have. Where everything is streamlined to maximum efficiency. Where you can get everything and anything, all the time and anytime, but it's a soulless place where it's all about profit.

>>102500

Well, sure, I will grant you that's perhaps a more apt comparison. But my analogy was not so much about the physical state of things and more the direction of travel. The internet has gentrified, but a gentrified neighbourhood that goes bust doesn't slide back down to being a bohemian slum. A shopping mall with declining footfall doesn't slide back down the scale and become a flea market full of independent retailers, it just shuts its doors and becomes a dead abandoned husk. Because that's the only direction of travel allowed in today's market, in todays consumer economy.

For that reason we will never get the old, low-key, independently minded Wild West internet back.

>>102508
You realise I'm trying to help you, right? I wasn't picking a fight, I'm pointing something out that is part of what you're complaining about, so there's no need to get cute. Those halcyon days you're talking about weren't born of advertiser friendly algorithms, or cynically exploited micro-trends. Whereas that's exactly what AI generated imagery is all about, so I think it's worthwhile avoiding that if the current state of the internet is, not unreasonably, causing you some degree of despair.

You don't have to form a metaphorical testudo everytime someone tries to have a discussion.

>>102508
I’m afraid you’ve lost this one. It doesn’t make sense, it never made sense, and nobody is going to start obeying this rule unless they already did. Much like I read A Confederacy of Dunces, where probably 70-80% of the questions in the book don’t have question marks, and I got a reply that there’s nothing wrong with how it’s written. (I counted the actual spelling mistakes in the book, and there were two). Even if you maintain that you are right, nobody’s going to agree with you. And I actually am right, so when you want people to press Enter twice instead of once when replying to people, I predict you will struggle to spread your message even more than I do mine.

>>102512

I don't agree. I think a lot of the people who were around in the good old days are the people who agree with my stance on AI and not your reactionary position. But in either case, the fact it provokes such discourse is exactly why I deliberately included an AI generated image in a post that I could have left text only.

I don't want to call you stupid but you don't strike me as one of those people who is very good at picking up subtext and irony in art. The best art is often provocative. In fact I have argued before, and I think I have settled on this as my fundamental definition of art- If it provokes emotion, then it is art. It doesn't have to be emotions you want or like.

>>102513

It is a battle I will keep fighting. The thing is that as I understand it, the lack of space is something that came about because of phone posting. And if we are talking about the enshittification of the internet, then phone posting overtaking keyboard posting was really the last nail in the coffin.

>>102514
>The thing is that as I understand it, the lack of space is something that came about because of phone posting.
Pish. It's easier to press return on my phone than on a computer and I've also always posted like this.

>>102515

It's certainly more fiddly to edit things once you have written them out on a phone, and it is largely to blame for the decline in general grammar standards you get in internet posts these days. We are largely an exception here, but having been a user of imageboards and forums and all the rest of it since the early 00s, I think it holds true that phone posting has a lot to answer for.

>>102514 "YOU FOOL I WAS ONLY ACTING LIKE I AM RETARDED, I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU FELL FOR IT, EVERYONE WHO REMEMBERS BRITCHAN WOULD UNDERSTAND"

Jimmy Savile has urged Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to "do the right thing and apologise" after he suggested that by opposing the government's online safety law, the Jim'll Fix It leader was on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile.

Kyle told Sky News the law was a "huge step forward" for protecting children online, adding: "Make no mistake, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today he would be perpetrating his crimes online - and Jimmy Savile is on their side."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgery3eeqzxo

Only posting this because of the wordfilter, TBH.