>Online Safety Bill: Crackdown on harmful social media content agreed
>The nearly 300-page bill will also introduce new rules such as requiring pornography sites to stop children viewing content by checking the ages of users.
>Platforms will also need to show they are committed to removing illegal content including:
>child sexual abuse
>controlling or coercive behaviour
>extreme sexual violence
>illegal immigration and people smuggling
>promoting or facilitating suicide
>promoting self-harm
>animal cruelty
>selling illegal drugs or weapons
>terrorism
>New offences have also been included in the bill, including cyber-flashing and the sharing of "deepfake" pornography
>And the bill includes measures to make it easier for bereaved parents to obtain information about their children from tech firms.
>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).
>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>
ID: 74cd25
No. 16177Anonymous 29th July 2025 Tuesday 12:41 am ID: 74cd25 16177Parsing preference mismatch
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
