4 ms·

It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. They want online activity tied to real identity as a power grab.

airhangerf15 1y ago
Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores. Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
- ls612 1y ago
  At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.
  - flumpcakes 1y ago
    What political speech is the UK blocking? If the 'political speech' is not adult in nature, which is true 99.9% of the time, then it can't/won't be blocked under this rule. Unless of course this political speech is happening on a porn site, or a subreddit that has been deemed 18+. Which I can't see a legitimate reason for.
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      It seems like videos of violence are also getting blocked, and I expect eventually stuff about LGBT relationships etc will fall under it. Lots of things are adult that aren't porn.
      - flumpcakes 1y ago
        'videos of violence' is quite wide: children shouldn't be watching videos of people being executed by gangs for example. A lot of LGBT content is aimed at adults. I think we should always be clear when we are making statements like this because it causes great stress, a worked example: People will claim that LGBT is under attack because this law potentially affects some LGBT spaces. These spaces will clearly be meant for 18+ audiences and so fall correctly under the law. Then other people see the first group of people, and from their point of view that group is complaining that their 18+ spaces are blocked from children. "Think of the children" drama ensues. It is similar to Steam taking down incest/rape games and people claiming it was an action against LGBT creators. I don't think that's an argument that should ever be made for obvious reasons. I don't think the government, even if it were under the Conservatives, have banning gay spaces on their current agenda.
        newtonsmethod 1y ago
        Even if you think a lot of the content captured by the ban should be banned, I don't think age restriction mechanisms should be put on it. Talks around sexuality, the mere mention of certain crimes and unrest are being banned by social media companies, all because of this act. Companies seem to be acting out of caution. I simply don't want to be forced to provide my ID / face to be able to read or access politically important news on social media. Some people would be happier if the bill was limited to only pornography: they likely don't think it has a major effect on UK politics.
      - mulmen 1y ago
        Why would LGBT relationships be considered any more adult than any other type of relationship?
        nemomarx 1y ago
        I mean I don't think they should, but they get treated that way all the time in the US.
        1y ago
  - mywittyname 1y ago
    Given the rulings of the current SCOTUS, I'll go out on a limb and say that it's trivial to go after left-leaning political speech and impossible to go after right-leaning speech. They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated. There's a 0% chance this move gets struct down by SCOTUS.
    - d4v3 1y ago
      > They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated No longer subsidizing left leaning speech != suppressing left leaning speech
- userbinator 1y ago
  One possibly significant difference is that the cultural attitudes in the US tend to lean more rebellious and distrustful of the government, and "it's legal if you don't get caught" is a somewhat popular sentiment.
- iamacyborg 1y ago
  > Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy. I’m not sure what gun laws have to do with anything but guns are not unreasonably difficult to legally purchase in the UK or EU if you have a specific need for one. It’s a tool and treated as such
- ByThyGrace 1y ago
  > Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US Interesting, since when? I'm curious about how it's turned out in practise. For web services I mean. An for anyone hosting a message board or comment section.
  - dmix 1y ago
    The US states are just targeting the big porn sites like Pornhub to add ID checks AFAIK, I haven't heard of them going after random forums like in the UK. But obviously that sort of power always expands, just like how the UK went from arresting a couple people for offensive tweets back in 2010 to doing 12k arrests/yr in 2025
    - flumpcakes 1y ago
      The UK law was designed to be all encompassing. Why block just the 'porn sites' when you can see porn on forums? The UK law is actually a good implementation if you put child 'safety' as your number one priority, with any other considerations as, in practise, moot. Unfortunately I think free civil discourse between adults, privacy, etc. are just as important as child safety which makes the current law a bit crap. This is similar to the video game and MasterCard/VISA issue - you can buy games that promote sexual violence and incest. Nothing stops children downloading them for free, or using their under-18s debit card from purchasing the non-free versions. In this instance it was private companies leveraging their freedom of association rather than an all encompassing law from a sovereign state, but the intent is the same. As a collective society we do really need to come to grips with what it is that we want. Allowing kids to freely access gang torture/execution videos and playing pro-rape entertainment should probably be tackled. I'm not sure I agree with the implementations though.
rhubarbtree 1y ago
Probably based on long term concerns that escalating inequality will lead to widespread unrest and violence. Which it will, if unaddressed. Interesting that decades of government leaves half the country to rot, and their solution is to try to stop that half from rioting about it, rather than - perhaps - making society fairer?
firefax 1y ago
>It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. Also in an overpopulated world it's not a given that children should be protected if it comes at the expense of basic freedoms. We need to move away from this narrative that "think of the children" is a persuasive argument. Little Timmy needs to avoid danger or the ghost of Darwin will work his magic.
EasyMark 1y ago
I've been warning people in the USA about this for well over a decade. Laws like the states passing porn laws are the foot in the door to expand it to -any- internet activity. Freedom is had to take in a coupe, it's a a lot easier to nip at it around the edges until the structure cracks. Strange how people here in the states value the 2nd amendment so much (including me, I'm a proud gun owner) but they will ignore the 1st, 3rd, 4th .... This is particularly true here in Texas.

airhangerf15 1y ago

Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores. Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.

ls612 1y ago
At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.
- flumpcakes 1y ago
  What political speech is the UK blocking? If the 'political speech' is not adult in nature, which is true 99.9% of the time, then it can't/won't be blocked under this rule. Unless of course this political speech is happening on a porn site, or a subreddit that has been deemed 18+. Which I can't see a legitimate reason for.
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    It seems like videos of violence are also getting blocked, and I expect eventually stuff about LGBT relationships etc will fall under it. Lots of things are adult that aren't porn.
    - flumpcakes 1y ago
      'videos of violence' is quite wide: children shouldn't be watching videos of people being executed by gangs for example. A lot of LGBT content is aimed at adults. I think we should always be clear when we are making statements like this because it causes great stress, a worked example: People will claim that LGBT is under attack because this law potentially affects some LGBT spaces. These spaces will clearly be meant for 18+ audiences and so fall correctly under the law. Then other people see the first group of people, and from their point of view that group is complaining that their 18+ spaces are blocked from children. "Think of the children" drama ensues. It is similar to Steam taking down incest/rape games and people claiming it was an action against LGBT creators. I don't think that's an argument that should ever be made for obvious reasons. I don't think the government, even if it were under the Conservatives, have banning gay spaces on their current agenda.
      - newtonsmethod 1y ago
        Even if you think a lot of the content captured by the ban should be banned, I don't think age restriction mechanisms should be put on it. Talks around sexuality, the mere mention of certain crimes and unrest are being banned by social media companies, all because of this act. Companies seem to be acting out of caution. I simply don't want to be forced to provide my ID / face to be able to read or access politically important news on social media. Some people would be happier if the bill was limited to only pornography: they likely don't think it has a major effect on UK politics.
    - mulmen 1y ago
      Why would LGBT relationships be considered any more adult than any other type of relationship?
      - nemomarx 1y ago
        I mean I don't think they should, but they get treated that way all the time in the US.
        1y ago
- mywittyname 1y ago
  Given the rulings of the current SCOTUS, I'll go out on a limb and say that it's trivial to go after left-leaning political speech and impossible to go after right-leaning speech. They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated. There's a 0% chance this move gets struct down by SCOTUS.
  - d4v3 1y ago
    > They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated No longer subsidizing left leaning speech != suppressing left leaning speech
userbinator 1y ago
One possibly significant difference is that the cultural attitudes in the US tend to lean more rebellious and distrustful of the government, and "it's legal if you don't get caught" is a somewhat popular sentiment.
iamacyborg 1y ago
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy. I’m not sure what gun laws have to do with anything but guns are not unreasonably difficult to legally purchase in the UK or EU if you have a specific need for one. It’s a tool and treated as such
ByThyGrace 1y ago
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US Interesting, since when? I'm curious about how it's turned out in practise. For web services I mean. An for anyone hosting a message board or comment section.
- dmix 1y ago
  The US states are just targeting the big porn sites like Pornhub to add ID checks AFAIK, I haven't heard of them going after random forums like in the UK. But obviously that sort of power always expands, just like how the UK went from arresting a couple people for offensive tweets back in 2010 to doing 12k arrests/yr in 2025
  - flumpcakes 1y ago
    The UK law was designed to be all encompassing. Why block just the 'porn sites' when you can see porn on forums? The UK law is actually a good implementation if you put child 'safety' as your number one priority, with any other considerations as, in practise, moot. Unfortunately I think free civil discourse between adults, privacy, etc. are just as important as child safety which makes the current law a bit crap. This is similar to the video game and MasterCard/VISA issue - you can buy games that promote sexual violence and incest. Nothing stops children downloading them for free, or using their under-18s debit card from purchasing the non-free versions. In this instance it was private companies leveraging their freedom of association rather than an all encompassing law from a sovereign state, but the intent is the same. As a collective society we do really need to come to grips with what it is that we want. Allowing kids to freely access gang torture/execution videos and playing pro-rape entertainment should probably be tackled. I'm not sure I agree with the implementations though.

rhubarbtree 1y ago

Probably based on long term concerns that escalating inequality will lead to widespread unrest and violence. Which it will, if unaddressed. Interesting that decades of government leaves half the country to rot, and their solution is to try to stop that half from rioting about it, rather than - perhaps - making society fairer?

firefax 1y ago

>It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. Also in an overpopulated world it's not a given that children should be protected if it comes at the expense of basic freedoms. We need to move away from this narrative that "think of the children" is a persuasive argument. Little Timmy needs to avoid danger or the ghost of Darwin will work his magic.

EasyMark 1y ago

I've been warning people in the USA about this for well over a decade. Laws like the states passing porn laws are the foot in the door to expand it to -any- internet activity. Freedom is had to take in a coupe, it's a a lot easier to nip at it around the edges until the structure cracks. Strange how people here in the states value the 2nd amendment so much (including me, I'm a proud gun owner) but they will ignore the 1st, 3rd, 4th .... This is particularly true here in Texas.