3 ms·

And that's also the reason why they introduced "age verification". It's not age verification, they couldn't care less about children. Age verification is just

by reddalo 5mo ago

And that's also the reason why they introduced "age verification". It's not age verification, they couldn't care less about children. Age verification is just mass surveillance under a fake name.

ogogmad 5mo ago
[flagged]
- auggierose 5mo ago
  Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
- eipi10_hn 5mo ago
  Your comment is psychotic too.
- gambiting 5mo ago
  Yeah except that Ofcom(the UK communications regulator) already said that the main goal of the Online Safety Act isn't about protecting children, it's about "controlling online discourse". They dropped that pretense literally one day after the act got passed. >>I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments Weird thing to brag about, but sure.
  - delusional 5mo ago
    Would you mind linking to where you got that "controlling online discourse" quote. I am not able to find anything like that.
    - Nursie 5mo ago
      It comes from an article in the times - https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co... However the context is highly misleading, as in the original context it appears to be in reference to parts of the act that deal with content recommendation, not parts that deal with age verification - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44910161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44910161 But as usual, that no longer matters in online discourse, it forms a soundbite that backs up the preconceptions of one side of an argument, that the whole exercise is nefarious, so it doesn’t matter if it’s actually true.
  - ravenical 5mo ago
    Source, please?
    - JoshTriplett 5mo ago
      https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2... "officials explained that the regulation in question was 'not primarily aimed at ... the protection of children', but was about regulating 'services that have a significant influence over public discourse'".
      - delusional 5mo ago
        Isn't this presentation disingenuous? The act is called the "Online safety act" and the quote isn't about the "regulation" in its entirety but about what constitutes a "Category 1" service. Described in an official explainer, meant for the public, as "Large user-to-user services" under the heading of "Adults will have more control over the content they see"[1]. It's not clear to me that this is some nefarious underhanded technique. The secretary of state asked why non-porn sites were included in Category 1, and was told that Category 1 wasn't intended to catch porn sites, but is intended to apply to "Large user-to-user services", in line with public communication from the government. I don't think anybody is under any illusion that "Adults will have more control over the content they see" is intended to protect children. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer#adults-will-have-more-control-over-the-content-they-see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act...
        JoshTriplett 5mo ago
        This presentation seems entirely reasonable for the purposes of observing the stated goals, which differ from the purported goals. The act is being pitched as a means of "protecting children", which is also the mechanism making it harder for people to argue against it. It is entirely reasonable for people to observe that in practice the government is intending to use it to control online discourse.
  - andrepd 5mo ago
    Source please
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

by reddalo 5mo ago

And that's also the reason why they introduced "age verification". It's not age verification, they couldn't care less about children. Age verification is just mass surveillance under a fake name.

ogogmad 5mo ago

[flagged]

auggierose 5mo ago
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
eipi10_hn 5mo ago
Your comment is psychotic too.
gambiting 5mo ago
Yeah except that Ofcom(the UK communications regulator) already said that the main goal of the Online Safety Act isn't about protecting children, it's about "controlling online discourse". They dropped that pretense literally one day after the act got passed. >>I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments Weird thing to brag about, but sure.
- delusional 5mo ago
  Would you mind linking to where you got that "controlling online discourse" quote. I am not able to find anything like that.
  - Nursie 5mo ago
    It comes from an article in the times - https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://archive.ph/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co... However the context is highly misleading, as in the original context it appears to be in reference to parts of the act that deal with content recommendation, not parts that deal with age verification - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44910161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44910161 But as usual, that no longer matters in online discourse, it forms a soundbite that backs up the preconceptions of one side of an argument, that the whole exercise is nefarious, so it doesn’t matter if it’s actually true.
- ravenical 5mo ago
  Source, please?
  - JoshTriplett 5mo ago
    https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2... "officials explained that the regulation in question was 'not primarily aimed at ... the protection of children', but was about regulating 'services that have a significant influence over public discourse'".
    - delusional 5mo ago
      Isn't this presentation disingenuous? The act is called the "Online safety act" and the quote isn't about the "regulation" in its entirety but about what constitutes a "Category 1" service. Described in an official explainer, meant for the public, as "Large user-to-user services" under the heading of "Adults will have more control over the content they see"[1]. It's not clear to me that this is some nefarious underhanded technique. The secretary of state asked why non-porn sites were included in Category 1, and was told that Category 1 wasn't intended to catch porn sites, but is intended to apply to "Large user-to-user services", in line with public communication from the government. I don't think anybody is under any illusion that "Adults will have more control over the content they see" is intended to protect children. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer#adults-will-have-more-control-over-the-content-they-see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act...
      - JoshTriplett 5mo ago
        This presentation seems entirely reasonable for the purposes of observing the stated goals, which differ from the purported goals. The act is being pitched as a means of "protecting children", which is also the mechanism making it harder for people to argue against it. It is entirely reasonable for people to observe that in practice the government is intending to use it to control online discourse.
- andrepd 5mo ago
  Source please

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]