this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
352 points (99.7% liked)
Malicious Compliance
21507 readers
193 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Source? Cause mine (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 aka the fucking law) doesn't say anything like that.
Not who you’re responding to but techlinked called out that it’s illegal as well and showed the legislation text in their video. But if you’re not implementing the ID check in the first place then mentioning vpns doesn’t matter at all. I can’t even get your link to load.
Edit: timestamp 1:50 https://youtu.be/uGJHzPHOFXM
I don't believe guidelines are above the actual law.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k81lj8nvpo
Ofcom is the regulator so I’m guessing they read the law a little more closely than you. And BBC states that the government explicitly told them it would be illegal.
Yeah, that would be the first time enforcement didn't really bother to read the law they should be enforcing.
So they might add it later when stuff like this becomes more common, but right now it's not illegal, according to the law and disregarding everything else that doesn't really have any legal hold and is really just a guideline.
You didn’t read the second sentence of that quote.
Simple defense: "I wasn't encouraging anything, I was just informing them."
Reddit is super-screwed then because its full of users doing exactly that anywhere this topic comes up.
I very much doubt it has anything to do with being a citizen. The law would apply to the company making the statements itself.
"platforms must not host, share or permit content encouraging use of VPNs to get around age checks."
I'll also note that this doesn't seem to even be in the official documentation.
Section 4.37 of Ofcom's Guidance on Highly Effective Age Assurance for Part 3 Services:
That's guidance, not law.
Ofcom is the designated regulator and has the power of enforcement. The law doesn't define what age verification means, only that it much be 'highly effective' (Section 12 (6)). It is therefore left to Ofcom to set out in its Code of Practices (Section 41 (3)) what 'highly effective age verification' means, which is what this guidance is. This isn't Ofcom being nice, this is them telling you how they're going to enforce the law.
Nobody is above law. If UK courts are not entirely corrupted, they'll rule according to the law. This happens all the time with law enforcement enforcing more than the law says.
Should, not must. Like the highway code should rules and must rules.
Well, nope.
Wait, what‽
Source?
Source: Dude trust me. It's not there anywhere.