United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Stop trying to enforce this at the service level, for God's sake. What are you going to do when people switch to stuff like Tor?* 'Online safety regulation pushes kids to that dark web' will be a fire headline in a couple of months/years.
* I remember seeing someone link to something here they described as 'Tor for apps' that I can't find, does anyone have that at hand?
I'm sorry, but this is genuinely a failure of parents. Like, I'm not normally one to trot out the 'parents should helicopter their children' defence against regulation of social media, but giving a bloody six year old not-monitored-enough access to the internet is on the parent.
Also, I'd take this all a lot more seriously if parents actually used the tools already available to them:
Back to the BBC article.
This is an implicit admission that age verification is ineffective. If it was, then children wouldn't see it and then we wouldn't need to ban it.
It's easier to police the users than it is to get social media companies to actually do the literal minimum amount of work to protect children. Plus it has the added benefit of greatly expanding the surveillance infrastructure so they can clamp down on those pesky 80 year old nuns who oppose genocide.
The weird thing is that I've been ogling internet porn since the internet was invented, and I have never seen any strangulation porn ever. This sort of shit you have to hunt down. You certainly don't "stumble across" it.
It's insane - I don't give unrestricted internet access (certainly no social media) to my 9 year old, let alone a 6 year old!
Parent education is needed badly!
Yep. But these authoritarians do not think you should have a choice. Because some parents fail. They will use the claim to control all internet.
It is no accident that the solution is the force data sharing with the least trusted companies when it comes to data.
Just as smart folks choosing to pay VPN as more trusted then sharing data with random porn sites scares the crap out of them.
It's got little to do with protecting anyone. Def not your children.
It's because of the idiots that proudly announce that they "don't do computers". Refusing to understand even at a fundamental level the most basic parts of computing is like refusing to learn to read, it's just not acceptable in modern life.
None of this was ever actually about protecting anybody's children.
Tor is U.S. jurisdiction kinda so it can't really be blocked or regulated.
People like me have been screaming for the past year or two that all these laws do is push children and other people onto more seedy sites.
How is Tor under US jurisdiction?
"Kinda" as in its maintained by a U.S. nonprofit EFF. The U.S. government also made it but I don't think the current "administration" would be rational about not fucking with it.
Thats cool and all but its completely irrelevant to the operation of the Tor network. Even if the EFF was wiped out of existence, the Tor network would keep running and the code would simply be forked and development would continue...
Oh. Hm. TIL thanks :)