Obviously not, but it's not like they're gonna be honest and call it the UK Online Spying Act.
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
773 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
74130 readers
3895 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, they don't care, because this is a good reason to start total control. Or they just want to raise a submissive generation of obedient dogs who don't know what it means to fight back or bite or think critically. China by the way is a great example of the alpha version of the shit that can await us.
failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue or courts blocking services
So most federated platforms should be fine, as they don't have any revenue(usually) and blocking is hard because DNS is easy to bypass and there just are so many instances already.
Oh! So they can fine by revenue percentage but not against megacorps.
This might actually make people move to Lemmy nice.
Big not a lawyer caveat but if it is revenue then likely not. That would be all money collected before expenses which I could see including donations collected for server expenses.
Donations are considered revenue. However, depending on the receiving entity, they could be qualified differently.
Those measures never did.
Surely nobody who is not doing anything online which is or will ever be until the day they die deemed morally objectionable by those with access to those databases or those with power over anything on their lives who can be provided directly or indirectly with data from those databases, have nothing to fear from this.
A bureaucratic regulation doesn't actually do what it purports to do, and which is the entire point of it's existence?
No way.
Who could've forseen that?!
You mean sharing their real identity with online companies who will sell and/or lose it to hackers doesn't make children sAfE oNLinE??!!?!11?!
Hopefully this will happen sooner than later and change people’s minds about the whole thing.
Yeah, it won't be good, but it's going to happen eventually. Sooner is better.
If the recent Tea App crap is anything to go by doesn't even require a hacker for someone to gain access to your info. Just takes more companies using AI to build shit without security and someone will just happen to find their open to the public firebase bucket.
I saw an interesting video suggesting that the real motivation is to give megacorps like Google a new business acting as "banks" for identity, i.e. the Internet would get so inconvenient that people would just save their identity with Google (or Meta, etc) and then use them to log in to other websites.
I probably explained it badly, but the video I saw is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAd-OOrdyMw
People in the comments pointed out that those companies would also have the ability to delete or suspend your identity verification if you did something they didn't like (or refused to do something they wanted). Reminds me of the SIN from Shadowrun .
This is by far the most plausible theory.
The other part is that christofascists really want to ban "porn" (read: anything they don't like), and they know age verification will make their operation almost impossible. The fact that corporations like Google might get to validate people they advertise to is a positive side effect.
Yeah, but the governments obviously want to know exactly what you're doing as well.
I think their only objection to Google et al having so much data is that they need to jump through hoops to get hold of it.
I suspect this will be in browser before too long. Mostly so they can automatically provide your full unique ID code to anyone who asks, so your government can keep track of you if you say "I support Palestine Action" anywhere, or so Google can look it up when you dare suggest AI is not our glorious future.
But also because there's only so many "let us check your ID" services you can use before you end up giving your details to somebody who is going to sell them directly. How long before a dodgy porn site does a "show us your face" check, before generating deepfakes starring yourself and demanding payment not to send them to a social media profile it's already detected based on your face?
I don't really want to be on an internet where instead of blackmist@feddit.uk, somebody can just click that and go "Oh, that's Jeff Timmons of 48 Badminton Way, Stoke-on-Trent. Ring Staffordshire police so they can go and grab him"
load more comments
(26 replies)
It will make kids really good at bypassing the restrictions that get put in place, which will probably require them to go to some of the shadier places on the web, which could put them in more danger.
The people who made these rules don't understand the fundamental rule of the internet: any online restriction put in place, can be overcome with tools and knowledge that are also readily available on the Internet
load more comments
(3 replies)
Obviously emotive reason for an outright erosion of personal liberty and freedom, shocked Pikachu is shocked
view more: next ›