this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
1072 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

73232 readers
4191 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 65 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

There's a UK Parliament petition to repeal the Online Safety act. There's no guarantee it'll do anything but might be worth a try for anyone in the UK.

[–] tarknassus@lemmy.world 27 points 19 hours ago

Don't forget to write to your MP - being polite but angry helps. Explain the issues, shortcomings and why you feel this should be repealed and a better user-friendly and privacy respecting alternative needs to be found BEFORE implementing stupid asinine knee-jerk legislation like this.

My poor MP is getting it in the jugular because they boasted about working in data security and I'm exploiting the hell out of that statement so they can't easily weasel their way out of it.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'm just waiting for the response to be something along the lines of... "According to existing law (see Online Safety Act), websites are required to do age verification... blah blah blah, no changes will be made, thank you for your inquiry"

[–] Essence_of_Meh@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Most likely, or maybe someone will try to use this to score some easy points with more online conscious voters. Probably not but one can dream.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 44 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (11 children)

At this point Dark-web tech needs an upgrade, we might just need a "2nd internet"

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 118 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's a lot of admin for most small providers to be bothered with. Less of a hit to just block the whole UK.

Which is why big tech is actively lobbying for these laws because they know that they will be the only ones who can comply and therefore exist.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 71 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Fuck off with your device based verification system. That's just the same service, but as a more invasive app installed on your phone.

Instead of scanning a face or ID and uploading it to a service, we're expected to run unverified closed source code on the device we carry everywhere in our pockets?!

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 21 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (9 children)

Fuck off with your device based verification system. That's just the same service, but as a more invasive app installed on your phone.

not necessarily. you give a phone to your children. you partly lock it down by setting it up as a child account, with its age. you make sure to install a web browser that supports limiting access to age appropriate content according to the age set in the system, maybe taking a parent allowed whitelist. the website is legally obliged to set an appropriate age limit value in a standard HTTP header.

that way, the website does not know your age. the decision is on the web browser.
the web browser checks the configuration in the system, that only the parent can change. it does not send it anywhere, only does a yes/no decision. if the site is not ok, it'll show a thing like when the connection is not secure or it was put on the safebrowsing list, except that you can't skip it, only option is to request parent permission.
and finally the age is set in the operating system, without verifying its truthiness, but once again requesting lock screen authentication.
oh and app installs need parent approval for kid accounts, like it should almost always be.

this way it's as private as it can get. the only way a website can find out information about you from this, is to log if your browser loaded the html but not any other resources, because that means you were caught in the age filter. but that's it.

there's multiple pieces in this that is not yet implemented, but they should be possible with not too much work.
this is all possible with open source code, if you make sure the kid can't install anything without parent approval. stores like fdroid could have some badge or something if a browser supports this kind of limitation.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 35 points 22 hours ago
[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 36 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

Yeah, we're all mad, fuck the suits and all that.

But why does the distinction between "real-world adult material" and "creative, non-realistic", "artistic, animated works" that "do no harm" matter? Last time I checked, realistic adult material can be just as artistic, and the harm done by negligently letting children watch it seems comparable.

Are they in favour of age verification for "uncreative, realistic" pornography, or is the real distinction just between real-life and online?

[–] beveradb@sh.itjust.works 39 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I interpreted it as "can't possibly be doing harm to the people in the video" - eg as much of mainstream porn can do - since there are none if everything is animated fiction

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] arararagi@ani.social 21 points 20 hours ago

It's because some arguments against porn says the actors involved have it bad. Something that can't happen in a drawing.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I think it's more about the legal distinction between drawn and 'real' porn.

TBH "negligently letting children watch it" seems like a sensless statement to me. The onus should be on parents to filter their kids' internet environments, not literally every accessible site on the open internet (which are never going to comply with a patchwork of age verification regs).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

The Net is dead. Where's our R.A.B.I.D.S. when we need them?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›