> Yet with its duty for adult content hosts to age verify users, the Act is one of Britain’s only attempts to protect children from the horrors of the murky ocean that is the internet.
Exactly, the first and only attempt. Instead of trying first with e.g. state-sponsored, default-included/enabled parental-control software, that would be fully in control of the device owner, and only moving on to more repressive options later, if the first attempts failed, they went directly for the option that most effectively kills both online anonymity and small platforms that can't afford to keep up with the large and vague new legal requirements.
The only possible conclusions are either that those "unintended side effects" were actually their goal, or that they are incompetent and have zero regard for their citizens' freedom.
> Surely stemming the tide of obscene material flowing into innocent eyes should be prioritised over liberal preoccupations like free speech.
"Surely". I guess the author is unaware of the high death tolls that follow allowing your country to slip into tyranny? Just entirely oblivious of 20th century history? And yet it's a common stance - pretending that giving up freedoms will carry no cost other than lacking those freedoms, that everything else will remain the same. Again history shows otherwise.
drankl•30m ago
Having state-mandated software running on every device sounds like a much more invasive solution, and more easily turned against device owners.
Whereas making online service providers responsible for the content they offer is more lightweight for the end user and is more consistent with how it's done offline, like with age verification for certain types of purchases.
jjgreen•1h ago
William Malcolmson is a pseudonym for an Oxbridge academic interested in defence policy, who doesn't care to write about Huawei under his own name [1]
like_any_other•1h ago
Exactly, the first and only attempt. Instead of trying first with e.g. state-sponsored, default-included/enabled parental-control software, that would be fully in control of the device owner, and only moving on to more repressive options later, if the first attempts failed, they went directly for the option that most effectively kills both online anonymity and small platforms that can't afford to keep up with the large and vague new legal requirements.
The only possible conclusions are either that those "unintended side effects" were actually their goal, or that they are incompetent and have zero regard for their citizens' freedom.
> Surely stemming the tide of obscene material flowing into innocent eyes should be prioritised over liberal preoccupations like free speech.
"Surely". I guess the author is unaware of the high death tolls that follow allowing your country to slip into tyranny? Just entirely oblivious of 20th century history? And yet it's a common stance - pretending that giving up freedoms will carry no cost other than lacking those freedoms, that everything else will remain the same. Again history shows otherwise.
drankl•30m ago
Whereas making online service providers responsible for the content they offer is more lightweight for the end user and is more consistent with how it's done offline, like with age verification for certain types of purchases.