It's exciting to think I'll become a dissident like my parents, just because I don't want a slimy, rightwing, greasy friends of Epstein and other known abusers to ID and surveil me.
I definitely see both sides of this argument but to pretend the answers here are obvious just means people aren’t being serious. Serious harm is being caused to children and just because that’s a known cliche doesn’t make it not a real concern people have.
The UK hasn't been quick to deal with Epstein's associates and has a long history of either ignoring or losing critical evidence in CSA cases associated with politicians and public figures.
With that background, mandatory ID makes it easier, not harder, for abusers to act with impunity and/or official protection.
Ah, yes, the existing research doesn't agree with our biases, so let's fund new "research" that does.
> Ms Kendall told Nick Ferrari: “I told MPs yesterday I'm going to come back to the House with a statement on the issue of VPNs in July. There are very strong views on both sides of this. For some people, it is about privacy, and it is the ability to use that is really held strongly by people. And for others, they say they should be banned because kids are using them to get around. And so I— the main thing that we've done is we've commissioned additional research on this because I've not been happy with the evidence."
Sounds like they realize there are two sides and no "clear winning argument" in either direction, that's why the additional research is needed. Sounds a bit more nuanced than what I expected based on your snippet.
Probably how they can best attach a license to VPN use like they're doing with TV.
remove all "reasonable step" shield to hide behind. for example, a shopkeeper can't say they took "reasonable steps" if they sell alcohol to a child so why should a website be any different? if we are going to the absurdity of age-gating VPNs, at least lets make it so that there is an incentive for children to self-report
The social media companies could have done the socially responsible thing a decade ago and avoided all this.
The even more concerning thing is that we've got a far right party that have been leading in the polls for most of the last year.
This is a very dangerous situation.
2. Children start using VPNs to bypass the ban
3. Age-gate VPNs
4. Repeat steps 2-3
Truly a masterful plan.
1. Ban something
2. People bypass the ban
3. Ban however they're bypassing the ban
4. Goto 2
https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/blair-and-th...
https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/di...
On mobile a VPN isn't always effective in avoid geoblocks. Some apps are able to determine I'm in the UK and still ask for ID - reddit is one for example, if you stumble on to an adult subreddit. Using the web interface avoids this.
The UK has also moved to force ISPs to block certain bittorrent search engines.
The UK is not shy when it comes to invading your privacy or censoring the Internet.
I've never had this issue (using Private Internet Access on iOS).
Going the other way around to try and watch British TV I used to find with a normal hosted VPN services could still figure out I wasn't in the country, but now I have a Tailscale exit node at my mum's place in the UK it always works fine.
So I suspect it all comes down to the IP source, probably a residential IP is the best possible case and with commercial VPNs it depends on how hard they work on isolating their IP blocks from known datacentres.
Definitely doesn't shy away from doing it! But one thing I find most irritating is that it seems reluctant to say it proud and loud.
Look at the situation with 4chan and Kiwifarms. They are basically asking to be blocked from the UK and they refuse to. I can't really say why the onus is put on the websites to enact blocks, but my suspicion is the government doesn't like the idea of displaying an official page stating that you are not allowed to see something because the government doesn't want you to.
This is a privacy nightmare on all fronts and a horrible limit on freedom of speech. These kids will be learning how to drive a car, yet unable to contact their extended family over Messenger or follow news on Twitter. For everyone else, it means no anonymity or secrecy which has a chilling effect on free speech at a time when fascism is growing within democratic countries and dissidents are being imprisoned or murdered.
Yes, there are some really big problems with social media, but keeping children away from it doesn't fix the problems - it just leaves them for the rest of us to deal with. Let's fix the root of the problem, starting with the recommendation algorithms that inherently polarize people by building echo chambers around them and pushing divisive content all in the name of "engagement".
They're not a high quality source of news - they've more than decimated their journalism staff and replaced them with 'content' staff who are performance monitored on the number of clicks their articles generate.
Content is syndicated in different accents across their range of papers from the national papers, The Mirror and The Daily Express down into a large number of notionally 'local' outlets.
So, take it with a pinch of salt.
Now, seeing many European governments tirelessly push for these new measures to protect the children, I'm pretty sure that the children are finally going to be safe online.
Though I think banning it for children is the wrong approach. Ban the addictive and dangerous features for everyone, adults included — no more infinite scroll, and no more feeds showing content from outside social connections.
> how, precisely, do you stop a fourteen-year-old from opening Instagram without first checking the age of the forty-year-old?
> You don’t. You can’t. So everyone gets carded. Britain is lifting the system wholesale from Australia, where a computer first scans your face and guesses your age from your cheekbones, then, failing that, surveils you to death, studies your browsing habits and the hours you keep, and then, when the algorithm throws up its hands, simply demands your passport.
https://reclaimthenet.org/starmers-social-media-ban-surveill...
Exactly. A little at a time. First it's adult sites, because if you need to show ID to buy alcohol, shouldn't you need ID to buy pornography? Once that's accepted, expand the sphere of control to non-adult sites too by redefining everything as 16+.
all this because they refuse to make the law just
"legal parent/guardian is responsible for the child"
if a parent faced fine or jail for a child having access to the internet you can be sure 90% of the children wouldn't have internet access
I'm no defender of the big social/media sites but I don't see why it's their fault/problem if a minor has internet access when they aren't supposed to
This all feels like the opposite goal of knowing everyone who is online everywhere
Because it's not how you'd make the law, you'd wouldn't go to service by service and make it their problem, you'd make it the adult responsible for the child's problem
* Creates a market for privacy tech of several million teenagers
* Wastes police time chasing down social forums which kids are hosting abroad using their pocket money
* Rubs the noses of the securirati in the fact that they've made it easier for terrorists to hide their comms among the thousands of teenage speakeasies
This is not the 80's when comms tech required capital and man-years of engineering. Setting up forums online isn't even a high-school project.
The "loicense m8" memes are getting less and less funny ...
The law is very bad at dealing with such realities, see also piracy and drugs. The last time I checked TPB is still accessible in the UK with only DoH.
If they ban the commercial providers, payment processors will be the first to enforce it. And Google and Apple will throw the 1-Click solutions out of their app store for users from those countries immediately. And with that the topic is effectively dead even for most "geeks". At this point the goal is already pretty much achieved, most people are cutoff and under heavier surveillance. Next comes the group that know what a server is, how to rent one, what OpenVPN or Wireguard are. But many of the most used websites already make your life difficult if your IP is from such a range.
It goes on. At each step you can argue "there is still a way, as long as you got networking with other countries". Absolutely correct, but at each step the group who knows how and is willing to invest the energy shrinks. And the intended goal will likely already be achieved at the mentioned phase 1 above. The fact that some people still find ways isn't really a gotcha in this matter.
And at some point they will criminalize it. Does it matter that they are unlikely to catch you? Is it worth the risk? And if so, what if you catch strays for it from an unrelated matter. Ultimately they will simply target the devs that help build easy solution for the less tech-savy.
One big reason why you want to keep a bunch of nerds tunneling out around anyway is that you keep useful, defusing attitudes like that floating around. Aka "It's not that bad, there are still ways around it, haha, those idiots".
The trade-offs and how many people care and about what specifically.
E.g., you say "Privacy is a human right", so why is it that half the websites I visit ask for permission to share details of how I use those sites with more corporate "trusted partners" than there were students and staff combined in my secondary school? I'm all on board with just banning this kind of analytics, but there's a lot of people who are more angry with the EU for forcing companies to at least ask for permission before they sell your data to all those analytics firms.
It's pathetic how they use sobbing families to push it through, similar tactic like before Iraq invasion.
same players behind the scenes.
This is happening worldwide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_age_verification_laws_b...
For decades companies like Facebook have been saying you just have to let us groom children, there's no way to have this tech and not groom children. Now the predictable consequences of that are arriving: the tech industry is being turned off, because it grooms children.
And when I say groom children, I'm talking about actual child predators, not the transphobic nonsense point.
Edit because I'm getting limited:
This isn't exactly something old that has been going on for decades in its current form and the usage has increased especially since the lockdowns. Nations have also been copying each other for centuries, you don't need a secret group coordinating for it with a singular ulterior motive.
But sure, all governments suddenly woke up at the exact same time, give or take a few months, and realized that social media should be banned for kids.
Apparently if countries all put an age limit on tobacco it must mean there is a secret group coordinating for it for ulterior reasons.
Quite often, people in power don’t want to hear the truth, they want to hear their own words/views parroted back to them.
It's not possible to prevent a person (of any age) from reaching a specific website if they are determined enough. Full stop.
right, and that reveals the absurdity of this "age gate", doesn't it? because I am sure giving every UK national their very own unicorn would also poll very well but that doesn't mean that's what a functional democracy should be prioritizing just because a majority of the public supports because doing so is not possible
lets give everyone an incentive to report companies that allow or encourage children to use these websites. the children, the parents, bystanders, the employees and contractors of these websites, everyone should get paid from the fines these social media companies would need to pay out for every infraction. I think GBP 10k per incidence is actually pretty cheap considering the alternative is life in prison for the CEO and the board starting with cash incentives all the way to prison terms for the CEO and the board
HIPAA has been super effective this way. As we all know, American companies don’t give two shits about user privacy or even security. But wave the HIPAA flag and everyone starts caring real hard and taking extremely cumbersome steps to comply with patient privacy.
Very simple: Each HIPAA violation comes with a financial penalty for the business and personal penalty for every person involved in the leak. Very effective.
From my understanding, HIPAA mostly just says that you need to have policies in place for various things, such as rotating passwords or encrypting data, but it doesn't go into explicit detail about what all must be IN those policies, or how you enforce them.
If the government isn't going to provide that service you end up with private companies verifying identity and the data security issues that entails.
If you want to shift the responsibility of protecting children away from parents, then you end up in a situation where third parties need to be able to differentiate between a child and an adult. I haven't yet seen a proposal that doesn't entail someone - government or private enterprise - getting access to identifiable information.
Of course, you could have something like a signed certificate, so the identity verifier doesn't see who you are patronizing, and the identity seeking business only gets to see your age, but it still has privacy issues.
You've needed to do that for at least ten years. Mobile internet either requires a contract, or an ID check before you get a sim (pay and go)
Anyone providing internets is liable for what the users are doing. The way you got out of that is responding to legal requests. (originally mostly copyright)
This is the frustrating thing, we have effective and relatively uncontroversial age gated network (mobile data) already. and it worked.
but now they've done and fucked it up with OSA.
You have to phone them up/log in and request the block to be removed.
California's Digital Age Assurance Act
All of these proposals probably sound good to people who think the Venn diagram of sites they use and sites covered by these laws are two separate circles.
They probably sound a lot less good when you realize the law covers site like YouTube. The Australian law (which they said they’re modeling this after) also includes social news sites like Reddit.
If they passed a law like this extending to VPN services then you’d have to hand over your ID to use a VPN.
Usually people realize how bad these proposals are once they realize it might impact their internet use, too.
Browsing with a VPN is a frustrating experience. They are abused by many of their users which leads to circular capture checks and straight blocks.
I'm not even taking a side here and what they are trying to do is obvious.
Caius-Cosades•1h ago
arrosenberg•1h ago
m00dy•1h ago
blululu•1h ago
fidotron•1h ago
wbl•57m ago