The real answer is to repeal this nonsense (IMHO as a non-UK citizen)
It as always a stupid idea, see recent discord leak of ID’s.
instead, the Court contorted themselves into holding that adults have accessing content obscene to minors without furnishing their ID isn't protected speech. porn still is protected speech, but proving your age isn't protected speech. as a result, the law is content-neutral, not content-based.. somehow.
it was a low point for the Court - clear activist justices legislating morality from the bench.
The internet is full of dishonest "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
As opposed to the original suggestion that doesn't actually address the problem? How is proposing that in the first place more honest than calling it out?
That’s some incredible logic.
I suspect this law isn’t popular. Just the messaging of doing nothing is more unpopular. So it gets spun as this is popular.
https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...
If you asked them would they support the law if it happens to accidentally block useful sites that have ZERO pornography on them, I'm very sure, the results would be very different.
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/09/12/wikimedia-fo...
> UK's Online Safety Act 2023 would require us to do a prohibitively complicated risk assessment for our service. We're talking reading through thousands of pages of legal guidelines.
> We're a volunteer operation and would likely be held responsible as individuals. There is talk of fines up to 18 million GBP which would ruin any single one of us, should they get creative about how to actually enforce this.
> Our impression is that this law is deliberately vague, deliberately drastic in its enforcement provisions, and specifically aimed against websites of all sizes, including hobby projects. In other words, this seems to us to be largely indistinguishable from an attempt to basically break the internet for all UK citizens.
> If we could afford to just hope for the best, we'd love to.
The way I understand this is that it's not feasible for them to assess how the legislation impacts them, so they would rather stay safe than risk having their lives destroyed.
Edit: They are not in the UK and not dealing in anything risky. If they still wanted to demonstrate compliance they could download risk assessment templates (easily available), fill them, keep them on record for the hypothetical future time when they might be asked (they wouldn't). Claiming that it is too risky and complicated so better to ban the UK is either unreasonable or a militant statement but not a "logical reason."
actually, it would ruin all of them collectively should "they" get creative enforcing it.
Would you pay their legal fees if they are sued? It's easy to say when you don't have your future on the line.
> After this, I know I will think twice about visiting the UK
Reallllyyy? Over a bit of porn blocking? Do we not think maybe this is just for show? What do they imagine is going to happen at the border -- their iPhone gets frisked for Page Three nudes?
More to the point, are they banning Texas? Indiana? Oklahoma? Georgia? North Dakota? France?
Or are they just hyperventilating about the latest thing from Britain? Perhaps they think unless Tommy Robinson saves us no-one can.
Essentially, you have to preform risk assessment if your site contains any child inappropriate content (according to new law that is defined kind of vague ), you have to age verify all the visitors from UK or risk getting fines.
Since service allows for user upload, this means that their site could protentional qualify. And even if it does not, you need a lawyer to go through everything, to make sure you don't. Sure the chances their site get targeted is small, but not zero.
You've apparently not crossed international borders that often.
> just hyperventilating about the latest thing from Britain?
They've simply decided doing business with the UK is no longer worth the risk. This is no more "hyperventilating" than the people who passed this law in the first place, who are "hyperventilating" over pornography sites when there's no evidence they're a significant social problem.
I'd say the right answer is to move/add a content addressed model/system for obtaining sources.
Isn't that almost what the nix file already is while being legal. Having a cache of all build files is not legal to do.
https://github.com/magnet-linux/magnet-linux
Not really ready for prime time, but I think I have some interesting ideas there at least.
A distributed git object cache is what is really needed at the moment.
RGBCube•4h ago