This is a combination of terrible legislation in the UK meets awful social media site.
The Online Safety Act is an abomination, compromising the privacy and freedom of the vast majority of the UK in the name of “protecting children”.
I’m of the view parents are responsible for protecting their children. I know it’s hard but the Online Safety Act is not a solution.
All it will.do is compromise the privacy and security of law abiding adults while kids will still access porn and all the other really bad stuff on the Internet will actually be unaffected. The dark illegal shit on the Internet is not happening on Pornhub or Reddit.
The UK is gradually sliding further and further into censorship, and authoritarianism and all the in the name of do gooders. It’s scary to watch.
The online safety act isn’t actually about protecting children. That’s a smoke screen for a surveillance bill. They want to eliminate anonymity online.
The solution to all of this “think of the children” stuff is that devices owned/used by children should have to be registered as a child’s device, which would enable certain content blockers.
Forcing adults to verify their identity, rather than simply activating some broad based restrictions on devices being purchased for child use, is a waste of time. Kids will still find workarounds. Adult privacy will be compromised.
Its also an easily enforceable policy to require registration of children’s devices. You can hold the parents to compliance. You can hold the carriers to compliance. Its truly the simplest way to keep kids from accessing porn without having to mess with adult use of the internet whatsoever
The solution to all of this “think of the children” stuff is that devices owned/used by children should have to be registered as a child’s device, which would enable certain content blockers.
That’s kinda the case right now already, but the problem is that adult-only sites don’t work with that currently.
So the right solution would be to mandate that e.g. all sites are required to return a header with an age recommendation or something similar, so that a device set to child-mode then can block all these sites. And if a site doesn’t set the header, it will also get blocked on child-mode devices
Wouldn’t be too hard to do, and accidental overblocking would only occur on child-mode devices, so there’s not much of a loss there.
Legislation could then be focussed on mandating that these headers aren’t falsely set (e.g. a porn site setting the header to child-friendly).
Listing already exists, but in practice it’s quite impractical, mainly because it’s either not granular enough or too granular.
If the listing feature allows me to allow/deny on a domain basis, then allowing Wikipedia for example would mean that I’d also allow all the non-child-friendly content on there too. Like the literal full-length porn videos or the photographies of genital torture that are on there. And if I block all of Wikipedia, I also block all of the hundreds of thousands of informative and totally child-acceptable pages on there.
If, on the other hand, I allow/deny on a per-page basis, then using the internet becomes nigh unmanageable, because each click of my kid requires me to allow/deny the next page. It’s not that often when using the internet that you access the same exact url every day without clicking to sub-pages.
A header would solve that issue. That way I could e.g. allow all Wikipedia articles that are rated for ages 6 and that’s ok. The rating should of course be like for movies, so that it doesn’t mean that a child would understand the articles, but that there’s nothing child-endangering in there like the videos and images (and accompanying texts) mentioned above.
Or just block wikipedia and use one of the many encyclopedia websites designed for kids instead (1), (2). This has the benefit of having your goals met, without making the world a worse place for everyone else.
How does sending a header with extra information make the world a worse place for everyone else?
It still requires arbitration of every digitally communicated thought, whether it’s age appropriate and to what degree. It’s mass thought policing, as well as trying to enforce a cookiecutter morality on every person.
I get the desire to enforce thoughts on someone else. But fight it, please. At least let people be free in their own mind.
Especially since the tools to achieve your stated goal, protection of your child(ren), are already available. So you can perform your censorship desire in the confinement of your family bubble. No need for collateral damage.
Have you ever looked at how age rating systems work? It has absolutely nothing to do with “arbitration of every digitally communicated thought”, “thought policing” or “cookiecutter morality”.
With this brainrot conspiracy level post of yours you outed yourself as a troll.
Keep your conspiracies, or better get help. That kind of stuff is not healthy.
This is even more invasive - it would mean all the traffic and activity in every device would be traceable to a registration. Whereas now they might have a pretty good lock on individual device ids, they’d then have an actual registry of devices and owners to verify it against
A simple toggle, secured with a password would do it. Child’s device Y/N. If no, proceed. Your browser or whatever app you’re using would only need to see that one setting, and it’s not much different than your browser looking at any number of settings on your device.
Shit with TWO toggles, the other being “is this child under the age of 13?” You could even force sites like YouTube actually to comply with federal law about targeting minors with advertising.
But. These laws aren’t actually about protecting children, they’re about establishing a real identity for every person online.
A simple toggle, secured with a password would do it.
Yea, that’s the thing - I don’t think it would ‘do’ it for legislators. Like you mentioned - it’s not really about protecting children, but also the only way to enforce a law like this would be to log or register devices to specific people or children. This would essentially just shift the point of verification from the individual website to the point of sale of the phone or tablet. Verifying the age is the part that necessitates identification - the only thing a hardware-locked strategy does is centralizes that verification to a governing body instead of individual websites, but it still associates individuals with specific devices.
I get why this might seem preferable, but the problem of online privacy still persists.
The arguments that I’ve seen against that is that the problem is the hardware. The child can figure out/find a hack to circumvent the restrictions. A determined 11/12 year old could do it. They’re the ones who still need restriction.
So what you’re telling me is you don’t think an 11/13/14 yo could use an LLM to age up a selfie to gain access to subreddits they shouldn’t be accessing (legally or morally). But you do think that same age group of children is going to gain root access to a device in order to flash some software to circumvent a device specific toggle limiting their device by hard coding it as a child’s device.
This is a combination of terrible legislation in the UK meets awful social media site.
The Online Safety Act is an abomination, compromising the privacy and freedom of the vast majority of the UK in the name of “protecting children”.
I’m of the view parents are responsible for protecting their children. I know it’s hard but the Online Safety Act is not a solution.
All it will.do is compromise the privacy and security of law abiding adults while kids will still access porn and all the other really bad stuff on the Internet will actually be unaffected. The dark illegal shit on the Internet is not happening on Pornhub or Reddit.
The UK is gradually sliding further and further into censorship, and authoritarianism and all the in the name of do gooders. It’s scary to watch.
The online safety act isn’t actually about protecting children. That’s a smoke screen for a surveillance bill. They want to eliminate anonymity online.
If a politician says it’s to help the children, it’s almost safe to assume they themselves rape children, at least in America.
The solution to all of this “think of the children” stuff is that devices owned/used by children should have to be registered as a child’s device, which would enable certain content blockers.
Forcing adults to verify their identity, rather than simply activating some broad based restrictions on devices being purchased for child use, is a waste of time. Kids will still find workarounds. Adult privacy will be compromised.
Its also an easily enforceable policy to require registration of children’s devices. You can hold the parents to compliance. You can hold the carriers to compliance. Its truly the simplest way to keep kids from accessing porn without having to mess with adult use of the internet whatsoever
Goal achieved. “Think of the children” is subterfuge.
That’s kinda the case right now already, but the problem is that adult-only sites don’t work with that currently.
So the right solution would be to mandate that e.g. all sites are required to return a header with an age recommendation or something similar, so that a device set to child-mode then can block all these sites. And if a site doesn’t set the header, it will also get blocked on child-mode devices
Wouldn’t be too hard to do, and accidental overblocking would only occur on child-mode devices, so there’s not much of a loss there.
Legislation could then be focussed on mandating that these headers aren’t falsely set (e.g. a porn site setting the header to child-friendly).
Allow listing sounds like the better solution. Ie the device had a list of remotes approved by the parents.
That way there’s no need to police every website in the world in perpetuity.
Listing already exists, but in practice it’s quite impractical, mainly because it’s either not granular enough or too granular.
If the listing feature allows me to allow/deny on a domain basis, then allowing Wikipedia for example would mean that I’d also allow all the non-child-friendly content on there too. Like the literal full-length porn videos or the photographies of genital torture that are on there. And if I block all of Wikipedia, I also block all of the hundreds of thousands of informative and totally child-acceptable pages on there.
If, on the other hand, I allow/deny on a per-page basis, then using the internet becomes nigh unmanageable, because each click of my kid requires me to allow/deny the next page. It’s not that often when using the internet that you access the same exact url every day without clicking to sub-pages.
A header would solve that issue. That way I could e.g. allow all Wikipedia articles that are rated for ages 6 and that’s ok. The rating should of course be like for movies, so that it doesn’t mean that a child would understand the articles, but that there’s nothing child-endangering in there like the videos and images (and accompanying texts) mentioned above.
Or just block wikipedia and use one of the many encyclopedia websites designed for kids instead (1), (2). This has the benefit of having your goals met, without making the world a worse place for everyone else.
Did you not read my proposal? How does sending a header with extra information make the world a worse place for everyone else?
Please explain in detail, so I know you aren’t just a troll who needs to oppose everything just because?
<html> <head> <meta agerating="totallysafeforkidstrustmebro"> </head> <body> <iframe src="https://www.pornhub.com/"></iframe> </body> </html>It still requires arbitration of every digitally communicated thought, whether it’s age appropriate and to what degree. It’s mass thought policing, as well as trying to enforce a cookiecutter morality on every person.
I get the desire to enforce thoughts on someone else. But fight it, please. At least let people be free in their own mind.
Especially since the tools to achieve your stated goal, protection of your child(ren), are already available. So you can perform your censorship desire in the confinement of your family bubble. No need for collateral damage.
Have you ever looked at how age rating systems work? It has absolutely nothing to do with “arbitration of every digitally communicated thought”, “thought policing” or “cookiecutter morality”.
With this brainrot conspiracy level post of yours you outed yourself as a troll.
Keep your conspiracies, or better get help. That kind of stuff is not healthy.
I don’t think this is a good idea…
This is even more invasive - it would mean all the traffic and activity in every device would be traceable to a registration. Whereas now they might have a pretty good lock on individual device ids, they’d then have an actual registry of devices and owners to verify it against
A simple toggle, secured with a password would do it. Child’s device Y/N. If no, proceed. Your browser or whatever app you’re using would only need to see that one setting, and it’s not much different than your browser looking at any number of settings on your device.
Shit with TWO toggles, the other being “is this child under the age of 13?” You could even force sites like YouTube actually to comply with federal law about targeting minors with advertising.
But. These laws aren’t actually about protecting children, they’re about establishing a real identity for every person online.
Yea, that’s the thing - I don’t think it would ‘do’ it for legislators. Like you mentioned - it’s not really about protecting children, but also the only way to enforce a law like this would be to log or register devices to specific people or children. This would essentially just shift the point of verification from the individual website to the point of sale of the phone or tablet. Verifying the age is the part that necessitates identification - the only thing a hardware-locked strategy does is centralizes that verification to a governing body instead of individual websites, but it still associates individuals with specific devices.
I get why this might seem preferable, but the problem of online privacy still persists.
The arguments that I’ve seen against that is that the problem is the hardware. The child can figure out/find a hack to circumvent the restrictions. A determined 11/12 year old could do it. They’re the ones who still need restriction.
So what you’re telling me is you don’t think an 11/13/14 yo could use an LLM to age up a selfie to gain access to subreddits they shouldn’t be accessing (legally or morally). But you do think that same age group of children is going to gain root access to a device in order to flash some software to circumvent a device specific toggle limiting their device by hard coding it as a child’s device.
Tbh I’m surprised they’re not asking for government issued id along with the selfie.
I’m gonna be honest here. I don’t think it would be that difficult for a kid to get both from their parent.
that’s what happens when the uk has had 40+ years of constant tory rule (and yes blue labour are tories)