I fail to see how this is technically possible. Virgin Media already censors chunks of the internet, but not in a way that currently would allow age verification.
Beyond my ISP I'm virtually anonymous unless I log in. If it's blocked at the network level I cannot login. If it's not blocked by the network, then it doesn't know exactly which individual is using my network connection. Theoretically they could put an interstitial page to check credentials but we'd just end up sharing the login rather than sharing all our personal details in separate accounts, or more likely I'd just not bother and accept the 'child' experience.
If I lose access to social media so be it. All that will do is change the landscape as the diaspora find a new uncensored social media.
This all falls apart when it affects genuine work, then it's already too late. The only real option at this point is VPN.
The internet is going to be filled with bots anyway so might as well restrict it to this age group. They should be outdoors with no access to the internet.
Why not extend this to under 25s or the elderly?
I'm sure the online safety act also needs to extend this to chatbots and anything that can heavily manipulate and distort this age group.
They won't be restricting the age group from the internet. They will be restricting the internet. That's not fine. There is no feasible way to restrict the internet for an exclusive group, it's the internet!
So now consider that the same government want to extend voting rights to 16 year olds.
So you can vote but you can't control the media you use to learn about who you're potentially voting for. There is something not quite right about that.
There’s plenty of that everywhere. You can sign up to die in a war at 18 but can’t drink alcohol until 21. That’s why laws exist, to codify and resolve edge cases.
Catch-22. They want to censor and not let you learn about the opposite opposition restricting your vote to the current opposition at the same time pissing you off from voting for the current opposition for restricting your rights to learn about the opposite opposition.
So the UK is now China it seems. What a shining light for democracy and justice. There is no way this will be abused by petty little tyrant minister right?
Western governments have been looking enviously at China's authoritarianism (notoriously Trudeau blurted out he admired their "basic dictatorship" back in 2013) while completely ignoring any elements that might actually improve the lives of the citizens.
Our politicians are determined to implement the worst of our respective systems.
I’m not convinced anymore that we can handle freedom. Many children grow up glued to a phone or tablet watching AI videos and are targets of dis-information from foreign and/or hostile actors.
Meh it’s accessing and posting stuff on the internet, not that big of a deal. I’d like to see a much bigger humdrum around the ubiquitous surveillance cameras that will eventually be fed to some sort of LLM to create an omniscient eye that follows everyone everywhere.
The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll probably reach the unofficial, real number soon enough.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
"The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network."
Offensive messages cover a lot of contexts and don't sound as if they are necessarily hate speech.
You should read the whole article: "A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services." ".
The UK has been China forever, they have the most surveillance cameras and police home visits per capita of any developed country and their people like it this way.
Idk I’ve been watching the occasional BBC archives or some other old archive source, and the UK has seemed relatively authoritarian compared to Europe or the US for a while.
Readit News
Beyond my ISP I'm virtually anonymous unless I log in. If it's blocked at the network level I cannot login. If it's not blocked by the network, then it doesn't know exactly which individual is using my network connection. Theoretically they could put an interstitial page to check credentials but we'd just end up sharing the login rather than sharing all our personal details in separate accounts, or more likely I'd just not bother and accept the 'child' experience.
If I lose access to social media so be it. All that will do is change the landscape as the diaspora find a new uncensored social media.
This all falls apart when it affects genuine work, then it's already too late. The only real option at this point is VPN.
Unfortunately I think the way we are going is to treat everyone as children by default, though.
Make it make sense.
By design.
The internet is going to be filled with bots anyway so might as well restrict it to this age group. They should be outdoors with no access to the internet.
Why not extend this to under 25s or the elderly?
I'm sure the online safety act also needs to extend this to chatbots and anything that can heavily manipulate and distort this age group.
So you can vote but you can't control the media you use to learn about who you're potentially voting for. There is something not quite right about that.
Dead Comment
Western governments have been looking enviously at China's authoritarianism (notoriously Trudeau blurted out he admired their "basic dictatorship" back in 2013) while completely ignoring any elements that might actually improve the lives of the citizens.
Our politicians are determined to implement the worst of our respective systems.
China's economy is growing.
Musk's jokes basically disassemble when doing a backflip. Fucking joke. Whereas the Chinese bots are doing Mui Thai, karate, and loads more.
But... China is copying us <LAUGH>
"The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network."
Offensive messages cover a lot of contexts and don't sound as if they are necessarily hate speech.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment