Readit News logoReadit News
owisd commented on Porn censorship is going to destroy the internet   mashable.com/article/age-... · Posted by u/Teever
OutOfHere · 6 days ago
Forcing someone to not do something that affects only their personal life is not why I pay taxes. The government has grown to be too intrusive, and it's getting worse, now risking the termination of the internet. As it is, the government doesn't do much real work that actually improves people's lives, and now it wants to make their lives worse by taking away their freedoms.
owisd · 6 days ago
The liberal democratic argument is that the websites themselves are the ones imposing these harmful effects on their users, therefore by a JS Mill 'harm principle' argument it's fine for the government to intervene and regulate the websites, same justification for regulating, say, the sale of tobacco or knives.
owisd commented on Counter-Strike: A billion-dollar game built in a dorm room   nytimes.com/2025/08/18/ar... · Posted by u/asnyder
qzx_pierri · 6 days ago
This is a parenting issue. The internet doesn’t need training wheels. No offense to those children, but their parents are complete failures.
owisd · 6 days ago
20+ years ago kids would play out on the street unsupervised with their friends from the neighbourhood from the age of 6-8 and all the adults would look out for each others' kids. It's only recently that everyone's retreated inside onto their screens that all sense of community has been lost and you get comments like this.
owisd commented on Swiss vs. UK approach to major tranport projects   freewheeling.info/blog/sw... · Posted by u/jbyers
throw0101a · 10 days ago
> For me it's summed up by the £100M tunnel to protect bats. Someone says […]

That someone is Natural England, who is tasked, by law, with enforcing laws that protect wildlife and the environment and needs to sign off on disruptive work:

> A spokesperson for HS2 Ltd said "multiple options" had been considered, including green bridges and restoring habitats, to "comply with laws protecting vulnerable species".

> It said through "extensive engagement" with Natural England, "a covered structure was designed".

* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wryxyljglo

If you don't like it change the law so that the environment/wildlife isn't protected, or these kinds of sign offs are not requirement, or can be overrided in the enacting legislation of infrastructure projects.

owisd · 10 days ago
> If you don't like it change the law

There is currently a bill going through Parliament to simplify this stuff - https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3946 - though not going so far as to remove all protections.

owisd commented on "Privacy preserving age verification" is bullshit   pluralistic.net/2025/08/1... · Posted by u/Refreeze5224
cogman10 · 11 days ago
Erotic novels have been discreet for a while. It's also not been usual to have a laptop in public since the 90s. There are definitely pictures of people perusing porn on trains (visible in reflections).

Briefcases were also a thing as have been strip clubs since forever. Quick access to porn hasn't been a problem since the printing press was invented.

owisd · 10 days ago
The difference is the volume and the lack of friction to access, not that these things weren't possible. Physically getting into a strip club or having to look the newsagent in the eye as you purchase a porn mag are much higher barriers to access than there are currently.
owisd commented on "Privacy preserving age verification" is bullshit   pluralistic.net/2025/08/1... · Posted by u/Refreeze5224
cogman10 · 11 days ago
The big problem I have with laws like the UK has been that they solve a non-issue at the cost of large infrastructure and potential privacy problems.

Teenagers have been looking at porn since forever. It's practically a trope of teens stealing their parents' porn mags. I don't think any of this has actually caused major societal issues.

The proposed solutions merely require that a teen steal their parent's identification, briefly, to create a porn account and move on. Heck, they can probably buy that information online if they are innovative enough. They certainly will be selling access to their porn accounts to their classmates. And even if they don't go through all that trouble, getting a porn mag is still pretty possible in the UK.

That makes this just a bad law. It doesn't meaningfully stop the problem it's meant to stop and it's expensive and intrusive. Even if privacy preserving age verification was bulletproof and perfect, you still have the access holes all over.

And then there's the simple fact that other nations exist. Yes, mainstream sites will put up protections, but what about the sealand porn site? Unless the UK wants a great firewall (ala the chinese firewall), they simply aren't going to stop this problem. Even then, VPNs are common knowledge at this point due to streaming.

Bad law, bad effects, and a pointless fight.

owisd · 11 days ago
Having a device in your pocket that you take everywhere with no stigma to being seen with it yet it has unlimited access to any genre of porn you can think of is hardly comparable to finding a 90s porn mag in a bush from time to time, so you can't really say this has been happening forever.
owisd commented on Study: Social media probably can't be fixed   arstechnica.com/science/2... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
AuthAuth · 12 days ago
How do you find new things to follow? If everyone did this it would be extremely rare to encounter new content.
owisd · 12 days ago
We'd just go back to human curation, you'd whitelist a few curators you liked, people wanting to promote their content would email a link to a curator, if they thought their audience would like it they'd share it, you'd see it via your whitelist and if you liked the look of it you'd whitelist them.
owisd commented on Facial recognition vans to be rolled out across police forces in England   news.sky.com/story/facial... · Posted by u/amarcheschi
jon-wood · 12 days ago
The CCTV cameras I've never really had a problem with - despite what TV shows and films would like to tell you they're not actually a single coherent CCTV network, a vast proportion of them are operated by random shopkeepers, private home owners, and other such places. If they want footage from them the police are typically going to have to send someone out to ask for it, and then hope they haven't reused the storage already.

This sort of thing, deploying facial recognition systems in the street in the hope of finding someone, is much more insidious. Technically you can choose to bypass it, or pull something over your face, but that's more or less guaranteeing that you'll be stopped and questioned as to why you're concerned about it.

Sadly the UK never met an authoritarian they didn't like (apart from Hitler, so long as you're not as bad as Hitler himself you're good though). When surveyed the British public will call for banning basically anything they don't like, even if it doesn't impact them at all.

owisd · 12 days ago
You're mixing your definitions of authoritarian, there's authoritarian in the 'Nolan chart' sense of the word, which just means 'not a Libertarian', which is like 98% of people, which is different to the Hitler meaning of authoritarian, which means 'rejecting democracy'. If the people agree to ban things they don't like, that's democracy, so it's the Nolan kind of authoritarian but not the Hitler kind of authoritarian. Deciding the people shouldn't be allowed to agree collectively to ban certain things is rejecting democracy, so it's Hitler authoritarian but not Nolan authoritarian.
owisd commented on Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act   bbc.com/news/articles/cjr... · Posted by u/phlummox
spauldo · 14 days ago
And Wikipedia continues on without having to worry about UK regulations. What's the downside for Wikipedia?
owisd · 13 days ago
Anyone suggesting a block doesn't actually want Wikipedia to pull out of the UK, it's a negotiating position to extort concessions.
owisd commented on Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act   bbc.com/news/articles/cjr... · Posted by u/phlummox
_dain_ · 14 days ago
>Smaller sites are automatically exempted.

No, they're not. I don't know why people keep repeating this "7 million active users limit" idea, it's nowhere to be found in the actual rules. Tiny forums have already had to close because they didn't want to deal with the legal risk:

https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/

owisd · 14 days ago
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...

Page 64 defines a Large Service as "A service which has more than 7 million monthly active United Kingdom users".

The first two forums in your "in memoriam" list I tried looking at (Sinclair QL Forum & Red Passion Forum) are both still up.

owisd commented on Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act   bbc.com/news/articles/cjr... · Posted by u/phlummox
nickslaughter02 · 14 days ago
Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind.

Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no".

> The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903

owisd · 14 days ago
Problem with Wikipedia specifically going all-in on a UK block is, due to the licence, there's nothing to stop someone circumventing the block to make a OSA-compliant Britipedia mirror with minimal effort.

u/owisd

KarmaCake day477July 18, 2021View Original