this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
992 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
72971 readers
2713 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
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.
Waauw, you really are unsympathetic.
Good example: they are already used for example to censor the idea of non-heterosexual relationships (1). Don't let them expand it, or give them even more tools, please.
Your stated goals already are achievable with existing tools.
Goal achieved. "Think of the children" is subterfuge.
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.
Your solution is worse.
As is, it is the responsibility of the content provider to make sure that they are distributing only to people who are legally allowed to have it.
With age-verification the user has to prove that they are allowed to access the content, then the site can distribute it to them.
Your approach is to distribute the content by default and only deny it to ChildDevices. In order for this to work at all, you have to mandate that children can only use ChildDevices. This is soooo much worse than simply requiring that adults who want to see certain content have to prove that they can legally access it. If adults have reservations about providing ID for pornography, the loss of such content seems to be much less than denying children Internet access. (Although, I'm sure that Lemmings would disagree for obvious reasons).
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)
If a politician says it's to help the children, it's almost safe to assume they themselves rape children, at least in America.