this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
907 points (98.1% liked)

Not The Onion

17576 readers
1054 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, what does the law say exactly? Is distributing porn without age verification illegal? Like, if I set up a a 'take one, leave one' free porn box, would using it be illegal?

collapsed inline media

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Feed the need to breed! (Or at least trick your brain into thinking you are.)

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

OI YOO GOH A LOISESNCE FORE THAHT PHORN?

Note to self: Sell realistic masks so adult Brits can watch llama Pr0n.

[–] peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's not a discrimination thing, I'm sure this is just facial recognition failing over his extensive facial tattoos, same as it can fail on people with very dark skin. No racism or discrimination needed to explain it, it's just the software or sometimes even physics that causes it.

Having said that, fuck the UK government for implementing this shit.

Get your porn whilst you can because other countries will follow suit and soon even a VPN won't save you anymore

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

same as it can fail on people with very dark skin. No racism or discrimination needed to explain it

That's a classic case of implicit racism. The technology is tailored to perform optimally against lighter toned skin, because the people building and evaluating the software are all lighter skinned, themselves. Similarly, I'm sure, the developers of the technology didn't bother to evaluate how it would work on people with facial skin conditions, markings, or tattoos.

In classic "Move Fast and Break Things" style, they rushed an application to market that only half worked on some people, and then told anyone who would fail the check by default that this was an individual's problem to resolve.

"Who cares if this system works for ?" shows up in all sorts of lowest-bidder crap work, from medical studies to mechanical engineering. Whether its left-handed car drivers get fucked by a right-hand favorable design or clinical trials that just didn't bother including women as subjects or dark-skinned people failing facial recognition, the implicit bigotry of poor engineering is rampant in our modern world.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The system is still discriminating against this guy's face tattoos even if it's unintentional. Hopefully they will fix the issue.

This is one of the many ethical issues that can come up when you build software. It might be just a bug for the engineers who built it but this probably ruined this guy's whole life. I hope he can move on from this hahaha.

Agreed with all your points though. What a stupid law. It's crazy they are popping up all over now. We are losing anonymity online. What little we had left.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wazowski@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I'd be devastated if I couldn't watch pyrn.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 3 points 1 week ago

Put on a base of foundation and try again. You’ll have to use a lot, but how bad do you wanna watch the porn dude?

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does he not have a printer?

[–] ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think it's that common to own a functioning printer anymore

[–] Zink@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago

Some of us are old enough to have a functional pre-enshittifation Brother B/W laser printer off in a dark corner of the house. It waits. It bides its time. It has a toner cartridge from the Obama administration.

Today’s greybeards might show the youngins their old box of punch cards.

The next generation, in addition to many elders wearing cat ears instead of beards, will astonish the junior engineers by clicking print and it just works!! No App? No account? No subscriptions? No driver installation? No giant bloated utility pack that installed itself when you just asked for drivers? Wait and it did that over Wi-Fi?!?! It can connect to the internet and it still does the things you ask it to do?

Whoa whoa whoa, and you don’t even have your printer gun here! How are you going to shoot it when it starts making new noises after a shady forced update?

It's about to make a comeback.

[–] 2910000@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't get it.
The only use for a printer in this situation that I can think of is printing individual video stills and making them into an erotic flick-book, but I'm sure that's not it

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Print stuff to fool cameras. Old trick, finding new use.

Doesn't work well on people, but it's very diffocult to train a model on the difference between printed and real images.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Oi bruv, this wanker thinks it’s bollocks.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›