Madness utter madness

[finn5555]

Making it about gender now? Really? I'd call out anyone who dismisses thoughtful responses with 'can't be arsed', man or woman.

You posted, people engaged with evidence, you had no response, so you played the tired card. Now you're playing the sexism card. Maybe just admit you were wrong about the Online Safety Act instead of this deflection routine. 

This 👆

[Lou2019]

Making it about gender now? Really? I'd call out anyone who dismisses thoughtful responses with 'can't be arsed', man or woman.

You posted, people engaged with evidence, you had no response, so you played the tired card. Now you're playing the sexism card. Maybe just admit you were wrong about the Online Safety Act instead of this deflection routine. 

Oh please this is getting ridiculous now playing the sexism card Jesus wept this is bonkers  :lol:no I won’t admit I’m wrong about anything and I’m not deflecting. I will stand by everything that I’ve said because I’m a stubborn bitch!

[Lou2019]

This 👆

Why not why am I not surprised? You’re jumping on the bandwagon finn5555 

[finn5555]

Why not why am I not surprised? You’re jumping on the bandwagon finn5555 

If you have a problem with me contributing to the forum please feel free to use the report to moderator button 

[Rose_128]

People can agree with the online safety act and nowadays it's a bit harder for kids and parents of course,  but I feel like this went way too far. I agree with the nudes in public gallery, fine, girls can put them in their PGs, but to pixelate someone's photos in lingerie and casual clothes?? Are they going to pixilate M&S lingerie section? Many escorts will struggle now ( many single mothers ) unless things take another turn. At the moment nobody knows how many guys are willing to verify, and whether girls will feel safe after all.

[finn5555]

People can agree with the online safety act and nowadays it's a bit harder for kids and parents of course,  but I feel like this went way too far. I agree with the nudes in public gallery, fine, girls can put them in their PGs, but to pixelate someone's photos in lingerie and casual clothes?? Are they going to pixilate M&S lingerie section? Many escorts will struggle now ( many single mothers ) unless things take another turn. At the moment nobody knows how many guys are willing to verify, and whether girls will feel safe after all.

I personally think it’s needed in many ways not least to protect children. However you’re right it could go to far as for the impact on prostitution let’s wait and see. There will always be a demand for your services

[Lou2019]

If you have a problem with me contributing to the forum please feel free to use the report to moderator button 

I’m not that dramatic  :rolleyes, I’m used to you after all these years

[finn5555]

I’m not that dramatic

 

[MLawro93]

Oh please this is getting ridiculous now playing the sexism card Jesus wept this is bonkers  :lol:no I won’t admit I’m wrong about anything and I’m not deflecting. I will stand by everything that I’ve said because I’m a stubborn bitch!

So you admit facts don't matter to you. Got it. That explains everything really.

[Lou2019]

So you admit facts don't matter to you. Got it. That explains everything really.

Eh??? Like I say, this is getting ridiculous now, time to move on now fella, you’re making something out of nothing

[MLawro93]

Eh??? Like I say, this is getting ridiculous now, time to move on now fella, you’re making something out of nothing

Lou: The Online Safety Act protects children!
Also Lou: Can't be arsed with evidence
Also Lou: Do you talk down to women like this??
Also Lou: I'm never wrong!
Also Lou: Why are you making a big deal?

The mental gymnastics here deserve a gold medal. 

[Lou2019]

Lou: The Online Safety Act protects children!
Also Lou: Can't be arsed with evidence
Also Lou: Do you talk down to women like this??
Also Lou: I'm never wrong!
Also Lou: Why are you making a big deal?

The mental gymnastics here deserve a gold medal. 

Like I say, this is getting ridiculous now you’ve blown one little comment out of massive proportion, I don’t know whether you’re trying to embarrass me or what or forcing me to make a comment to get me banned, I’ve no idea but it’s all just a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

[finn5555]

Like I say, this is getting ridiculous now you’ve blown one little comment out of massive proportion, I don’t know whether you’re trying to embarrass me or what or forcing me to make a comment to get me banned, I’ve no idea but it’s all just a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

Lou just stop commenting that’s the solution 

Hate to see your banned permanently even if we don’t often see eye to eye 

[Lou2019]

Lou just stop commenting that’s the solution 

Hate to see your banned permanently even if we don’t often see eye to eye 

 

[pbrown355]

Is there evidence of harm to children from porn access?
How is that harm measured?
In what way do the powers that be think this legislation will change that?
How are they going to measure that they have reduced harm to children?
I don't know the answers (although I think I might) so they are genuine questions.
And... if they are so keen to protect children (I wish I believed they were) why do they not take more action on predators, child mental health etc. Could it be that they are taking another easy option, without a proper plan as per my questions above.

[Kingfisher69]

This post started out as a mild rant about censorship of the internet and the unfairness that it was one sided.

So why has one person turned it into their own soapbox to have a go at everyone and be abusive to people. It has to be said that you're acting like a twat. 

[Kool Keef]

This post started out as a mild rant about censorship of the internet and the unfairness that it was one sided.

So why has one person turned it into their own soapbox to have a go at everyone and be abusive to people. It has to be said that you're acting like a twat. 

That's her MO isn't it?
I try to avoid her posts tbh because she comes across as a bitter, unpleasant person.

[Handel2020]

Come on now, the government admitted it can't scan encrypted messages without breaking encryption for everyone. They're asking tech companies to do something that's mathematically impossible while claiming it's "for the children."

If this were really about protecting kids, why are actual child protection experts and abuse survivors opposing it? Why does the bill give ministers the power to rewrite the rules without Parliament? Why does it cover "legal but harmful" content that has nothing to do with children?

The comparison to the Stasi isn't hyperbole, Lancaster University researchers said this surveillance would "go further than the Stasi ever could." When Wikipedia threatens to pull out of the UK entirely rather than comply, maybe that should tell you something?

Look at the pattern: EU's Chat Control, US KOSA, UK Online Safety Act, all using identical "protect the children" language while building mass surveillance infrastructure. It's the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: pick something nobody can oppose publicly (who's against protecting children?), then use it to justify unprecedented surveillance powers.

The real kicker? They admit the technology doesn't even exist to do what they claim they want to do. But they're passing the laws anyway, giving themselves the power to demand it later. That's not child protection, that's building surveillance infrastructure and waiting for the tech to catch up.

All good points. The aim was always to get tech companies to censor UK citizens. Ofcom is staffed by many ex-journalists who will now have the power to enforce censorship. I can't believe people would fall for the act when it was clearly about so much more than age verification. It was a Trojan Horse designed to censor people and stifle the free flow of ideas.

[chadpitt]

I can't see mass demonstrations outside number 10 Downing street to be honest  unless everyone wears masks and has their hoods pulled over to cover their faces 

Clearly you haven't seen the online petition to repeal the act.

[chadpitt]

A backlash? From whom exactly? It would need some sort of "leader" and nobody with any influence over the Government is going to put their head above the parapet and admit using porn, even in it's mildest form, never mind seeing escorts.
The Government have deliberately played the holy grail of "child safety" well to get it through.

There's already an online petition calling for the act to be repealed and a reform MP publicly criticising the act

External Link/Members Only

[chadpitt]

That’s bollocks, clearly you do not understand why the Online Safety Act has been introduced. I for one support it. Do you not think protecting children from harmful content is important? It’s got fuck all to do with allowing fun.

This doesn't protect anyone you simpleton.

Kids are far too tech savvy to be stopped. This is just state censorship disguised as "think about the children". But also a huge data breach just waiting to happen.

[Strawberry]

I understand the act, understand the need for it.

However I am disappointed the tech, online platforms have not come up with decent solutions. After a long struggle trying to line up ID within a frame with a 5 second movement lag, one of my X accounts is now ID verified on X as well as premium subscriber (have been for a few years) but still cannot see porn or some artistic posts.

Don't get me started on a major adult advertising platform, I did everything I could to comply with their requirements, hours of time, then they engaged software that is not fit for purpose.

[kuck]

...However I am disappointed the tech, online platforms have not come up with decent solutions. After a long struggle trying to line up ID within a frame with a 5 second movement lag, one of my X accounts is now ID verified on X as well as premium subscriber (have been for a few years) but still cannot see porn or some artistic posts.

I was looking at an archeology thread on twitter, with photos of ancient art. One tweet in the middle of the thread is flagged as unsafe for me to see. This thread is by a serious academic, so I doubt he posted dick pics in the middle of his thread.

The law is terrible, and the implementation is worse. Hopefully things get better soon.

[Andywb]

Kids are far too tech savvy to be stopped.

Not all kids though. And if the kids have as much trouble with the tech as members of ukp, then it will surely deter some kids, and stop many accidentally encountering porn etc

[chadpitt]

Not all kids though. And if the kids have as much trouble with the tech as members of ukp, then it will surely deter some kids, and stop many accidentally encountering porn etc

Deter horny teenagers, I don't think so.

Parental filters are already there. Now making it harder to access porn will push them into the dark web. It's the same nonsense as trying to ban Tate. It didn't stop anything and yet the kids all know about him.

This is censorship pure and simple

[Knny]

Good video on YT History Debunked about the new law and its ramifications. Worth a watch: External Link/Members Only

"The Online Safety Act makes the sending of inaccurate messages or posts a criminal offence…"

Wow.  Good 6min video, I hope it does not get taken down.


YOTI is suspect also:

Are Your VPNs Protecting You—or Handing Your Data to Israel?
External Link/Members Only

So, by using some VPN's, you could be on a global list of some kind.

I just want to see some happy boobs online without this nonsense.

[LLPunting]

Making it about gender now? Really? I'd call out anyone who dismisses thoughtful responses with 'can't be arsed', man or woman.

You posted, people engaged with evidence, you had no response, so you played the tired card. Now you're playing the sexism card. Maybe just admit you were wrong about the Online Safety Act instead of this deflection routine. 

When the responses are tinfoil hat bs then it's not really worthy of a response.  Not worth arguing with irrational paranoia  that's between them and any mental health professional they're self-aware enough to seek help from.

[DastardlyDick]

It seems to me that this Act is going some way towards reducing prostitution, by making it more difficult for men to find  SPa and forcing both SPa and SSs a  back to the streets, where the Police can deal with them, as well as safeguarding children from porn.

[CGlasgow]

Anyone who thinks the "Identity Thieves and VPN Operators Enrichment Act" is going to have any effect at all on the ability of teenagers to look at porn on the internet clearly does not remember being a teenager.

It's christmas come early for cybercriminals though. Just think of all those juicy targets for identity theft, especially if people get used to having to hand over ID to random websites.

[webpunter]

Anyone who thinks the "Identity Thieves and VPN Operators Enrichment Act" is going to have any effect at all on the ability of teenagers to look at porn on the internet clearly does not remember being a teenager.

It's christmas come early for cybercriminals though. Just think of all those juicy targets for identity theft, especially if people get used to having to hand over ID to random websites.

Yep, on both
The cybercrims are going to have a field day
The random websites will be as water tight as a collander
The cybercrims could be a bit underwhelmed, they like a bit of a challenge to test themselves
I wonder how long it will be before civil servants & MPs get found out for registering for porn sites ?

[Rose_128]

External Link/Members Only

Huge spike in VPN downloads since Friday.

[Handel2020]

Yep, on both
The cybercrims are going to have a field day
The random websites will be as water tight as a collander

Same was true of the NHS with one of its apps having a data leak. The idea of uploading ID has always bothered me and it is not about porn. Ebay and Paypal were the first to ask me for ID and I ended up getting my account banned on ebay by trying to avoid the request. I have even checked with an e-scooter company how long they would keep my ID on their database as I didn't want to upload it to them either. Hacking and data leaks are going to be common.