> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”
Thanks, this was good info.
As an aside, I read the original source. I found the writing completely impenetrable and realized I know nothing about the British legislative process.
But this did, nonetheless, convince me that british legislators are interested in using this bill to regulate the internet.
> It genuinely doesn't seem like any more of a threat than age-gating Playboy at the bookstore
If it was really like that, I would have no problem. Simple ID check, in-person only, that's never stored anywhere.
I've proposed this several times. Age-gated websites (social media, random forums, adult websites) should require a one-time use code or token that expires once a year. The token should only be available for purchase at liquor stores or tobacco stores - someplace they check your ID on pain of losing their license. It should be reasonably priced.
Sometimes someone might resell a token they purchased to a minor. Those people should be actively hunted with sting operations and prosecuted.
There's no good reason to make age verification on the Internet more stringent than age verification to buy alcohol or tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people.
I've never had my ID scanned. The sales clerk glances at it. These days they don't even ask :-D
If they scan your ID for alcohol or tobacco purchases where you live it might be time to fix that with legislation too. Insurance companies would love that data.
I went to check my Social Security administration account like 4 years ago - I forget why. To access it, I have to have an actual video face to face conversation with people from some Real ID company.
I'll never look at that account again in my ficking life.
I don't understand the downvotes. If you have this question then so do others and it ought to be part of the discourse. Anyhow...
From what I've seen, the current wave of ID-gating the internet is a wedge for opening the door to much broader censorship. Specifically, some jurisdictions (Wisconsin, Minnnesota, and the UK) are using recently-passed legislation to argue that we need to make VPNs illegal [0 1 2].
Speaking for my own beliefs, banning the use of VPNs is a huge problem, and it seems like basically anybody who understands the technology would be against it.
I have no problem with banning or age gating pornography at all. Personally it seems weird to me that that's the red line for people.
But this is a good point, which is that lawmakers who don't have a clue what they're regulating will see VPNs as undermining the laws they've made. Thanks for this
Is it just "more ID is bad"? Or is there a specific concern that this bill is a targeted overreach to increase censorship and surveillance.
It genuinely doesn't seem like any more of a threat than age-gating Playboy at the bookstore. What have I missed?