100
Age Assurance: NO THANK YOU (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/peoplebluesky@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Bluesky, keep your "Age Assurance", I'm definitely not going to upload my ID, biometrics or anything else to your partner "Kids Web Services"

Would never trust their parent company Epic Games (owned by Disney / Tencent...)

Luckily there are plenty of ways to bypass this: https://gist.github.com/cynion/e92af851c2d2d015c67aaa0170baaeff

Privacy Matters!

Screenshot of the Bluesky "Age Assurance" pop up The text on it reads: "Due to laws in your region, certain features on Bluesky are currently restricted until you're able to verify you're an adult. Based on your network, we think you're in United Kingdom. This estimate may be inaccurate if you're using a VPN."
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Man y'all real mad at bluesky when they're just implementing what the UK government requires them to. They could either restrict service fully, or offer it with the bullshit age verification. They made a reasonable choice in that position.

Be mad at the stupid age verification laws, but blaming Bluesky seems very silly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago

    Eh companies yell loudly about any minor inconvenience they have to some proposed law or change. Want to raise wages, security or improve working hours? The companies kick and scream about their profits, threaten with closures and more. But when it comes to age verification the majority is awfully quiet if not out right supportive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago

    No, I absolutely blame BlueSky, because they purport themselves to be different from Big Tech, and they absolutely aren't, and this is a great example. You can see fedi servers around the world omitting age verification because they're either not in the UK or don't make any money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Or they could refuse to comply with unjust laws, you're allowed to be mad at people for failing to do that when they have a good opportunity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    What is the punishment for not complying? I know what this law requires, but I don't know how the UK goes about actually enforcing this kind of regulation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago

    Here's an example of another US based company refusing to comply with UK internet law and how that's going:

    Lawyer Myles Jackman, who specialises in sexual liberties and obscenity law, said the case lays bare one of the practical weaknesses of the OSA - that the UK regulator has “no right imposing fines on US domiciled companies that they have no right to collect”.

    “The UK government has no jurisdiction over the American Constitution,” he said, adding that Ofcom could decide to issue enforcement proceedings in the US as they have threatened but that they would “seem destined to fail”.

    He believes in order to retain “credibility” Ofcom will be left no choice but to block 4chan on UK internet service providers (ISPs), making the site inaccessible to users in the country. But he points out this will be easy to work around for those with VPNs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent