top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 256 points 1 year ago (26 children)
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

    It's less of a left - right thing (that's mainly economics). It paternalism Vs liberty thing. Labour have always had a very strong "we must protect the populace" theme to their policies. Conservatives have it too, but they want to do it in a different way.

    Sadly it's a really difficult thing to stand against. Who wants to be labelled the person enabling paedophiles, when all you want is the right to private communication.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    To be honest I don’t think much of this is about catching or preventing paedos, and is just straight up authoritarianism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Part of that is allowing labels to be so powerful. Someone doesn’t have to watch kiddie porn or molest children to be branded a pedophile, but when you have that label for someone, it’s implied that’s what they did. We saw this same shit during the Bush years with the “terrorism” label. We’re actually seeing it again with Luigi Mangione and people protesting at Tesla dealerships. People don’t care about reality if there’s simple branding that wipes critical thinking away.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    To correct one thing, the left-right political spectrum is based on authority. It goes back to the French Revolution, in which the nobility - favoring top-down power hierarchies - literally occupied the right side of the assembly hall while the revolutionaries - favoring true equality and egality - sat on the left.

    This cannot be separated into distinct domains since power is wealth and wealth is power. The political compass fallacy is, and always was, nothing more than rightist propaganda to muddy language and ideology in an effort to hold on to their wealth and power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Paternalism vs liberty. Tell me more. I haven’t heard of this comparison before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The full spectrum is really more like “authoritarian vs libertarian”. Political policy should really be split into two different spectrums. On one spectrum, you have financial policy. On the other, you have social policy. The two normally get lumped together because politicians campaign on both simultaneously. But in reality, they’re two separate policies. So the political spectrum should look less like a single left/right line, and more like an X/Y graph with individual points for each person’s ideology. Something more like this:

    On this graph, as you go farther left, the government has more ownership and provides more, (and individuals own less because the government provides more for their needs). As you go farther up the chart, social policy gets more authoritarian. So for example, something on the far right bottom corner would be the Cyberpunk 2077/The Outer Worlds end-stage capitalist where megacorps inevitably own everything and have their own private laws.

    Once you separate the two policies into a graph (instead of just a left/right line) it becomes clear why “small government” doesn’t necessarily correspond to “fewer laws” when dealing with politicians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I assume "Republican" on this diagram is not used in the contemporary American sense. Otherwise it would be somewhere up in that little grey cloud.

    In any case, official US politics takes place entirely within the top right quadrant, and UK politics seems to have retreated there too. Canada is in danger of getting up there as well. And we don't have any mechanism to vote our way out of that box, so change will have to come from action outside of electoral politics.

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

    The precise location of individual points really depends on personal biases, but I agree that the “Republican” point is wrong on this chart; Pretty much all of America’s political discussion takes place on the right side of the graph.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's a political compass, and it's still missing several political axes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I guess one potential axis would be 'stagnation', in the sense that social mobility between classes stops changing. That could be anything like straight up caste systems, or informal stratification from wealth getting locked up by the 1%. I hypothesize, that such an axis would be a measurement of how 'elderly' a society is becoming. When politics become too locked in due to unchanging political critters, the ability for a society to recognize and properly act in a situation becomes compromised.

    My parent, they lost mental acuity and flexibility with the years, alongside their bodily agency, and have become quarrelsome. IMO, such dementia is what we are seeing in a aging America and the UK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Around our local voting season there's actually a online test to check which parties are more aligned with the person values and it puts things into a graph like this. It's very useful

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • I didn’t bother actually checking the individual points, because I was simply using it for illustrative purposes. The actual location of the points is largely up to interpretation, based on personal biases and viewpoints. For instance, plenty of .ml posters would likely object to calling Leninism highly authoritarian, or lumping it in with Maoism. But this particular compass does both of those.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Don't get me wrong, but why are matters of governmental surveillance and control inherently "right-wing" rather than a totalitarian policy not otherwise directly connected to wing politics? Extremists on both sides have a history of creating totalitarian, Big Brother states (which the UK is certainly headed towards).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Big Brother states (which the UK is certainly headed towards)

    When the Snowden Revelations came out, the UK had even more civil society surveillance than the US.

    As a consequence of those revelations, in the US some of the surveillance was walked back, whilst in the UK the Government just passed a law that retroactively made the whole thing legal, issued a bunch of D-Notices (the UK system of Press Censorship) to shut up the Press, got the Editor of the newspaper that brought it out in the UK (The Guardian) kicked out, and the Press there never talked about it again.

    Also, let's not forget the UK has the biggest number of surveillance cameras per-capita in the World.

    Oh, and they have a special and separate Surveillance Tribunal (the Investigatory Powers Tribunal) were the lawyers for the side other than the State are not allowed to be present in certain sessions, see certain evidence or even get informed of the final judgement unless their side wins.

    They easily have the most extreme regime of Civil Society Surveillance in Europe, and in the World are probably second only to the likes of North Korea and China.

    Britain is well beyond merely "headed towards" Big Brother and has been for at least a decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 310 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    It's yet another step in seeing the Internet becoming owned by big corporations. Only big corporations can implement these things.

    Art, creativity, people doing internet things as a hobby, that is dying more and more everyday.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 145 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There was a site I found in highschool around 1998 - the paradigm of pessimism.

    Full of dark humor and anti-jokes, in glorious web 1.0 - that site had a huge impact on my humor. I've never been able to find it again. Just a random site someone hosted somewhere on the Internet - no scams, no paywalls, just a bunch of weird humor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago

    Me too, so much!

    A big reason why I've come to like Lemmy communities so much is really because they give me some old internet feeling. It's not super crowded, it's an app that isn't design for brain rot, it allows interesting online discussion etc.

    I think projects like this can continue to exist, even in a bleak corporate owned internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 115 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it's a lot of admin for most small providers to be bothered with. Less of a hit to just block the whole UK.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 90 points 1 year ago

    Perfect response. This gets the message across, "governments of the world, the Internet doesn't need you, you need the Internet".

  • source
  • [–] 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    There's a UK Parliament petition to repeal the Online Safety act. There's no guarantee it'll do anything but might be worth a try for anyone in the UK.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Don't forget to write to your MP - being polite but angry helps. Explain the issues, shortcomings and why you feel this should be repealed and a better user-friendly and privacy respecting alternative needs to be found BEFORE implementing stupid asinine knee-jerk legislation like this.

    My poor MP is getting it in the jugular because they boasted about working in data security and I'm exploiting the hell out of that statement so they can't easily weasel their way out of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm just waiting for the response to be something along the lines of... "According to existing law (see Online Safety Act), websites are required to do age verification... blah blah blah, no changes will be made, thank you for your inquiry"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

    At this point Dark-web tech needs an upgrade, we might just need a "2nd internet"

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That moment when you decide to use i2p because its more sustainable for every user to be a node just for your server's location to get leaked in a vulnerability. This is why most deep web migration to i2p ended

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Have any links or extra info on that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I don't really have a link, but you might be able to find something talking about game server protocols. Outside of LAN, usually you're either connecting to a central server, or a peer relay. With a relay server it's just a proxy between you and the other players to hide your IP from others.
    There's plenty of cases in games that didn't do this where malicious actors could find the IPs of the people they're playing with and DDoS them to give themselves an advantage. Knowing someone's IP will also probably tell you extra info about them like what city they're in, and open them up for further hacking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    How about Gemini? https://geminiprotocol.net/

    Gemini is a group of technologies similar to the ones that lie behind your familiar web browser. Using Gemini, you can explore an online collection of written documents which can link to other written documents. The main difference is that Gemini approaches this task with a strong philosophy of "keep it simple" and "less is enough". This allows Gemini to simply sidestep, rather than try and probably fail to solve, many of the problems plaguing the modern web, which just seem to get worse and worse no matter how many browser add-ons or well meaning regulations get thrown at them.

    How it applies to geolocation and server hosting in light of the OSA I really have no clue. But it's an interesting underground hacker/tinker type alternative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is sadly the way to handle it, users of these places need to learn how to vpn instead of giving their private information for age verification online.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    VPNs aren’t going to be a practical solution going forward. You are creating dependancies that governments can target, spying on traffic and enforcing censorship for these relays is something any country can and likely will implement at some point. The clearnet is dying because the evangelicals are killing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 74 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So of all the fucking things to restrict, why this? Facebook is a hundred times more dangerous than any porn. Ban that shit instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago*

    Because it’s something where the current government can claim they’re “doing something” or “addressing a real problem” but it also doesn’t threaten the rich and powerful.

    Going after Facebook would threaten the rich and powerful, for who it is an important tool for manipulating people, who think they can use it to mold culture to what they want it to be my breaking the minds of children.

    The current UK government is desperate to say to the public that they’re governing and fixing problems, but they also really don’t want to piss off the rich and powerful.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's what everyone should be doing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago*

    Have to agree with you. If every site just blocked the country with a stupid law like this, then the regular (regarded) folk that are gonna send over their ID the first chance they get will maybe log off their wank station and idk join the cause.

    Saying that, at least ppl will be forced to use a vpn instead of sending their id through the internet if they dont comply and just block.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 72 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    Fuck off with your device based verification system. That's just the same service, but as a more invasive app installed on your phone.

    Instead of scanning a face or ID and uploading it to a service, we're expected to run unverified closed source code on the device we carry everywhere in our pockets?!

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Fuck off with your device based verification system. That's just the same service, but as a more invasive app installed on your phone.

    not necessarily. you give a phone to your children. you partly lock it down by setting it up as a child account, with its age. you make sure to install a web browser that supports limiting access to age appropriate content according to the age set in the system, maybe taking a parent allowed whitelist. the website is legally obliged to set an appropriate age limit value in a standard HTTP header.

    that way, the website does not know your age. the decision is on the web browser.
    the web browser checks the configuration in the system, that only the parent can change. it does not send it anywhere, only does a yes/no decision. if the site is not ok, it'll show a thing like when the connection is not secure or it was put on the safebrowsing list, except that you can't skip it, only option is to request parent permission.
    and finally the age is set in the operating system, without verifying its truthiness, but once again requesting lock screen authentication.
    oh and app installs need parent approval for kid accounts, like it should almost always be.

    this way it's as private as it can get. the only way a website can find out information about you from this, is to log if your browser loaded the html but not any other resources, because that means you were caught in the age filter. but that's it.

    there's multiple pieces in this that is not yet implemented, but they should be possible with not too much work.
    this is all possible with open source code, if you make sure the kid can't install anything without parent approval. stores like fdroid could have some badge or something if a browser supports this kind of limitation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    All of this is precluded by you using a browser that is authorised and approved by the government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    fuck any and all government that wants to limit what browsers we can use! the legislation should end at requiring websites to provide their classification in the headers. after that, it's the parents job to set up the device properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    All's well until other countries try to implement this and you will very quickly see how nearly none of them agree with each other on which age limit goes where. In my opinion, the best way to ensure that children don't go to certain places on the internet is to either not give them access to the internet at all or to only let them use whitelisted websites that you review yourself before adding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    how nearly none of them agree with each other on which age limit goes where.

    that's the task of the website to figure out, the device does not have to be aware of the laws. but I think is still much easier to manage than id verification.

    I habe an other idea. don't make the websites send agelimit http headers, because as you said that can easily vary by country. instead send http headers that tell what kind of content is available there. only the categories that could be questionable. that way the device (actually the browser) would decide if with the kid account's age that kind of content is accessible.
    that way the browsers need to know the age limits, and maybe it's easier to handle it this way.

    In my opinion, the best way to ensure that children don't go to certain places on the internet is to either not give them access to the internet at all or to only let them use whitelisted websites that you review yourself before adding.

    ok, and I agree, but only very few parents will do that unfortunately. especially considering that their kids could be discriminated against by their limited clasates who don't have their access so broadly limited.

    and then, you still need such a whitelisting capability, which I think does not really exist today in firefox and such browsers. addons cant solve this because they can be removed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    categories that could be questionable

    That still could vary greatly by country and culture, as one man's pornography could very well be another man's art. You would either need a great deal of near-duplicate categories or just label something as explicit the moment a single country pipes up about a woman not concealing her hair or something else that doesn't bother you one bit.

    ok, and I agree, but only very few parents will do that unfortunately. especially considering that their kids could be discriminated against by their limited clasates who don’t have their access so broadly limited.

    I suppose that we could at least be able to convince the parents that letting their children go unsupervised on the internet is like letting them go unsupervised in the big city. Totally fine if they're old enough to know what they're doing and don't stray too far from where they're meant to be going, but unacceptable if they're not so wise yet and aren't at least somewhat regularly checked up on. Children will always want the forbidden fruit, but their parents should restrain them until they understand why it was forbidden to them in the first place, and how to safely interact with it.

    and then, you still need such a whitelisting capability, which I think does not really exist today in firefox and such browsers. addons cant solve this because they can be removed.

    I'm not too well versed in this kind of software either, but I just looked up some parental controls services and they seem to offer device-level blocking of unwanted websites/apps/downloads/etc. Web browsers don't need to do the blocking, as the parental controls probably refuse the connections to the web domains.

    I didn't even mention all of this being completely bypassed if you used another website as a kind of proxy: go to proxywebsite.com -> it has a search bar -> use it to go to explicitwebsite.com -> proxywebsite.com returns the html, css, js etc of explicitwebsite.com without you ever visiting it -> profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    That still could vary greatly by country and culture, as one man's pornography could very well be another man's art. You would either need a great deal of near-duplicate categories or just label something as explicit the moment a single country pipes up about a woman not concealing her hair or something else that doesn't bother you one bit.

    that's right. but I don't think this system would be manageable for website owners if they wanted to comply with any and all countries laws. what if a country just bans any pictures about women? or something insensible like that.
    since this system is only for child protection, and wont be able to barr adults from accessing sites, I think it makes sense if a website owner only wants to be compatible with countries that have sensible laws for this purpose. like banning child access to any kind of porn, gambling, and such. I think the PEGI rating system could be used for this, it's been around for ages. but if a country has banned pictures that depict women in any way, they would just outright block that country, both because it would be very hard to deal with them anyways and because this is not supposed to be a censoring tool.

    I suppose that we could at least be able to convince the parents that letting their children go unsupervised on the internet is like letting them go unsupervised in the big city. Totally fine if they're old enough to know what they're doing and don't stray too far from where they're meant to be going, but unacceptable if they're not so wise yet and aren't at least somewhat regularly checked up on. Children will always want the forbidden fruit, but their parents should restrain them until they understand why it was forbidden to them in the first place, and how to safely interact with it.

    that sounds good, and things like this should go in place of TV and youtube ads, but it's very hard to reach so many parents without some kind of mandatory thing. and then, where I live I often enough see parents who have a baby stroller with a built-in fucking smart phone holder!! and guess what it is being used, the brainrot is flooding from them all the time. I guess that's their approach to parenting even at home. it would be especially hard to convince these parents that this is bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Doesn't need to be by age tbh- you could have content tags and filter by content instead of age (I.e. No graphic violence). That would ignore country discrepancies and then give more flexibility

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who said the device based service has to be closed source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Experience, most proposal for "age and identity verification" being badly implemented mostly closed-source solutions that only works on devices they deem trusty, meaning (seemingly) non-rooted phones with specific OSes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Part of me wants every website to do this. The UK just gets blocked from majority of the internet then people in the UK can get angry and rebel.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 161 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    I don't understand how this is a controversial opinion, but maybe parents should actually parent their children instead of expecting the Internet or the government to decide what their kids should see for them? Maybe talk to your kid about safe and ethical sex, the dangers of porn addiction, and not to take anything away from pornographic content instead? Maybe we shouldn't be giving children smartphones and tablets with unfettered internet access in the first place instead of spending time with them? Wild concepts I know.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 129 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    because these laws aren't about protecting children they're about elimination of access to things the government doesn't like... like queer spaces

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This, right here. It's like Nixon's "war on drugs" that went on, and on, and on... The goal was not drugs, per-se, but to use drugs as a pretense to police people of color.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And giving them sweeping ability to track everybody via their identity papers, to see what websites and services they're using, what all their online identities are, etc.

    They claim the info isn't being saved or passed on to the government to form a big surveillance database to one day use against people - sure, it's legal to, say, be gay or a socialist or of a particular religion today, but societies and regimes change, and the info they collect on you today may become ammunition against you in 10, 20, 40 years time.

    But I don't for a moment believe their obvious lies.

    This is nothing but authoritarian police state monitoring and control. It's extremely obvious. Yet, who are we to vote for in the next election? Not Labour, thanks to this (and a few other big reasons perhaps), not the Tories because, well, you've seen what they're like.

    It's not impossible for a third party to be elected of course, not as impossible as places like the USA that have a very worryingly solidified two party system, it's just very unlikely.

    Knowing the British people and their seeming apathy and poor judgement at scale these days I wouldn't be surprised if they elect the racist bigots at Reform - who ironically would be even more authoritarian and evil than what we have now.

    As usual, there's no hope for the future and no possibility of good outcomes.

    Humanity is doomed to repeat it's failures for all of history again and again, and we're just along for the miserable ride.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    The general apathy and disdain for noncomformity (the hatred protestors get is absurd) really does let their government stomp all over them. IIRC BBC goes out of their way to not cover protests in their own back yard, or anything that may be critical of the crown

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Don't give your children unrestricted acces to a smartphone until they've proven they can use it wisely. No smartphone before age twelve. Limited use until age 15. And ffs. Ban smartphones at school.

    Teach your kids about the internet. It's part of sexual education.

    And don't leave it up to private companies to identify me and collect sensitive data on me. Fuck that. If you really want age verification. Deliver the framework.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've been saying this a couple places recently, but why not pass legislation requiring every site to provide a content rating. Then parents can choose if they want to restrict content by ratings or not. Yeah, you could have malicious actors, but it makes it easier and simpler for everyone to work than having ID laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    My 5 year old son does have access to an android tablet, but i restrict, selectively, what he can do on it and time limit his usage so it locks down after a few hours. I curate his youtube and frequently spend time watching kids content to decide if i want him watching it. If its good and educational i will share it to his kids youtube account. He cant browse the web, he cant buy things on the play stores. He has to get me to approve any app install and i will always install first and play to ensure it safe.

    Its hard work, but its worth it to protect him online. And this has lead to it just being another one of his toys, it doesnt absorb his whole existence. He can take it or leave it. Which i am chuffed about.

    When he is older and i can help him understand for himself how to be safe, i will help him however i can. Rather than restric, i will help him understand what the internet is, the good the bad and the ugly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›