The UK's Online Safety Act doesn't just age-gate porn; it blocks material deemed "harmful" to minors. Days after the law went into effect, reports of non-explicit content on social media getting blocked in the region started to crop up. Subreddits from r/IsraelCrimes to r/stopsmoking are now walled in the UK. Video games, Spotify, and dating apps have instituted or will institute age checks.

Given the SCOTUS age verification decision [June '25], Stabile fears that people [in the US] will go "mask off" in the fall and spring, when state legislatures start getting back together. "People are going to attempt to restrict the internet even more aggressively," Stabile said. "I think people are going to work to restrict all sorts of content, particularly LGBTQ content, but also content that is broadly defined as any sort of threat or propaganda to minors." Other experts Mashable spoke to agree with him.

"I'm going to jump to the end step," [Eric Goldman, law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law] said. "The end step is that most online users are going to be required to age authenticate most of the time they visit websites. That's going to become the norm." In a paper he wrote, Goldman called these statutes "segregate-and-suppress" laws.

The stated reason behind these laws is to "protect children." But as journalist Taylor Lorenz pointed out, in the UK, age verification is already preventing children from accessing vital information, such as about menstruation and sexual assault.

"When we see crackdowns on spaces on the internet, we're essentially stripping away that potential for self-actualization," Goldman said. We've reached the dystopian stage of the internet, he added.

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 241 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

Age verification isn't really age verification: it's identity verification. And once you have given your identity to one or two websites, data brokers will ensure that all your other activity on the internet will eventually be tied to it. Burner devices and anonymous VPNs could help, but only until those become illegal too.

This will have a chilling effect on not only every kind of discourse the fascists hate, but also political organization and people's ability to resist. You won't be able to organize a protest online without the police knowing in advance who is likely to come and finding a pretext to intimidate or pre-arrest them.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 70 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's the most insightful and chilling comment I've read in a while. I especially like the "it's not age verification; it's identity verification" part. (That messaging needs to be more commonplace.) The key(s) for organizing data about individuals online will shift from email addresses only to enough stable identifiers to impersonate someone or maybe even steal their identity. Data leaks and fraud will probably increase dramatically given the value-add of these data.

    With the level of quashing dissent these days - eg UK police arresting hundreds of nonviolent people with placards denouncing genocide; military deployments in LA and DC - no wonder certain states/ governments support online identity verification laws.

    "No Kings" protests are already a non-story in mainstream news today. Tomorrow, they can be prevented from happening in the first place! /s c/aboringdystopia

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

    And one key thing. Fascists and fascist collaborators will claim, "everything you do online and already tracked to your real identity." But the truth is, if that were already the case, then there wouldn't be a push for these identity verification laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You won’t be able to organize a protest online without the police knowing in advance who is likely to come and finding a pretext to intimidate or pre-arrest them.

    That's been true for a while. But it was "The FBI can put a pin in it" true before. And now it feels like "LinkedIn is going to have a second secret file on you" true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Fun fact:

    That was the plan all along.

    The guy who founded LinkedIn... Paypal mafia
    The guys who invested in Facebook. . PayPal mafia
    The guys who founded YouTube.... Paypal mafia
    The guy who founded Square .... Paypal mafia
    The guy who ran doge and got all your us gov datasets, has literally half of all satellites in orbit sucking up your location and data... Paypal mafia

    The guy who decides who attends the bilderberg group, is ceo of the ai that is used by nearly every police force in the USA, and has contracts with military, who funded trump and Vance... Paypal Mafia

    These guys have literally created the techno society we are now slaves to.

    They are just getting started.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They are just getting started.

    Idk, man. Seems like they're wrapping up. Not a whole lot left to do when you're this far up on the board.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My friend, you have no idea of the hell that awaits... There's always a deeper layer...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And they dont even have any valid excuses, because its totally possible to implement anonymous age verification that cannot be fooled. These systems already exists and work perfectly, but it was never the plan to do it this way. It was always intended as a political tool of censorship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What systems are you referring to?

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

    The EUs eID system. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en

    Depending on the use case, varying amounts of information can be transferred like only age or nationality or everything.

    Ive used it for signing EU petitions but also local bureucratic things like residency stuff.

    The eID system is kind of overkill if all that matters is age verification. You could build a suuper lightweight system just for that which would make checking the source code much easier.

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

    18+ to shop at Walmart. I don't want my children exposed to harmful things like books, my boys shouldn't be exposed to cleaning supplies or see women's garments and my girls shouldn't have to see that other girls are allowed to pick out their outfits or do manly things like play sports.

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

    In the UK some supermarkets charge extra for children to buy products. You need to register an account for them to harvest even more data and if you don't then some products can cost a lot more. Children can't register as they can't collect that kind of data on children.

    I shop at Aldi instead because they don't do this shit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 76 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    We need to purge our society of these genital obsessed religious extremists

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    We should haul them into public arenas and feed them to lions. They get off to that sort of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Remember, according to the UK government you're legally able to have sex, give birth, choose your future, and (soon?) vote at 16. Heaven forfend if you see a pair of titties though, you're not mature enough for that...

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You can have sex, but you better not look!

    I'm not against a bit of spice, but blindfolds at 16 just seem a little advanced. Especially when sex at that age is akin to a oblong peg in a tesseract shaped hole of unknown location.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You really dont see the difference between two 17 year olds in a relationship and watching porn online?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Two 17 year olds have no idea how relationships work - one or both is normally carrying a Disney complex, and you're both heavy risk takers.

    Been there, done that, no thanks. It was an experience, but not one I'd voluntarily relive.

    A 17 year old consuming pornography? Sounds to me like their parents need to put that shit into some context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 112 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Nuclear weapons are harmful to children.

    Global warming is harmful to children.

    Microplastics and forever chemicals are harmful to children.

    But, no, let’s just block the porn.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    Until they ban Tor there will always be porn available.

    This isn't about protecting children.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [+] -30 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Of course it is about protecting children. We dont sell porn magazines in grocery stores anymore, despite the fact they are still "available".

    The internet is a public place, having awful things available for children to look at is not a good thing. Personal freedoms have to take a backseat to public health and safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    If parents want their kids to not see porn, they should set up filters on their devices and monitor their computer use. That has been doable for decades.

    The internet isn't a shopping mall where everyone needs to follow some set of rules, it's more like a neighborhood where you can go up and knock on anyone's door. If you don't like what they do at their house, the solution is to not visit their house, not force everyone to follow some set of rules on their own property. Websites shouldn't have to go out of their way to block traffic that doesn't follow some set of rules, people should go out of their way to not visit sites they don't want to see.

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

    That usually equates to removing all technology from kids hands as most are unable to research and properly secure what they give their children. Technology is needed, they can't grow up without knowing how to use it and making that safer is fine by me.

    If you want to look at adults only material prove you are an adult or go about it a different way. The internet isn't the only place porn exists.

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

    If the parents don't want their kids to watch porn, why the fuck are they even letting their kids use phones or computers with zero oversight? It should NOT be the government's responsibility to parent kids, parents should fucking learn how to set up protections and blocks on their devices and networks.

    Besides, "prove you're an adult on the internet" can be faked. ID? Ask an adult friend, or AI edit it. It doesn't matter if some sites manage to catch it, some won't and kids will go to those with weaker verification.
    Credit Card? Some kids have their own, others can try to sneak their parents' number.
    As an adult, I do not want to give my ID or CC info to every porn site I visit, because I know they will keep that information forever. With so much individually identifiable information, said sites then become really big targets for hackers and government.

    When people say this is not about protecting kids, that's what they mean. At best, it creates a shitty, but hardly impassable barrier for kids to access porn. At worst, it creates immense centers of valuable data that can be used against individuals.

    Last but not least, unless the law starts applying to chat groups, that'll be the easiest solution for most kids who still want to watch porn. Discord, Telegram, Whatsapp are full of places where you can get lots of adult material.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • chat groups

    Exactly, and it's not even hard to find.

    Just look at piracy, for example. Studios are really aggressive about taking down copyrighted material, yet it's still really easy to find it. Porn sites, on the other hand, aren't as aggressive, so it's even easier to find.

    These types of laws only hurt law abiding citizens.

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

    I hate to break it to you but they dont need your cc or a picture of your face, porn websites make a lot of money off selling user data, and it regularly gets combined with other applications to identify you. Ever wonder how peoples porn accounts have been linked to them publicly?

    This is about putting the responsibility on site owners to do their best to ensure content is appropriate for children or that it is unavailable to children.

    This is simply people throwing a fit about "my freedoms". Noone here actually cares about other people or society in general, just selfishness.

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

    porn websites make a lot of money off selling user data, and it regularly gets combined with other applications to identify you. Ever wonder how peoples porn accounts have been linked to them publicly?

    That's true for the entire corporate run internet. As is, however, all porn sites work fine with an AdBlock, which also blocks tracking. Unless the user is logging in with an email they use for everything else, it's not as easy to connect their porn history with the rest of their online activities. People that use burner emails and throwaway accounts for porn sites aren't being exposed. The infamous Ashley Madison leak showed that a LOT of accounts used work emails - those people are asking for trouble.

    This is about putting the responsibility on site owners to do their best to ensure content is appropriate for children or that it is unavailable to children.

    You know that's not true. No porn site will do "their best", they'll do the bare minimum not to get sued. Even YouTube, with infinite money from Google, doesn't do "the best" to ensure kids don't see shit they're not supposed to. Instagram is frequently bombarding kids with content that is not age appropriate, if they start following the "right" accounts.

    This is simply people throwing a fit about "my freedoms". No one here actually cares about other people or society in general, just selfishness.

    Look in the mirror. People are rightfully complaining that this will give too much burden and POWER to corporations that are already too big and hoarding too much data, and you want corporations to be the nannies of the internet, dictating whether a user is or isn't an adult. What kind of mental gymnastics is needed to equate greater corporate and govt control of the internet with "you're just throwing a fit, you're all selfish"?

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

    Corporations dont want to do this, it costs money. We can talk about possible misuses of data if you'd like but I'd say we are swimming in an ocean of misuse at this point.

    I'm saying people are selfish because this type of stuff has happened over and over and noone cares, but as soon as it affects porn the internet throws a tantrum. Sorry for noticing a pattern there but it seems like people won't admit how addicted to porn they really are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    No, it usually equates to parents not filtering anything because that's the laziest option. That's not great, but violating everyone's privacy for an ineffective law is worse.

    Commercial products exist for those who want them. Use those instead of asking governments to handle parenting for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If personal privacy is that important to you then download your porn from torrents, or just dont watch it. Porn isn't a necessity. You aren't owed porn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But it's not about porn, it's about government interference on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is it though? Seems funny to me that porn websites had to hang up "no kids" signs and now people are claiming its an issue about freedom and privacy.

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

    The "no kids" signs were fine because they didn't violate anyone's privacy. The "scan your face" BS goes way too far.

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

    Considering there are other options for age verification I'd imagine companies using face scan tech will take a huge hit in traffic. I doubt that will be a mainstream way of doing it, as it barely makes sense to begin with.

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

    Funny how broad "awful things" gets determined to be. Can't have people learning that the LGBT and political dissent exist, can we?

    The dark web is a public place too. Are you expecting that to be banned as well?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    People aren't learning that lgbtq people exist by casually stumbling upon it on pornhub. This is besides the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    It isn't besides the point, you've just missed the point:

    https://www.brookings.edu/articles/childrens-online-safety-laws-are-failing-lgbtq-youth/

    And you've conveniently ignored my second question.

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

    The person you are talking to repeatedly and loudly advocates for fascist, oppressive, totalitarian policies. I would not expect any productive or good faith exchange with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    I can't speak for people using the law to also target lgbtq people, it doesnt seem to be the goal of it but I'll accept that there will be people who try to twist it. At this point it seems literally everything is twisted against that community.

    As for the dark web, its so unpopular I dont consider it having a societal effect but If there was a site or service on there popular enough that it shows up in regular life for non-tech users, then yes it should regulated. I'm not for banning content, but rules and regulation can mitigate negative effects of something like widely available pornography.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not about protecting the children and never has been with the Party of Pedos. It's about control.

    Outlaw porn. Then start calling LGBTQ folks pornographic. Now it's illegal to be gay. You KNOW they are going in that direction.

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

    Pornographic content is literally & figuratively the canary in the coal mine of the internet.

  • source
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    "I’m fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there’d only be one website left, and it’d be called Bring back the porn!"

    - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    The stated reason behind these laws is to "protect children."

    https://imgur.com/QqabC7T

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    The first time this PII is leaked about some politician's online search history, it will all get repealed.

    Wanna stop this? Get some whale to buy up the data and find people pushing this shit and any mass adoption for these things will die. Politicians like to eat up religious lobbyist's shit until it's used to expose their less savory activities to the greater population.

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The very instant a website wants me to verify my age by providing PII, I’ll just blacklist that website from my network. There isn’t a single website that I can’t go without.

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

    What if it ends up being all discussion boards?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh no, where can I go in order to be made to feel outraged by chronically online children, bots, and foreign intelligence services.

    /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No. None of those or other prptocols are above legislation or javlass politics. This starts and ends with the public amd who they vote for. Just moving the goal post isnt going to stop this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 26 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There's a news clip of a reporter bypassing the restrictions in under 4 seconds. I actually think more teens will get around this than adults lmao. I look at the positives though, the silver lining is at least teens are learning about vpns early.

    Oh god we're so fucked.

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

    Most of the bypasses are by using a fake picture though. Two problems with that - if you consistently use the same fakery then your identity is still tracked between things (which is barely better than using your real identity), and if one service reports you for it being fake, you might lose all your connected accounts if they implement some sort of system like that in the future.

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

    Maybe the silver lining is teaching them about the limitations of data obfuscation and misdirection early? The adults of tomorrow will be so much better off once they experience rejection via automation due to dumb shit they did on the internet as kids.

    Oh god we're so fucked.

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

    Google image search for tits works without any age verification

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

    UK isnt so puritanical as the US, the sudden shift is very suspect of the actors behind these legislations all over the world.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    It was porn watching that initially pushed the internet technology to be better. Everything comes full circle.

  • source
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • Here's the thing. When prohibition took effect in the US, anyone with half an idea on how fermentation and distillation worked made their own alcohol (I made my own 'prison hooch' at home using EC-1118 yeast, sugar, and fruit juice. It is fucking EASY to do). The problem with stuff like this is that some people often produced toxic stuff, since they had no idea how to separate ethanol from methanol and other toxic byproducts during distillation, and this shit got people killed. Not only that, the complete lack of regulation (since it was 100% illegal after all) meant that people adulterated the booze with all manner of bullshit. It was a common trope in prohibition era and post-prohibition films to showcase it.

    With porn? Look, the porn industry is rife with abuse for everyone involved. But having a legal industry and legal sites like pornhub and many others means one thing: The shit isn't going to be illegal. There were actual porn videos featuring underaged girls on pornhub, and those were removed almost immediately upon discovery. Dark web stuff is... holy shit! One main reason why I don't do much dark web stuff is very specifically that I fear I will click on a link that'll take me to some child porn site... and the stories I heard on true crime videos show just how horrific many of those pornographers are. They are far more than just naked kids posing, some of them involve almost killing children.

    And banning porn will only make it that there are no protections whatsoever against anyone, be they adult or otherwise. If there is one good thing about modern porn is that a lot of it (and I would even say the best) is amateur made. With the people involved all willingly making the stuff to post online.

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

    or we could just ban their ip range from every website idk

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    30 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post