Thank you Moonchild, for saying No to censorship!

[Moonchild]

I really just don't see how it's reasonable to expect every single website to either verify the age of users or moderate heavily.

Yet that is the gist of these proposals and laws. The overreach will result in either the sites requiring tracking through ID verification, or heavy censorship of content posted by users, all under the guise of "protecting the children with access to the Internet" from "risky (user-posted) content".
And it's exactly this that I'm speaking out against right now with the notice on this forum's main page. I do not agree with ID tracking, nor with the imposed censorship. I don't care if forum.palemoon.org will be blacklisted in countries where this will be pushed because I won't impose politically "correct" or "opinion-biased" filters on our community (you all know how to get around ISP-based restrictions, I hope -- and as I hinted at I'll be happy to spin up a non-filtered, non-logging recursive DNS server for public use if that's what it'll take to give people access, etc.)

[Gemmaugr]

I recall similar questions years ago surrounding §11/17 of some copyright law or other, remembered online as the ‘meme ban’, concerning how file libraries would require licencing. Vaguely, it is expected that the measures employed should match the site’s size and revenue. I admit I am writing from a position of ignorance, but I have not noticed any changes at all in my online experience since that passed. If my understanding is correct that nothing substantial has actually changed for this, then this precedent gives me some cause for optimism.

Yeah, you're thinking of Article 13 (https://creativecommons.org/2018/06/08/ ... r-the-web/), which was blunted and transformed into article 17 (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/e ... ts-its-use). Which could be said to precede Chat Control #1, and then #2, and now #3 (https://chatcontrol.dk/en/).

This is, and will be, an on-going thing that we need to stand up to sadly. Globally, too (https://reclaimthenet.org/?s=Digital+ID).

[null_ID]

What I want to know is, by what authority do the Britons tell anyone to do anything outside of their own UK jurisdiction? How are they going to force this on a service operating in somewhere like... say, Mozambique? A sovereign nation with their OWN legislation and rules? Are we going to see state level blackmailing tactics and retaliatory measures being used against independent countries who do not wish to comply?

This whole thing is very questionable in how invasive it is. That it now seems to be happening everywhere at once is all the more horrifying. How long has this been planned behind the scenes? Understand this: Once surveillance methods such as this are in place, all it takes is for one, single election to go wrong (the wrong people win), and the entire system will be in the hands of fascists. It will be used to persecute political opponents and others who are unwanted by the system.

[Mæstro]

What I want to know is, by what authority do the Britons tell anyone to do anything outside of their own UK jurisdiction? How are they going to force this on a service operating in somewhere like... say, Mozambique? A sovereign nation with their OWN legislation and rules?

We have seen this for decades with file-sharing sites. Nimrod might mandate that ISP within his grasp refuse to connect to defiant sites, hence HTTP error 451. (A VPN can evade this, of course, which is why many governments ban these.) If the service is for profit, he might heckle its commerce with the aid of payment processors operating within his territory or demand fines. (Compare how some sites deny European IP addresses access to avoid GDPR compliance.) He cannot suppress foreign sites, but he can hinder his subjects using them.

[Moonchild]

What I want to know is, by what authority do the Britons tell anyone to do anything outside of their own UK jurisdiction? How are they going to force this on a service operating in somewhere like... say, Mozambique? A sovereign nation with their OWN legislation and rules?

You have to keep in mind that the Internet is a global affair. And national laws affect residents of those countries, which in turn segments and fragments the network. At the surface, one can't directly influence server operators in other countries but this is attacking the underlying infrastructure of the Internet as a whole.
Especially if dealing with commerce of some sort or big social media, this immediately applies pressure to the foreign entity because lost visitors directly correlates to lost revenue.
If backed by legislation in large countries there are also the more subtle effects that undermine Internet technologies. Think of ISPs losing peer agreements with backbones "unless they comply"; country borders don't have as much meaning in that case.

[Mike_Walsh]

I applaud Moonchild's stance here, buttt........

I agree with Moonchild entirely. Online safety courses from the noughts stressed that children should not browse the unfiltered net, there were many children’s versions of common sites and parents were instructed accordingly. These seem to have decayed since the early tens, such that typical usage of most SNS breaks the basic principle that one should avoid linking one’s online and private identity. Legislation now assumes the common man will neglect these basic duties. Widespread smartphone addiction convinces me that this assumption is often correct, and the rest of us are just dragged down in the process. Survey suggests most Britons approve the new law; what in the world are they actually thinking?

TBH, here in the UK anything that mentions "protecting children" is automatically approved without even being investigated or looked at. It's just taken for granted that the powers-that-be MUST know what's best for us. Brits are nothing if not politically apathetic.

Governments & legislatures around the world aren't daft. They know just which "buttons" to press in order to pass any law they like.

In the early noughties, widespread internet usage was still a relatively new thing. 25 years on, an entire generation has grown up with it from the cradle.....and to such as these, 24/7 online access is perfectly normal. Whilst I agree that social media IS an enormous issue, due to the way it influences so many young people at the most impressionable period of their lives, there are too many parents who just wash their hands of any kind of responsibility.....in part due to the fact that most of them have to work every hour God sends simply to 'make ends meet'.

So.....what DO you do for the best?


Mike.

[Moonchild]

there are too many parents who just wash their hands of any kind of responsibility.....in part due to the fact that most of them have to work every hour God sends simply to 'make ends meet'.

Parental Controls and their effectiveness have grown alongside the popularity of the Internet. Parents are responsible for stuffing mobile devices into their kids' hands, so they are also responsible what kind of content they allow their kids be exposed to, and how that is controlled. This is no different than the previous generations needing to be controlled when it came to TV and not letting young kids just watch anything they want, for example.
Parents don't need to be around to supervise; these controls work without their continuous active participation. Working long hours is no excuse - it's just become a part of responding to the environment children are raised in.
Having that reflect on every adult in the room as well and impacting privacy in a massive way by overreaction of regulatory bodies that shouldn't even be involved in parenting (unless it's their own kids) is just wrong.

Also, the very real effect locking down the Internet will have is that people need to use workarounds, including the deep web/dark web -- even for things like unbiased news that is already being censored as "risky". Tell me, how many times more likely is it that children will find material that actually harms them on the deep web than on the (fairly decently regulated) surface web? It's a simple question that should pierce immediately through the flimsy excuse that "it's for the children". No, no it isn't.

[Kris_88]

The problem is that the ID can be used for other purposes (for tracking, for social rating, etc.). They should come up with an implementation so that it can be used only for age verification and for no other purposes (basically, to verify that I have some officially issued ID but without revealing this ID). I think it is possible.

[Mike_Walsh]

What I want to know is, by what authority do the Britons tell anyone to do anything outside of their own UK jurisdiction? How are they going to force this on a service operating in somewhere like... say, Mozambique? A sovereign nation with their OWN legislation and rules? Are we going to see state level blackmailing tactics and retaliatory measures being used against independent countries who do not wish to comply?

Nngh. Nah. See, you're being a wee bit naive here. I mean, think about it. "Blackmail" is never actually mentioned out loud. It's more a case of exerting subtle pressure by simply making it impractical to operate within the UK's borders/jurisdiction. 'Subtle' has always been the UK govt's preferred approach in modern times.....because we're no longer capable of putting forth a show of real strength, yet there are those that fondly remember the days of the Empire and STILL wish to be able to influence global events without ever being "in-yer-face" about it.

I have for years been subscribed to a few anime/manga sites that sometimes have "adult" themes/content. None of these sites are big, and they definitely don't have the resources to do what's being expected of them OR to fend off legal challenges, etc.....so without exception - and to 'save face' - they've simply withdrawn their service from anywhere under the UK's control......leaving an apologetic banner in the site's place.

It's not "blackmail".....but it achieves precisely the same effect without the "b"-word ever being mentioned. And that's the result that is desired by the 'powers-that-be' at the end of the day. No 'force' is used. The providers leave of their own accord.....citing 'unfavourable operating conditions'. To which there is, of course, never an answer, explanation or even an apology. The 'powers-that-be' KNOW they have them over a barrel, so......why even bother apologising..? Nothing to see here. Moving on.....

And no amount of bitching about it - by me OR thee - is going make a scrap of difference to that outcome, I'm afraid. Those "in charge" know perfectly well that those "under their thumb" cannot do a thing about it.

(*shrug...*)


Mike.

[Bilbo47]

Once surveillance methods such as this are in place, all it takes is for one, single election to go wrong (the wrong people win), and the entire system will be in the hands of fascists. It will be used to persecute political opponents and others who are unwanted by the system.

This ship has already sailed. Doesn't mean We can't still rescue the world.

[Bilbo47]

in UK anything that mentions "protecting children" is automatically approved without even being investigated or looked at. It's just taken for granted that the powers-that-be MUST know what's best for us. Brits are nothing if not politically apathetic.

UK in particular is policing everything *except* crime.

[Mike_Walsh]

in UK anything that mentions "protecting children" is automatically approved without even being investigated or looked at. It's just taken for granted that the powers-that-be MUST know what's best for us. Brits are nothing if not politically apathetic.

UK in particular is policing everything *except* crime.

And in this fair green land of ours, much of what gets passed into law is never debated publicly in the House of Commons. The illusion of democracy is purely for public consumption; anything that's REALLY considered "necessary" is all "done & dusted" - sorted, AND arranged - via quiet chats over brandy & cigars in back-rooms between "interested parties". Think "old school tie", and the public-school "old boy" network...

Politics has never been about wanting to "do what's right" for local constituents. I don't know about other countries, but here in the UK at least it's always been about getting yourself into a position where you can influence AND get enshrined into law whatever YOU happen to think is "right".....without anyone else being in a position to have a say about it. Too much stuff here is debated & rubber-stamped in closed-room sessions "behind the scenes". No-one else has a clue what's going on until it's too late.

The UK's "Mother of Parliaments" model has always been held up as THE example to follow for 'fairness'. It works fantastically well when everybody follows "the rules".....but for too many years now the parliamentary process has been subverted by those with their own agendas (and let's be fair, most countries are no different in this respect). That'll never change, because for many, power is its own aphrodisiac. This is a known FACT.

(*shrug...*)


Mike.

[Moonchild]

While I don't mind some healthy conversation and discussion about politics, myself, let's keep this thread about censorship, the current push for the laws sparking my forum announcement, and the forum handling of it
If you do want to talk about the UK parliament in particular, make a new off-topic board thread please.

[frostknight]

by placing the responsibility where it doesn't belong: service providers, social media operators, ISPs, etc. By enforcing strict identity checks it becomes censorship of the teenagers at best, and full surveillance and content control for every person on the Internet at worst, under the same legislative umbrella.

Agree completely and this is coming from someone who has literally been catfished. Even after such an experience, I still thought that censorship and mass surveillance was a bad way to fix the problem.
I didn't know much about fascism back then, but I had enough sense to know I didn't want any mass surveillance crap.

Off-topic:
Ironically I was using windows back then though lol.

I think either vista or xp.

But anywho, yes, the whole internet shouldn't be torched because of a small percentage of a-holes who don't want to be proper parents or a small group of people who want to abuse the internet. This will just enable the worst elements of mankind to do shady stuff. The politicans and corporations ie.

[Moonchild]

https://reclaimthenet.org/age-verification-systems-france-privacy-risks-ai-forensics-report

Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming.

[frostknight]

https://reclaimthenet.org/age-verification-systems-france-privacy-risks-ai-forensics-report

Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming.

No one with even average intelligence would raise their hand.