Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws
Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws | TechCrunch
Decentralized social network Mastodon says it cannot comply with age verification laws, like in Mississippi and elsewhere, and says it's up to individual server owners to decide.Sarah Perez (TechCrunch)
like this
Default Username
in reply to General_Effort • • •like this
KaRunChiy likes this.
cmgvd3lw
in reply to Default Username • • •Default Username
in reply to cmgvd3lw • • •smnwcj
in reply to Default Username • • •SeductiveTortoise
in reply to General_Effort • • •Government sets up page to verify age. You head to it, no referrer. Age check happens by trusted entity (your government, not some sketchy big tech ass), they create a signed cert with a short lifespan to prevent your kid using the one you created yesterday and without the knowledge which service it is for. It does not contain a reference to your identity. You share that cert with the service you want to use, they verify the signature, your age, save the passing and everyone is happy. Your government doesn't know that you're into ladies with big booties, the big booty service doesn't know your identity and you wank along in private.
But oh no, that wouldn't work because think of the... I have no clue.
mic_check_one_two
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •Ideally, it would be handled directly on the hardware. Allow people to verify their logged in profile, using a government-run site. Then that user is now verified. Any time an age gate needs to happen, the site initiates a secure handshake directly with the device via TLS, and asks the device if the current user is old enough. The device responds with a simple yes/no using that secure protocol. Parents can verify their accounts/devices, while child accounts/devices are left unverified and fail the test.
Government doesn’t know what you’re watching, because they simply verified the user. People don’t need to spam an underfunded government site with requests every day, because the individual user is verified. And age gates are able to happen entirely in the background without any additional effort on the user’s side. The result is that adults get to watch porn without needing to verify every time, while kids automatically get a “you’re not age-verified” wall. And kids can’t MITM the age check, due to the secure handshake. And if it becomes common enough, even a VPN would be meaningless as adult sites will just start requiring it by default.
For instance, on a Windows machine, each individual user would be independently verified. So if the kid is logged into their account, they’d get an age wall. But if the parent is logged into their verified account, they can watch all the porn they want. Then keeping kids away from porn is simply a matter of protecting your adults’ computer password.
But it won’t happen, because protecting kids isn’t the actual goal. The actual goal is surveillance. Google (and other big tech firms like them) is pushing to enact these laws, because they have the infrastructure set up to verify users. And requiring verification via those big tech firms allows them to track you more.
doughless
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •LifeInMultipleChoice
in reply to doughless • • •I give it 2 years till Netflix requires you to have an ID every time you open the app because it has rated R movies.
This is the same principle. The account holder agreement should make the account holder responsible for the use of the service.
The government shouldn't be parenting our minors, their guardians should be.
Otherswise we should put digital locks on every beer bottle, pack of cigarettes, blunt raps, car door, etc. That requires you to scan your ID before every use.
"Kids shouldn't be driving cars, it isn't safe!"
Yes, but somehow we have made it 100 years without requiring proof of age/license to start the car.
And the car is far more deadly than them seeing someone naked.
doughless
in reply to LifeInMultipleChoice • • •Zachariah
in reply to doughless • • •doughless
in reply to Zachariah • • •Zachariah
in reply to doughless • • •homoludens
in reply to doughless • • •homoludens
in reply to LifeInMultipleChoice • • •Driving is a much more visible activity than looking at your phone in a locked room though.
commie
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •but they know who they issued it to, and can secretly subpoena your data from your instance.
no thank you.
jim3692
in reply to commie • • •They (the govt) would know that they issued a certificate to ex. lemmy.dbzer0.com
They can't know that the certificate is issued to conmie
Unless, of course, the instance logs the age certificate used by each user
And also, unless the govt's age verification service logs the certificate issued by each citizen
homoludens
in reply to commie • • •infinitesunrise
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •bulwark
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •MunkysUnkEnz0
in reply to bulwark • • •floofloof
in reply to bulwark • • •The fact that they haven't gone for this approach that delivers age verification without disclosing ID, when it's a common and well known pattern in IT services, very strongly suggests that age verification was never the goal. The goal is to associate your real identity with all the information data brokers have on you, and make that available to state security services and law enforcement. And to do this they will gradually make it impossible to use the internet until they have your ID.
We really need to move community-run sites behind Tor or into i2p or something similar. We need networks where these laws just can't practically be enforced and information can continue to circulate openly.
The other day my kid wanted me to tweak the parental settings on their Roblox account. I tried to do so and was confronted by a demand for my government-issued ID and a selfie to prove my age. So I went to look at the privacy policy of the company behind it, Persona. Here's the policy, and it's without a doubt the worst I've ever seen. It basically says they'll take every last bit of information about you and sell it to everyone, including governments.
withpersona.com/legal/privacy-…
So I explained to my kid that I wasn't willing to do this. This is a taste of how everything will be soon.
Truscape
in reply to floofloof • • •Inkstain (they/them)
in reply to floofloof • • •Noxy
in reply to bulwark • • •what exactly is the problem, though?
Zwuzelmaus
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •Sorry, not sufficient.
Not secure.
" I certify that somebody is >18, but I don't say who - just somebody "
This is an open invitation to fraud. You are going to create at least a black market for these certificates, since they are anonymous but valid.
And I'm sure some real fraudsters have even stronger ideas than I have.
iopq
in reply to Zwuzelmaus • • •What stops non-anonymous certificates from being sold?
If John Doe views way too much porn, then you expect the site to shut him down? They have no ability to track other site usage. The authorities have to block him after the 10,000th download.
At that point, why does the site need to know? Either the government blocks someone's ID or they don't
Zwuzelmaus
in reply to iopq • • •Not useful to look at it in such a black or white manner. The possibilities are presumably less, and surely not that obvious.
iopq
in reply to Zwuzelmaus • • •homoludens
in reply to Zwuzelmaus • • •Zwuzelmaus
in reply to homoludens • • •homoludens
in reply to Zwuzelmaus • • •Amju Wolf
in reply to Zwuzelmaus • • •TechnoCat
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •I think this starts to not work when you start to include other states that want to do this, other countries, cities, counties, etc.. How many trusted authorities should there be and how do you prevent them from being compromised and exploited to falsely verify people? How do you prevent valid certs from being sold?
Some examples of the type of service you mentioned:
- realme.govt.nz/
- id.me/
Home
www.realme.govt.nzhomoludens
in reply to TechnoCat • • •Sold by whom? The created cert can be time limited and single use, so the service couldn't really sell them. You could rate limit how many certs users can create and obviously make it illegal to share them in order to deter people from using them. That's not enough to prevent it completetly, but should be an improvement for the use cases I hear the most about: social media (because it reduces the network effect) and porn (because kids will at least know that they're doing some real shady shit).
tabular
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •Bold of you to assume a government entity is trusted. In the UK we have a large misrepresentative error due to our voting system.
SeductiveTortoise
in reply to tabular • • •tabular
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •SeductiveTortoise
in reply to tabular • • •pinball_wizard
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •You may want to join us reading along in the privacy communities of the fediverse.
But long story shortened - third parties are very much identifying each of us in staggeringly novel and effective ways.
For example, depending on circumstances, third parties may not be sure which room in my home I am sitting in, right now, while being aware that I'm writing this. This shit has gotten deeply weird and invasive.
SeductiveTortoise
in reply to pinball_wizard • • •tabular
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •SeductiveTortoise
in reply to tabular • • •sugar_in_your_tea
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •Easy:
I don't trust the government and private interests to come to an agreement that somehow benefits citizens more than their combined interests.
SeductiveTortoise
in reply to sugar_in_your_tea • • •I'm not saying I'm for age verification. I'm just saying if it were for it, there'd be solutions.
What I wrote I did while being barely awake in five minutes. Sure it needs work. But there'd be ways to do it without a camera up your butt.
sugar_in_your_tea
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •My point is that any solution here will be used for tracking, because that's in the interests of both regulators and regulated entities. It's not going to solve the original problem because kids are great at finding workarounds, and it will cause harm to those who follow the rules.
I also could devise a technical solution here that respects users' privacy and is effective, but once it's implemented, it will be changed to violate privacy. That's how these things work.
SeductiveTortoise
in reply to sugar_in_your_tea • • •GreenShimada
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •sunbeam60
in reply to GreenShimada • • •Eh, Denmark is. They are building exactly a ZKP system.
Britain has chosen to not make this a legal requirement so it is possible to tie back age verification with who verified. That makes it a lot more suspect.
GreenShimada
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •Sorry, I mean just for the UK, US, and apparently China also.
Fortunately, the EU isn't going down the same path, and has Estonia, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands as guides. And to just do this in the right order and do step 1: sensible digital ID system.
fodor
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •brachiosaurus
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •It was never about the kids.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_gl…
rozodru
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •meh just do what Amazon does "Hey if you're student you can get Amazon Prime for $5! how old are you?"
me: "I'm 20."
Amazon: "Ok here's your cheap prime!"
/me groans getting out of the chair cause I'm in my 40s
Point being just slap up an unverified age gate and be done with it. Really, truthfully, whose going to actually check? who even cares to check? it's all just a dog and pony show to please the conservative and "think of the children" religious nut jobs who have no idea how any of this shit works anyways. Just spend 2 minutes whipping up a site with a centered div that has a drop down menu asking "how old are you?" less than 18 send it to a "no internet for you page" greater than 18 "go look at porn" page.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what's REALLY happening that they're requiring scanned IDs or faces or what have you. and no company in their right mind is going to fight this as it's free and easy data collection. Bluesky doesn't give a flying fuck as they're just going to end up selling the data they collect.
just_an_average_joe
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •How about people parent their children?
I believe the issue is that parents themselves are overworked from their job and have no energy to be a parent, because in our society, it is more successful to be a worker than to be a parent.
(Sorry for turning it into a critique of capitalism, I just can't help it these days)
SeductiveTortoise
in reply to just_an_average_joe • • •ItsGhost
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •SeductiveTortoise
in reply to ItsGhost • • •General_Effort
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •The problem is that meat-space logic is applied to the cyberspace (as it might have been said in the 90ies).
You go into a store and the clerk sees you and knows your age. If it's borderline, then they ask for ID. They are applying that thinking to internet services. And so are you. You are just trying to figure out a better way to ask for ID.
The UK doesn't have a system of mandatory national ID. Brits feel that that is totalitarian. So obviously, they do not use the scheme you propose. It's not their meat-space logic.
Where this falls down is that no ordinary Mastodon instance can comply with the regulations of the close to 200 hundred countries in the world. Of course, just like 4chan, many wouldn't want to out of principle.
The only way to make this work is to introduce another meat-space thing: Border posts. You need a Great Firewall of the [Local Nation]. At physical border posts, guards check if goods comply with local regulations. We need virtual border posts to check if data is imported and exported in compliance with local regulations.
Such a thing, a virtual Schengen border, was briefly considered in the EU about 15 years ago. It went nowhere at the time. But if you look at EU regulations, you can see that the foundations are already laid, most obviously with the GDPR but also the DSM, DMA, DSA, CRA, ...
Eventually, the border will be closed to protect our values; to enforce our laws. We will lock out those American and Chinese Big Tech companies that steal our data. We will only allow their European branches and strictly monitor their communications abroad. We will be taking back control, as the Brexiteers sloganized it. Freedom is just another word for having to ask the government for permission when you enter a country. And increasingly, it is another word for having to ask permission for how you use your own computer.
It won't be some shady backroom deal. Look here. People in this community love these regulations. Europeans here are happy to tell US companies to "FO if they don't want to follow our laws". Well, the Great Firewall of Europe is how you do that.
The "Virtual Schengen Border" or "Great Firewall of Europe" - European Digital Rights (EDRi)
European Digital Rights (EDRi)starman2112
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •You sell that cert to a local kid for $50
You generate another cert to sell to a local kid tomorrow
???
Profit
SeductiveTortoise
in reply to starman2112 • • •starman2112
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •SeductiveTortoise
in reply to starman2112 • • •I'm not sure if we are doing that fine. The thing about the decades is there wasn't really a web for kids to browse. Nowadays it's different. But still, I agree with you. We should keep responsibility to the parents as long as possible. But I really don't think my friend's daughter should be browsing TikTok at her age.
(Which is my friend's task, not mine or that of some pedo in government)
Humanius
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •Funnily enough that is roughly the implementation the EU seems to be working on.
digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/…
On a side-note. I do not consider the government to be a trusted party. Whatever solution gets implemented needs to not provide the government any information that they can use for mass surveillance.
The two main requirements in my view are:
Edit: You mention the certificate being short-lived, but one of the concerns mentioned in the proposed implementation for the EU age verification states that if that window is too short it can be used to determine identity.
The EU approach to age verification
Shaping Europe’s digital futureSeductiveTortoise
in reply to Humanius • • •I think I have to specify what I mean by trusted. I do not trust them with my browser history, but I do trust them handling my government-issued identity. I do however not trust a company with that identity because I know they will definitely use it for their own good. What I want is the complete and absolute separation of information. Everyone knows exactly what they need to know, not a byte more. I'm still not convinced we desperately need the possibility to identify us for every fucking service though. Keeping kids from accessing porn should be the task of the parent. Keeping kids out of porn, yes indeed, we all need to tackle that problem.
So basically, yes, I think we have the same solution in mind, but with different wording.
monk
in reply to SeductiveTortoise • • •StinkyFingerItchyBum
in reply to General_Effort • • •Blackmist
in reply to General_Effort • • •tabular
in reply to Blackmist • • •That means being paid by the tax payers.
The free option is to trust your children.
Blackmist
in reply to tabular • • •tabular
in reply to Blackmist • • •MonkderVierte
in reply to tabular • • •abbiistabbii
in reply to tabular • • •A_norny_mousse
in reply to General_Effort • • •brachiosaurus
in reply to General_Effort • • •Agent641
in reply to brachiosaurus • • •pastermil
in reply to Agent641 • • •Then let me summarize:
DoctorPress
in reply to pastermil • • •UltraBlack
in reply to brachiosaurus • • •nyan
in reply to UltraBlack • • •No effort could have evacuated the entire population of Gaza without free movement across land borders. It was never a practical option.
Even if it had been, parents making a dumbass decision doesn't justify killing their kids.
UltraBlack
in reply to nyan • • •JackbyDev
in reply to UltraBlack • • •UltraBlack
in reply to JackbyDev • • •DancingBear
in reply to UltraBlack • • •Fucking creepy comment.
are you suggesting the Palestine government does not have a right to exist you antisemitic troll
UltraBlack
in reply to DancingBear • • •Calling me antisemitic is funny.
And no, necer said that. Just calling the people stupid that let their children die for propaganda
DancingBear
in reply to UltraBlack • • •Say you’re trash without saying you’re trash
You racist antisemitic terrorist.
UltraBlack
in reply to DancingBear • • •supersquirrel
in reply to UltraBlack • • •Please leave, your voice is not wanted here.
If you continue to spread blantant disinformation about the genocide of palestinians I will report you.
UltraBlack
in reply to supersquirrel • • •pogmommy
in reply to UltraBlack • • •UltraBlack
in reply to pogmommy • • •starman2112
in reply to UltraBlack • • •UltraBlack
in reply to starman2112 • • •pixeltree
in reply to UltraBlack • • •"Move or I'll kill you"
Ah yes, the one that's being said to is at fault
UltraBlack
in reply to pixeltree • • •aesthelete
in reply to brachiosaurus • • •Yes but that would require them to regard all children as being worthy of protection by the law.
They don't.
abbiistabbii
in reply to General_Effort • • •General_Effort
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •Seth Taylor
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •AnyOldName3
in reply to Seth Taylor • • •plyth
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •So they knew what they were doing. Age verification is about removing all sources that can't be controlled.
abbiistabbii
in reply to plyth • • •plyth
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •abbiistabbii
in reply to plyth • • •That's already happening, alas, but I suspect things will get very quiet when people realise something like this would affect the bottom line negatively. Look at what happened (twice) with encryption.
How it will likely go with VPNs.
One of the main purposes of the OSA is to make money for YOTI and the Data brokers, because you and I both know these are the main corporate sponsors, and the MPs and Lords who passed it likely have investments in said companies. Hoovering up IDs and linking them to web activity doesn't just help the government fuck us, it makes money for MPs, Lords, and their Friends. But here's the thing: It'll bite not just US, but them in the arse. So here's what's (hopefully) going to happen.
British Politicians are greedy, self serving authoritarian cunts, but they are also remarkably dim. Like sometimes impressively so. Look up this passage in Hansard to see what I mean. It might cause you to have a fucking crisis.
But yes, they do like control, problem is they don't know what they wish for,
plyth
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •Do you think those debates are for real and not a show that ends with whatever has been decided elsewhere?
The houses don't need to know because they don't do the planning.
Since the EU does the same thing at the same time, after it was not a problem for years, the origin for these laws must lie elsewhere.
abbiistabbii
in reply to plyth • • •If that was the case, then the Lords wouldn't have blocked the 2016 Disability Bill. You remember the one. I don't think that was theatre, I think people in the Lords looked at that and went "lol fuck no." They also wouldn't have done a lot of shit if it was all planned behind the scenes and some shadowy cabal actually just called the shots.
Here's the thing: "It's all planned" is the cornerstone of most conspiracies, from 9/11 to "Covid is a bioweapon" or "Covid isn't real" to literally every major conspiracy theory. But wanna know something? All of that is a weighted comfort blanket to sooth people, it is soothing to believe that there is someone or something in control and it's just a case of getting rid of them, and it's an ego boost to believe that You are part of a club that figured it out. They used to call it being "woke" until the far right took that term as an Alias for "Degenerate" as the Nazis used it.
But the truth is this: There is no man behind the curtain, there is no shadowy cabal who actually control everything. It's call Capitalism, Sociopaths, and Morons who either want to make money or think they're doing good.
I have lived through two governments (a Labour one and a Conservative one) that have floated the idea of banning encryption publicly. Both times they quietly dropped the idea when they were told that doing something like that would crash the economy. My parents are both former Civil Servants. My dad watched the Scottish Secretary at the time nearly type "Thatcher is a Bitch" into a Teletype machine that sent out press releases to every major newspaper.
I watched my own MSP (and Leader of the Scottish Lib Dems) address a crowd of mostly transgender mostly leftist people and ask them to applaud Tories who voted for the Gender Recognition Act.
There is shit in Hansard that looks like it came from a bad sitcom. There are people who are in parliament right now who I wouldn't trust with a fucking Self Scan Checkout, let alone a seat in either of the houses.
Are there scheming bastards, genuinely Machiavellianism Motherfucks in parliament? Yes! Politics attract people who score high in the Dark Triad. Starmer, Streeting, and Farage are all genuinely horrible people. Starmer and Streeting openly want to harm transgender people, Farage wants to fund the fucking Taliban, and if we wanna talk about non-MPs, Boris Johnson stated he's rather have mass death than another Lockdown and the last government used Covid as a way to Launder Money.
But alongside that, a good chunk of the people in our parliaments are simply fucking morons. They might be good at a collection of specific things, but they are also impressively Moronic on a level that would make the Thick of It and Yes Minister look fucking optimistic. Indeed, some of the more bastardous people I have listed and not listed here are also, weirdly, fucking morons. Look at Trump's first term for example.
And if you wanna cling to "there's a puppet master behind all this", be it Satan or the Illuminati, to save you from the genuinely terrifying thought that the people at the Helm of the ship of state are Francesco Schettino, Yiannis Avranas and Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, fair, but personally, I'm a realist and the only conspiracy I hold is that the "Phillip Killed Diana" conspiracy was invented by the British Press so they wouldn't face a shitstorm when people realised what the paps did when they got to the crash scene.
If you wanna know what is actually happening here it is:
A Dunfermline based investment firm, charitable trust and think tank (yes you heard) by the name of Carnegie United Kingdom Trust invested money in data collection firms and age verification firms like YOTI, so they lobbied the government and even basically wrote the Online Safety Act. The government sometimes lets outside groups write legislation for them because Corruption, they have other shit to do, and they don't often know shit about the fucking shite they're voting for.
Some of those MPs also likely had investments in YOTI and VPNs. When this was presented to the government, some poor sod of a Civil Servant had to sit down the PM/Minister responsible and try convince them that it's a bad idea, clearly they failed. So, utilising the moral panic around Porn, Extremist Material, Pro-Ana content and the like, they passed this bill, even when a good number of these fucking numbskulls don't even know what a VPN is, just "we need to do something" and "it's just common sense™".
Now not only do they (and future governments, God help us if Reform get in and use this against "woke" content like they're doing in Kent Libraries) have the ability to age gate literally anything, but the companies they have invested in have got a GOLDMINE of very sensitive Data they can sell to people, be them from the Private, Public or "underground" sectors. Line goes up for the Investment firms, MPs with shares in YOTI and the rest. When it comes down to it, it comes down to Money, Moronity, and Kneejerk reactionism.
charitable foundation
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)plyth
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •To me, that is a conspiracy. Turning it into a business is the way to remove political oversight, but the profits don't hurt.
abbiistabbii
in reply to plyth • • •plyth
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •A market economy is our politico-economic system. If billionaires conspire to distort the markets against the interest of the people, and unbeknownst to them, then that's a conspiracy, normalized by calling it Capitalism.
In this case it's old American money. The idea doesn't come as an investment opportunity from the trust. They are not creating a better future for children with the age verification as the last missing piece. Conspiracies are not magic. You know how it was implemented but you can only guess why.
abbiistabbii
in reply to plyth • • •That's not distorting the markets, that is what they are for. The market isn't some magical deity who's only been stopped because their will is being misinterpretated by the billionaires, they are the market. They control the market. The purpose of a system is what it does. The "Free" market is as much of a myth as when MLMs say the state will "dissolve away" to produce true Communism with the workers owning the means of production. The moment a "free" market is made, it instantly gets manipulated by people with money and the market stops being free anymore. That's part of the reason why so many rich cunts babble on about "free" markets, because it gives them power The billionaires fucking with the market and the law isn't an aberration of the system, it is the system. Once you realise that, everything falls into place.
This isn't a conspiracy, this was pretty much done out in the open. To call it a conspiracy suggests there was some amount of subterfuge. Like Carnegie UK published papers on why they think the OSA is a good idea in 2022, the Online Safety Act 2023, plus the additions made in '25, are publicly viewable here. The transcripts of the debates are here on Handsard.
Oh Oh! I can guess why!
The whole reason why the bill was made and written as it was is money. We live in a period of surveillance capitalism where various companies make fuck tonnes of money from your data. Google, Facebook and the like didn't make their money from merely "running ads". They took the data you gave them through cookies and your posting and used it to more accurately target ads at you. Then, they started selling your data to other data brokers who then sold it to anyone with enough money. We've all heard the story about how target knew a teenage girl was pregnant before her father did, and we all know about Cambridge Analytica, Brexit and Trump. Facebook will literally monitor your emotional state through your posts and target you with ads for loans when they think your emotionally vulnerable.
So, we all know data brokers are hungry for data to sell, and as one Murray Bookchin once said: "Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing". So guess what? Investment firms saw a load of moral panics and calls for digital ID. They invested in firms like YOTI (they are not required to say who invested in them, nice and convenient) and started doing research for the government through their think tank arms to convince the government that the OSA is a good idea. The bill says that stringent age checks must be done to view certain pieces of content, but not how, so that means websites have to hire YOTI and co to do that for them or do it themselves. If they can't afford to they either have to shut down because they don't care about the little guy.
So now data brokers have some very valuable data they can take from you: Your unedited face, your passport/drivers licence (plus all the biometrics that come with that) and (alongside that), your sexual habits, more controversial views, and your neuroses! The government can buy that off them (not that they couldn't already find that out), but also so can the people with the big bucks, COMPANIES! On Grindr? Well now your health insurer can increase your premiums if they think you are promiscious. Got political views? Well now they can be manipulated for an outcome favourable to large corporations. Your employer can buy your data and see if you have been saying things they don't like, annorexic people can be given ads for gym memberships and health fads. Oh, and all this can be sold to the government, be it yours or someone else's.
It's all money, it's no shady conspiracy, literally it is business as usual and it sucks.
The Online Safety Bill: Our initial analysis - Carnegie UK
Carnegie UKplyth
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •It's business as usual and it is a conspiracy.
abbiistabbii
in reply to plyth • • •You have a very loose definition of conspiracy. If you don't define conspiracy as something you actively hide, then the word "conspiracy" becomes like the word "Woke" in Right wing circles, that is, "something I do not like or approve of". When I think of "Conspiracies" I think of things like the Business Plot, an act, by a group of politicians and business men, done in secret, to install a Fascist Dictator in the United States as a coup. We only know of this because the person they wanted to be the Dictator (Smedley Butler) told them to fuck off and spoke about it to Congress under oath.
Everything about this was out in the open. The moral panic over the internet has been going on since I was a child. We have had repeated calls to censor the internet to stop Porn, Terrorism, Media that Ofcom can't control, Hate Speech, extremist content, pro ana content, and the like since the PS1 was the top selling console. We have had data brokers successfully argue that they should be able to take our data and sell it legally in front of parliament many a time. Carnegie UK have published papers that became the OSA that were PUBLICLY VIEWABLE. Newspapers advocated for this on the front page, Hansard and BBC parliament recorded the debates, the only reason you think it's a conspiracy was because you personally wasn't aware of it.
The Tories, Labour, and to an extent even UKIP/Reform have been calling for censorship of the internet for a while, they just didn't agree to what should be censored, where and how. Want an actual British Conspiracy that we know is a thing? The British Government have been destroying documents from the Empire days that show that the British Empire committed atrocities to avoid having people sent to the Hague. They've hid that fact, they even today sometimes deny this fact.
It's like saying that Donald Trump's election was a conspiracy because you don't watch the news and didn't know the US was having an election.
British program to prevent sensitive documents from being inherited by its ex-colonies
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)plyth
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •You assume that it's about money and that everything is in the open. A good conspiracy doesn't rely on total secrecy but can handle information leakage. Trump flooding the zone is a conspiracy happening in the open.
But what is Trump about? Russia? Why do all billionaires go along? Why did Fox push Trump? Why did other news networks kept him in the news and made him relevant?
We did ok without the surveillance. It's pushed in UK and EU at the same time, on a tight schedule. Combine that with China taking technological lead in 2027 and the US not stepping down. I think we are preparing for war, and we will start it. Of course, some mention it, but to me, that's the conspiracy.
dude
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •abbiistabbii
in reply to dude • • •dude
in reply to abbiistabbii • • •abbiistabbii
in reply to dude • • •You'd think that, but we're in a political culture right now that puts kneejerk reactionism before reason, logic, and evidence. "It's Just Common Sense™" is used to shut down anyone who might have any good points to make from history or reason. There used to be a point where a politician in the ruling government would spitball something in public, and then a civil servant who knew what they were talking about would sit them down and explain to them why their idea was bollocks. The OSA has shown to us that said thing is bollocks, and efforts from groups like Collective Shout have shown otherwise.
We have major politicians here saying shit like We should Pay Taxpayers money to the Taliban to take people they wanna kill anyway. We have a whole section of the population banned from using gendered toilets and government policy written by far right activist groups. We have books being banned from libraries in certain council areas for being "woke" and we have the ever looming shadow of fascism over us from Russia and America.
Payment processors are telling us what we can and cannot buy because a reactionary group pressured them into it and the most widely used OSes on our phones and computers are ready made to basically fuck all of us if it's profitable.
Russia can flip a switch tomorrow and cut off all access to the outside world under their "Sovereign internet" plan. Shit'll get worse before it gets better.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to General_Effort • • •This is exactly the kind of government overreach people like me have been screaming about since, in my case, the 1990s.
"I told you so" just doesn't feel so good when what's happening is nothing less than the entirety of human freedom and liberty is being eroded before our very eyes, and those who disagree with it get labeled as kooks, and accused of hating whatever "oppressed group" of the day is in vogue.
sunbeam60
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •I too have been screaming about private online since the 90s. I have an intuitive reaction that sort of mirrors yours.
But can I ask you a question?
And it’s one that I’m asking because I genuinely wish to learn from others.
Because I can’t quite see the difference and maybe there’s something I’m missing.
Why is it not government overreach to ensure pornography isn’t sold to minors in an adult video store, but government overreach to have the same expectation of online pornography providers?
I would love your enlightened view on this so I can learn from it. Because I can’t quite see the difference.
I understand that many adults go into an adult video store and need not prove their age, because they clearly look like adults.
And so the difference here is that everyone have to prove their age online, even people that are clearly adults by how they look.
But entering a pornography website is the equivalent of entering an adult video store where the clerk cannot see you, cannot hear your voice. In that world I would also expect the clerk to check every purchase as they would have no other means of assessing the buyer’s age.
Or maybe you think that adult videos should be sold to everyone and it’s the very concept that pornography is restricted to minors that you disagree with. I don’t personally hold that view but then I can least understand why you would also reject online age verification.
Or maybe you think it is ineffective and won’t make a difference. That argument I most definitely agree with, but how we choose to implement a law, and whether it’s effective, is two different discussions I would posit.
Edit: I love that I’m getting downvoted for expressing a POV respectfully.
Kaerkob
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •sunbeam60
in reply to Kaerkob • • •I’m am 100% any form of checks that identify you.
But for what it is worth the European Union’s proposed framework for this legally mandates zero knowledge proofs.
The UK’s implantation sucks. Big hairy monkey balls.
If you buy alcohol at a farmer’s market, the seller has a responsibility to ensure they’re not supplying it to a child. At least in most countries.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •Parents have the ultimate say-so of what their kids have access to.
I don't believe there needs to be a law that says that, no.
If a parent decides their kid is responsible enough to have their own money, then it's the parents who are to blame if that kid buys "bad" things with that money.
Same thing online. If a parent decides their kid is responsible enough to have unrestricted internet access, then it's their fault if the kid then goes to a "bad" website.
It's not the store's fault. Nor is it the website's fault.
We have given away far too much of our parental responsibility over to 3rd parties, and now we don't know how to parent anymore.
sunbeam60
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •HiTekRedNek
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •Support? Absolutely not.
Allow? Not my child.
Make illegal? Nope. Not my business to tell other parents how to raise their children.
And that's exactly the problem here. People like YOU, who think that if I don't want something illegal, than that of course means I like that thing, or that I personally want to do that thing.
Nope. It has to do with personal autonomy. I'm not your boss, I shouldn't get to tell YOU what you can do to yourself. Period.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Wait, this way every **laws **is useless then, I am not your boss, I shouldn't get to tell YOU that you cannot drive while drunk.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •Except you forget about the whole "as long as it doesn't directly affect others" thing.
Or, more likely, you intentionally ignored it in order to score some "gotcha" for Internet points.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •I followed on your steatment. If I forgot it, you also forgot it.
But my point stand, by the traffic code you cannot drive drunk also if you don't affect anyone else on the road.
Generally it is not that you can do something that is illegal thinking that it is ok as long as it doesn't affect others.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •Let me turn that around on you.
You think people should be charged with a crime they haven't done yet? Because that is exactly what happens in some DUI arrests.
Sleeping it off in your car but have the engine on because it's cold/hot outside? DUI.
Then there are the idiotic open container laws where even an open alcoholic drink is legally a DUI, even if the driver isn't drinking.
And if you can't afford a good lawyer? It's a conviction. Which goes on your permanent record.
A guy I worked with had a motorcycle try to pass his company vehicle as he was turning left. The motorcycle driver was killed.
It fucked the guy up so bad, mentally. He began drinking. Never at work, but he drove a company vehicle. See where this is going yet? If not let me finish.
A block from his house, he cracked open a beer. Now even if he had chugged it, there's no way he'd be even slightly drunk before he got home. But he didn't realize the worker who sold him the beer had already called the police and he was being followed.
The arrested him for DUI in his own driveway, due to idiotic open container laws, despite blowing a 0.
He took a plea for reckless endangerment, but it didn't matter. He was 4 years from retirement. He was fired.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Of course not, but then maybe the problem is not the DUI law, it is the fact that you cannot fight it if you cannot get a good lawyer, which cost money. Basically your justice system is fucked up.
Slippery slope. How can police know that you just turned on the engine but not moved instead of driving and then stopping because you fall asleep ?
That is a stupid law, I agree, but it is the law.
Well, he should not have done it. He know the laws. I can feel pity for him in the specific case, but he breaks the stupid law.
That was the problem here. The laws is written so you fail either way. Here if I have an open wine bottle in the car but I blow a 0, nobody could do anything to me.
But assuming I agree with you, what would be your suggestion to avoid people driving around while drunk ? Or to avoid minors to access porn material ? Aside the charade "parents need to educate they children" that obviously you cannot take for granted.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •I don't like the idea and where it could take us.
In the case of DUI, I think the idea behind the law is to avoid that a drunken driver hurts someone, with potentially lethal consequences, not only punish them if he do it.
Once a drunken driver killed someone is too late, even with the harsher punishment.
Again, your problem is not the law itself, it is the fact that your law and the justice system is designed in such a way that you are always set up to fail, in a way or another, be for the stupid DUI charge if you are sleeping in your car, the open container law or the way too expensive justice system. That is what you should fight.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •I don't like the idea of actions that don't hurt others being a crime.
It's about consistency. If we make it illegal to do things that MIGHT wind up hurting someone there's no limit to what we can make illegal.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Me neither, but I like even less the idea that an action that is, demonstrably, dangerous to other should not be stopped until it provoke damages.
You are right. And it is about consistency the starting point from which we are discussing: minors should not be able to access porn. Now, in the real life there is such law and it in on the seller to check, exactly because you cannot count on the fact that a parent is 24/7 with his child, so I don't see why we should not try to enforce the same law on the Net, it is only on a different media.
Now, I agree that checking on the net is way harder than in real life, but minors are minors and porn is porn. If it is dangerous to see a naked woman on Playboy is also dangerous to see her on Playboy.com.
I see your point, but I simply think that if something is proven to hurt someone, like DUI, then maybe it is right to make it illegal.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •Proven? To whom?
Excessive alcoholism is known to cause harm. Should we make being an alcoholic illegal? Wouldn't that make it harder for alcoholicsnto try to get help, for fear of being arrested instead of getting help, much like what happens to drug addicts?
People get hurt constantly while fishing, too. Should we make fishing illegal?
The problem is where do we draw the line. You want to draw it at some possibility of harm to others. I want to draw it at actual harm to others.
Which of these is more or less likely to wind up being stretched over time?
You aren't thinking about bureaucrats and politicians 20, 30, 50, or 100 years down the road. "We'll just fix the laws when it becomes a problem!"
Sure. Because we're really REALLY good at removing or rewriting broken laws..... Oh, wait. No we aren't.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Never heard about people killed in crash caused by drunken driver ? Or pedestrians hit by cars driven by drunked drivers ?
No, we should just have laws try to avoid consequences for others
Are you an alcoholic ? Ok, we will help you to be ok but at the same time we try to avoid you drive while drunk. It not seems too unreasonable
Point is: how probable is that someone fishing hurts someone else ? How much damage you can do ?
Again, the point is not to make something illegal because you can hurt yourself, it is about trying to have law that try to prevent you hurt someone else while doing something.
If fishing can hurt others, maybe we should have a law that, while not forbidding to fish, protect the others from what you are doing. I would imagine that you would not like to swim in the sea while someone is fishing with bombs (illegal) 2 meters away from you, don't you ?
Fine as long as you accept the consequences. I just don't agree with you.
Both, because you just need to redefine what "harm" means. And some people is good to do it.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •Probability is not certainty.
I do not want people in jail for doing something that is probably a crime.
Every so-called crime that has no jail time shouldn't be a crime. Fees are just another way of enforcing class warfare.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •True, but there is an history of cases about it where the probabilty became certainty.
Me eighter but at the same time I would like to prevent some behaviors that could be dangerous to others.
I know it could be a slippery slope but honestly it would not console me to know that the drunken driver where punished *after *he hit me, I would prefer if he would be stopped *before *being able to hit me.
But fines works only if they are proportional to your wealth, else they are a punishment only for the poor.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn't "bad" enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn't be a crime at all.
Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.
Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That's no accident, that's an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.
Now, if say, your insurance agency decides that you are a risk due to your alcoholism, and either drops you, or increases your premiums that's not a problem. There's no criminal punishment happening, and if it's in the contract you signed, that's expected.
But, you should only criminally punish someone after they've hurt another person. Not when they engage in risky behaviors.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Define "bad enough", because this is a very slippery slope. What about thefts ?
Following this reasoning, there are no crimes until you get caught and/or there is a victim. To me this is unacceptable in a decent society.
And why we should not to try to avoid to have a person in jail and one killed in the first place ?
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •Theft has a victim, what are you talking about???
Without an actual victim there is no crime.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •And I understand this. What I don't like is the idea that to try to prevent that there will be victims is bad.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •A responsible parent can do as you say, but there are also not so much responsible parents out there, so maybe we need a backup option in these cases.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to gian • • •The problem with that is that you quickly become responsible for EVERYONE, and then you wind up right back where we are with government bureaucrats telling parents how to raise their children.
If a law or rule can be used to harass otherwise good people, then it will be.
If you give some self-important bastard an inch, they'll take a mile. Just look at the police.
gian
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Ok, so do you think it is better to not be responsible for nodoby ? Good, as long as you are prepared to pay the consequences of this, both at personal level and a social level.
Sadly true, but this do not means that we should not have laws.
General_Effort
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •There's the problem. I was tempted to call this Boomer logic, but that would extremely unfair to Boomers. We are only seeing this now, that the Boomers are on the way out.
I think the Boomers understood better how this works. It's not like entering a store. It's like making a phone call to the store, and the store may be on the other side of the world. The Boomers understood borders, long distance calls, international mail.
Now the digital natives are taking over. And they understand nothing beyond tapping and swiping.
Spoilered is a post I wrote earlier. Just so you know what's coming.
::: spoiler spoiler
The problem is that meat-space logic is applied to the cyberspace (as it might have been said in the 90ies).
You go into a store and the clerk sees you and knows your age. If it’s borderline, then they ask for ID. They are applying that thinking to internet services.
Where this falls down is that no ordinary Mastodon instance can comply with the regulations of the close to 200 hundred countries in the world. Of course, just like 4chan, many wouldn’t want to out of principle.
The only way to make this work is to introduce another meat-space thing: Border posts. You need a Great Firewall of the [Local Nation]. At physical border posts, guards check if goods comply with local regulations. We need virtual border posts to check if data is imported and exported in compliance with local regulations.
Such a thing, a virtual Schengen border, was briefly considered in the EU about 15 years ago. It went nowhere at the time. But if you look at EU regulations, you can see that the foundations are already laid, most obviously with the GDPR but also the DSM, DMA, DSA, CRA, …
Eventually, the border will be closed to protect our values; to enforce our laws. We will lock out those American and Chinese Big Tech companies that steal our data. We will only allow their European branches and strictly monitor their communications abroad. We will be taking back control, as the Brexiteers sloganized it. Freedom is just another word for having to ask the government for permission when you enter a country. And increasingly, it is another word for having to ask permission for how you use your own computer.
It won’t be some shady backroom deal. Look here. People in this community love these regulations. Europeans here are happy to tell US companies to “FO if they don’t want to follow our laws”. Well, the Great Firewall of Europe is how you do that.
lemmy.world/comment/19119670
:::
General_Effort
2025-08-30 14:21:20
6nk06
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •Parents can (and MUST) monitor what happens in their home. It was expected for the past thousand years, and now it's the duty of everyone to take care of anyone's children for some reason. To get to a porn store, you need money to take the bus or you need a car, then the owner of the store can kick your ass or call the cops if you're underage. Remember that less than 50 years ago, the local priest could smash your face if you didn't behave properly in the street, With the internet, parents are the sole responsible for what their kids do, but they don't want to take any responsibility for it. The solution would be a mandatory parental control on every computer, but parents wouldn't like that.
Because that overreach happens to remove all my privacy thanks to a few idiot parents who don't want to do their parenting jobs in another country, and I consider that unacceptable. We can do some whataboutism and say that since parents in Afghanistan don't want to watch porn, all the porn of the internet has to disappear. Same for blasphemy and freedom of women to browse the internet.
sunbeam60
in reply to 6nk06 • • •Ok. I get the concept that pornography doesn’t harm children. We can debate that.
But by that reckoning should we also allow children to buy guns online and have them delivered at home? Is there nothing we want to restrict online, on account that whoever is buying it might be too young?
6nk06
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •AnyOldName3
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •There is no possible way to actually stop teenagers accessing online porn that doesn't require such a massive invasion of privacy that it leaves no safe way for adults to access it. To go with your adult video store analogy, it's like if the store staff would have to accompany you home and watch you watching the porn to check there wasn't anyone standing behind you also looking at the screen, and while they were there, they were supposed to take notes on everything they saw. Even if they had no interest in doing anything nefarious, a criminal could steal their notebook and blackmail all their customers with the details it contained, and there'd be enough proof that there wouldn't be any way to plausibly claim the blackmailer had just made everything up.
If you want to prove someone on the Internet is a real adult and not a determined teenager, you need lots of layers. E.g. if you just ask for a photo of an ID card, that can be defeated by a photo of someone else's ID card, and a video of a face can be defeated by a video game character (potentially even one made to resemble the person whose ID has been copied). You need to prove there's an ID card that belongs to a real person and that it's that person who is using it, and that's both easier to fake than going to a store with a fake ID (if you look young, they'll be suspicious of your ID) or Mission Impossible mask, and unlike in a store, the customer can't see that you're not making a copy of the ID card for later blackmail or targeted advertisements. No one would go back to a porn shop that asked for a home address and a bank statement to prove it.
Another big factor is that if there's a physical shop supplying porn to children, the police will notice and stop it, but online, it's really easy to make a website and fly under the radar. It's pretty easy for sites that don't care about the law to provide an indefinite supply of porn to children, and once that's happening, there's no reason to think that it's only going to be legal porn just being supplied to the wrong people.
Overall, the risk of showing porn to children doesn't go down very much, but the risk of showing blackmailable data to criminals and showing particularly extreme and illegal porn to children goes up by a lot. Protecting children from extreme material, e.g. videos of real necrophilia and rape, which are widely accepted to be seriously harmful, should be a higher priority than protecting a larger number from less extreme material that the evidence says is less harmful, if at all. Even if it's taken as fact that any exposure to porn is always harmful to minors, the policies that are possible to implement in the real world can't prevent it, just add either extra hassle or opportunities for even worse things to happen. There hasn't been any proposal by any government with a chance of doing more good than harm.
Tuukka R
in reply to AnyOldName3 • • •AnyOldName3
in reply to Tuukka R • • •Tuukka R
in reply to AnyOldName3 • • •Online banking passwords? "Find"? How the hell? Have you lived in a barrel?
There is a 8-number code that I've got in my head, then there is a 4-number password that I've also got in my head. And then a paper with single-use passwords which work so that when I have given the two correct passwords, it tells me which code to use. And no way am I giving full access to my bank account for my children!
Some banks also have a system where you log in with your fingerprint and then a four-number code using an app on your phone.
I think the money on the parents' accounts is a much better motivation for the children than an ability to watch porn. And yet, I have not heard of anybody's children actually having found out their parent's bank passwords.
And also: Maybe there really is a child that installs a keylogger on their parents' computer and steals the password paper from the parents' wallet and also happens to really want to go out of their way to watch porn... Well, then there is. Such a child is already in so many ways in trouble that I don't think seeing porn will traumatize them at all. Such children are few and it makes no sense trying to build a 100-percent foolproof system. In any case, using online banking passwords is a lot more reliable way than the weird hocus-pocus being done now.
AnyOldName3
in reply to Tuukka R • • •My point is that you can't build a completely teenager-proof system. Even if most parents uphold the most unimpeachable password discipline, someone's going to put a password on a post-it note near their computer, and have their child see the piece of paper, or use their dog's name despite their child having also met the family dog.
The original comment I was replying to was framing the issue as teenagers being allowed to watch porn versus no teenager ever seeing porn and maybe some freedom is sacrificed to do that, which doesn't match the real-world debate. If freedoms are sacrificed just to make it a hassle for teenagers to see porn, that's much less compelling whether or not you see it as a worthwhile goal.
As for what a teenager with access to their parents' bank password would do, if they're not a moron, they'll realise that spending their parents' money will leave lots of evidence (e.g. that they have extra stuff, their parents have less money than expected in their account, and there's an unexpected purchase from The Lego Group on the bank statement), and so they're guaranteed to end up in trouble for it. It's not any different to a child taking banknotes from their parent's wallet. On the other hand, using it to prove adulthood, if it was truly untraceable like adults would want, wouldn't leave a paper trail.
Tuukka R
in reply to AnyOldName3 • • •You can't build a completely teenager-proof system. But you can build a system that is almost completely teenage-proof. And that's definitely good enough!
All such systems exist only to support parents in their parenting. It gets easier keeping your children safe and developing well if the amount of ways the teenagers can be idiots is narrowed down.
AnyOldName3
in reply to Tuukka R • • •Tuukka R
in reply to AnyOldName3 • • •While I disagree with the teenagers' ability to find my banking passwords regardless of where I hide them, for example because I can make a copy of them that has been altered with a password I can calculate in my head and that takes the location of the password on the table into account in the calculation, the rest is true.
I remember having seen things I really wouldn't want to see even as adult when I was browsing Internet for stuff that wasn't supposed to be available. Shady websites can be shady in so many ways!
It is true that making an age verification system for a basic porn site will probably direct the youth to other sites with content you wouldn't see on PornTube. I hope my children won't ever watch porn, but if they ever do, I hope it's from a source that doesn't allow the worst things to be shown. For example PornHub does remove the worst stuff and is quite commonly used. If that one cannot be accessed, then probably something else will. And it's likely to be worse. Though, PornHub has a lot of really bad abusive things as well. Checked it out now and one of the first videos it showed was something that looked like the woman is really unhappy, even distressed, about the situation she's being filmed in 🙁
LousyCornMuffins
in reply to AnyOldName3 • • •i mean, that seems like a solveable problem. either build a national (internationl?) or have some reciprocity with the identification systems that allows the different regions to easily access each other's systems.
sunbeam60
in reply to Tuukka R • • •Sort of the same system they’re building in Denmark.
You will log into MitID (myID), authenticate with the MitID app, then be issued a bunch of ZKP tokens which you’ll burn off against age verification services. No trace, fully authenticated, fully trusted, damn near impossible to fool.
BangCrash
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •AeonFelis
in reply to sunbeam60 • • •Funny - I assume on one here was actually involved in creating the law that requires identification when buying pornography (or alcohol. Or tobacco) at stores, but we are all considered responsible for it to the point we are hypocrite if we object a similar law?
If someone says they are against that law now, years after it's already established and spread, it won't be taken as "I'm generally against the government limiting our freedom to consume what we want" but as "I want to push children to consume porn/alcohol/tobacco". So no one argues against these laws. But it's much more feasible to argue against the new laws - a ship that's still in the port.
30 years from now, when they make the law that neural implants must detect illegal thoughts in the users' biological brains and block them, you'd make the argument that it's not fundamentally different than blocking the same topics on the internet - a practice that, by that time, will already be accepted by the general populace.
General_Effort
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Yes. I had always worried about the copyright industry. That was the big money pushing for censorship. Controlling access and exchange of information is part of their business model and even personal ideology. But I don't know how much this has actually to do with them, and how much is simply the will to power.
What I did not see coming at all was how the left would completely 180 on these issues. That, at least, I blame on the copyright industry.
Right wing people have screeched about "the intolerant left" forever, but I always ignored the obvious hypocrisy. I took it as a debate on what is permissible in polite society. But now Europe is at a point where there is simply a consensus against free speech. Only the most illiberal forces will be able to use these legal weapons to full effect. That will be the extreme right.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to General_Effort • • •It's just a logical extension of what happens when government becomes the arbitrator of all.
The biggest issue is that so many people see it just as you do, left vs right, instead of liberty vs authoritarianism.
For decades, the libertarian movement, as seen by the left, has been largely associated with the right, simply because of their professed support of the free market, and dislike of gun control
But that same movement has been seen by the right as largely associated with the left, because of their views on things like the drug war, enforced morality, and anti-corporatism.
Has there been a large shift of alt-right into the libertarian movement over the past few years? Yes. Absolutely. And I despise it with a passion.
But there are still quite a lot of us truly anti-authoritarian libertarians out there who despise both left, and right leaning authoritarianism.
But when I bring up issues of authoritarianism, I get "BoTh SiDeS?!" bullshit responses. Because YES, as we can see, BOTH SIDES do their own fair share of this authoritarian bullshit.
They differ in methods, yes. But the bottom line is an encroachment on personal privacy. Plus, property rights are just a logical extension of personal privacy rights.
Tuukka R
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •The right is typically for gun control. Only one country comes to my mind where they aren't. Which one were you thinking about? Or is it more common than I thought?
(Or did you just happen to forget that 95 % of Earth's population exists?)
EDIT: Oh, and also: It is important to keep in mind that it's the same within the left. There are also left-wingers who prefer authoritarianism and ones who despise it. I do agree with your sentiment: The left-right division does not work very well in our current world. Need to take best parts of everything, but most importantly, make sure we don't end up under totalitarian rule!
HiTekRedNek
in reply to Tuukka R • • •I said "professed" dislike. Yes, I know Reagan is responsible for one of the largest expansions of gun control ever seen in the US...
And yes, I know Marx himself was tremendously in favor of armed workers.
Doesn't change political narrative being pushed by both major political parties in the US, where in the left supposedly wants guns banned, and the right wants everyone armed.
Yes, I know things aren't that cut and dry, but the media narrative pushed by both parties definitely seems to say that it is.
Tuukka R
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •How is US relevant in this discussion?
HiTekRedNek
in reply to Tuukka R • • •~~Because the US has humans inside it, despite what all the Eurocentric trash think.~~
I let my anger control me, shouldn't have said this.
Tuukka R
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •I wasn't being eurocentric. I was being Asia-Africa-Australia-South America-Europe-Canada-Mexico-Central America-Caribbea centric.
The only country where most of the right want to reduce gun safety is USA. We are talking in an international forum, so here international concepts count, not nation-specific. Typically in the world right-wingers are for safety and typically in the world the politics of the Democrat party count as right-wing.
When in a conversation not specific to USA it is not okay to speak as if everything was about USA. It is not okay to speak as if there was a left-wing party in US Congress or Senate and it is not okay to claim that the right wants more dangerous gun policies.
And here we're talking about something that takes place most prominently in UK and secondly in a bunch of other countries, but absolutely not in USA. USA has nothing to do with this, so don't be as insolent as you were.
(Also, for example Australia is not in Europe. Learn some geography.)
HiTekRedNek
in reply to Tuukka R • • •Despite what they think, we are human beings too over here. That's my point.
I don't care about the politics of nation vs nation.
I care about humanity's liberty as a whole.
Nations are shit. Because the only ones in power are typically the ones who want to be. And there's no one worse to hand power to, than one who craves it.
Tuukka R
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Despite what who think? I don't think there are people who think people in USA are not human beings. (Or if they are, they are less than one percent of the world population... Of course within 8 billion people you will find a proponent for any opinion...)
But yeah, since you care about humanity's liberty as a whole, you could maybe kindly stop undermining that goal by assuming that what is done by under 5% of the population on this planet is the standard that the remaining 95 % are following.
HiTekRedNek
in reply to Tuukka R • • •Tuukka R
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Wolf
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •For the most part the divide between "Left" and "Right" politically speaking IS the divide between Liberty and Authoritarianism. If you look up the History of the terms its easy to see this. Those terms originated during pre-revolutionary war France. The "Left" supported freedom from Tyranny. The "Right" supported the Monarchy. This has remained largely true ever since then.
Where the waters get muddy is so called 'Authoritarian Communism'. When Communism was first being discussed it, along with Anarchism in general, were correctly labeled as 'Leftist' ideologies. Under both the 'State' is abolished completely. You can literally go no further left than voluntary association and abolishment of the state. As far back as Karl Marx, elements of 'Authoritarianism' began creeping into 'Communist' thought. While Marx was a relatively enlightened thinker- neither he nor Engels were the originators of Communism- despite having written "The Manifesto". They were the originators of Marxism- an important distinction.
The goal- indeed one of the very definitions of 'Communism', even under Marxism is "a classless, stateless, society." As such Communism is a form of Anarchism. Anarchy technically only requires the abolishment state, but the vast majority of Anarchists also believe in "Mutual Aid", and 'private property' is a nonsense concept in the absence of a state- which is why so many Anarchists identify as 'Anarcho-Communists'.
Now clearly (in my mind at least), removing one of the fundamental ideas of communism- which is that 'The State' (and especially a 'strong/authoritarian' state) inherently upholds and enforces the class system in society and is a bad thing which needs to be abolished and you replace that with it's complete opposite- a 'Strong' State upholds and enforces 'classlessness' in society and is a good thing which should be supported, moves that type of "Communism/Socialism" from being a leftist ideology all the way over to being a far right ideology, as per the original and most commonly used metrics for determining if a position is "Left" or "Right".
The problem with 'reclassifying' 'Authoritarian Communism' to it's correct spot is that A) the ruling class (Capitalists) who are firmly right-wing do not want to be associated with it as it removes power from them and places it solely in the hands of the state. Likewise 'Authoritarian Communists' do not want to be associated with Capitalists either for similar reasons. Leaving the only people who care about the correct placement of these ideologies as the actual Anarchists and Communists- which are considered 'fringe', 'extremist', and 'radicals' by society as a whole and no one really cares about our opinions.
A 'True/Accurate' Left Right Spectrum would look something like...
Anarchism> Communism> Democracy> Social Democracy> Neoliberalism/ "Libertarianism(U.S. definition)" > Conservatism> 'Far Right'> "Authoritarian Socialism"> Fascism
Putting them in that order reflects the 'Liberty-Authoritarian' spectrum that is the "Left-Right" spectrum. You could of course argue placement and some of them could be rearranged depending on circumstances. For example I put 'Social Democracy' as further right than Democracy because 'Social Democracy' is still by and large a Capitalist system, yet if the majority of people in a Democracy were right wingers- then the order would flip, however this is largely right imho.
You are confusing 'The Left' with "Liberals". This is an extremely common and understandable mistake to make in the U.S. as there is a lot of intentional confusion. The 'Democratic Party', in particular since the 'Regan Era' is largely comprised of Neoliberals- a capitalist ideology. Capitalism relies on, and cannot exist without the exploitation of workers. As such you simply CANNOT separate 'Social' policies and 'economic' policies. Exploitation of workers IS a social issue- one of the most important ones- so if you support 'Capitalism' you are 'right wing' socially, even if you hold relatively enlightened positions in other areas.
Also "Gun Control" isn't a clear 'left/right' divide either. Many leftists share the view of some right wingers that having access to firearms is an important strategy to resist tyranny. If anything access to guns is a Left wing position that was adopted by some on the right, as crazy as that may sound to modern American ears.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
― Karl Marx
One of the key ways that "Libertarians" try to muddy the waters of what is a considered Leftwing or Rightwing stance is the mantra of 'Free Markets'. But what is really meant is 'Unrestricted Capitalism'. If there was ever a "Libertarian" who believed in "Free Markets" in the absence of 'The State' and 'Private Property'- well they would likely correctly categorize themselves as a Leftist and not "Libertarian" (Please note the distinction between Private Property and Personal Property, and in particular how it relates to the ownership of the means of production.) Also to note: That definition of "Personal Property" is written from the POV of people born, raised, and indoctrinated by a Capitalist system and is not exactly how leftists would define it. "Personal Property" doesn't have to be 'movable' per se- ones residence or even a village collectively could be considered 'Personal Property' by Leftists. What really matters is that it's property that you can personally make use of. If you build yourself a small house for you and your family- that is personal property. If you lay claim to vast amounts of land that you couldn't possibly work by yourself- that would be "Private Property" - which would require some form of 'State' to enforce.
Now some so-called "Libertarians" will try to argue for something called 'Anarcho-Capitalism'. This is a mythical state of existence where there is no State, yet the people respect 'Private Property' rights. Ask most 'Anarcho-Capitalists' how they would propose to enforce private property in the absence of a state and they will tell you that they would hire Mercenaries/ "Private Police"/ a Small "private army"- Well at that point you are a Warlord. Which is the precursor to and one step removed from Feudalism. In other words by becoming a Warlord you have recreated 'The State', which is incompatible with Anarchism.
It's unironically great that you support those things- but even 'anti-corporate' Capitalists are still capitalists- and still right wing- despite being more enlightened in other areas. You are basically no different than a neolib, but with worse takes on the economy. Neolibs are right wingers themselves. We basically don't have a "Left" in the U.S. The DNC is only "Left" of the GOP by relative positioning. The actual Left is growing day by day- thanks in part to the fascist takeover of the U.S., but we are still the minority for now.
To reiterate my point, authoritarians can only ever be 'Left Wing' in name only. Calling it any other way makes no sense. It's like saying a poor wealthy person or a sick healthy person- the two concepts are complete incompatible with each other.
PERSONAL property, not PRIVATE property.
Now I haven't even gone into why the 'authoritarian' shift in "Communist" thought happened- and that is a whole other discussion. This rant was largely semantic but I feel it's important to make the distinction.
person who has both military and civil control and power
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)joel_feila
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •HiTekRedNek
in reply to joel_feila • • •joel_feila
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •HiTekRedNek
in reply to joel_feila • • •Womble
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •hector
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •sqgl
in reply to General_Effort • • •The ideal of free speech is a naive fantasy especially with social media which can amplify the craziest of ideas which can go viral.
Yes the Left has gone overboard with their thought policing however the right wing in want their personal bigotry to be allowed and nobody else (no mention of DEI in USA government institutions allowed). The Left want free speech for everyone except the bigots but then their definition of bigots becomes a slippery slope.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_…
logical paradox in decision-making theory
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)General_Effort
in reply to sqgl • • •I mushed a lot of things together in my post. Copyright and political censorship have very different motives behind them. The point is that, to enforce copyright, you need extensive surveillance of online content and the means to shut down the exchange of information. That requires an extremely expensive technical infrastructure. But once that is in place, you can use it for political censorship without having to fear pushback over the economic cost that would come even from politically sympathetic actors. Conversely, if you introduce political censorship, you might get support by the copyright industry, including the news media, for helping their economic interests.
Where it gets to political censorship, the paradox of tolerance is exactly the lunacy that I'm talking about. In mad defiance of all historical fact, there is belief that liberalism is weak, that political dissidents must be persecuted, information suppressed. Never in history has democracy fallen because of a commitment to tolerance. All too often, they fall because majorities feel their personal comfort threatened by minorities and support the strong leader who will "sweep out with the iron broom" (as a German idiom goes).
Do you notice how that Wikipedia article has nothing to say on history?
sqgl
in reply to General_Effort • • •Never occurred to me. Interesting point to ponder.
The would-be fascists don't want democracy. Note how Trump is softening up the public by using the term fascism lately.
Good essay:
The goal is to shift the Overton window: dictatorship is not a threat, but a regrettable necessity... dictatorship as safety, democracy as danger.
michaeldsellers.substack.com/p…
Trump Says Americans Would "Rather Have a Dictator"—And Stephen Miller Lays the Trap for Dems
Michael D. Sellers (DEEPER LOOK with Michael Sellers)Gutless2615
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •LousyCornMuffins
in reply to Gutless2615 • • •quixote84
in reply to LousyCornMuffins • • •LousyCornMuffins
in reply to quixote84 • • •BangCrash
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •You've been screaming about internet censorship since before the internet?
Fucking time traveller right here
ammonium
in reply to BangCrash • • •BangCrash
in reply to ammonium • • •HiTekRedNek
in reply to BangCrash • • •... I was online in 1993, bro. I was dialing into BBSs with worldwide fidonet bulletin boards even earlier than that.
Don't be such a dipshit.
BangCrash
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Back in my day we had to dial in to get the internet.
GoddamnGl Gubberment ruining everything
SmilingSolaris
in reply to BangCrash • • •BangCrash
in reply to SmilingSolaris • • •Nah. OCs a whinging boomer.
"Screaming" "People like me" "liberties eroding before our very eyes"
It's like he's never read a history book. Or travelled outside his state.
Bilb!
in reply to BangCrash • • •HiTekRedNek
in reply to Bilb! • • •hector
in reply to HiTekRedNek • • •Plus no one I have warned from 97 on admits to remembering my warnings. Them all saying nah keep your head down and live, govt has always been bad, nothing will fundamently change.
The same people still support establishment opposition to save us too, following the lead of authorities passing the buck and never admitting a mistake and correcting their behavior.
VampirePenguin
in reply to General_Effort • • •Aimeeloulm
in reply to VampirePenguin • • •No, it's upto the individuals to police their or their childrens internet usage, have family computer in place they can monitor, children should have special childrens phones that are locked down with parents configuring it, today parents are abdicating responsibility, leaving schools to feed, potty train, how to clean teeth and how to behave.
Whats next expecting schools to provide beds and rooms to sleep in, soon babies will be handed to state and raised by the state, is it any wonder we now have a nanny state in many countries, people are getting lazy and filthy, spitting in streets, peeing and pooping in streets, dumping rubbish in streets 😡
downhomechunk
in reply to Aimeeloulm • • •carrylex
in reply to VampirePenguin • • •cley_faye
in reply to VampirePenguin • • •BigMacHole
in reply to General_Effort • • •jaschen306
in reply to BigMacHole • • •Protect Jeffrey Epstein? Last I checked, he doesn't need anymore "protecting".
Trump only cares about himself. If he accidentally "protected" anyone but himself, it's purely a coincidence.
cley_faye
in reply to General_Effort • • •iii
in reply to cley_faye • • •As intended. Obvious regulatory capture
corrupt government failure in which regulations are written in favour of private interests
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)moonburster
in reply to General_Effort • • •Dr. Moose
in reply to General_Effort • • •Willow.
in reply to General_Effort • • •interdimensionalmeme
in reply to Willow. • • •