Internet Safety Bill in UK restricts content available to minors and requires a government issued ID for restricted content.

[blankslate]

Millions of age checks performed as UK Online Safey Act gets rolling

Now think about what news that is related to controversial or unsafe for minors might be restricted...
I can think of one since tik tok has been attacked in the U.S.

Disturbing images of starving children could very well be restricted.
visual proof of countries committing atrocities that the UK and the rest of the west favor could be labeled adult. so younger people who have been important for giving voice to things that the traditional broadcast and/or corporate media wantonly ignored in the early stages of the massacres leading up to the current purposeful starvation of children in Gaza will kept from seeing proof of war crimes in the future.

The UK government says its Online Safety Act will protect people, particularly children, on the internet. Critics say it’s ineffective against dangerous misinformation and may be a threat to privacy.

This is how MiniTru might be born and become able to govern speech on the internet.



____________________

 

[cytg111]

I mean. It could have been a magnificent thing, the internet.

But the Zuckerbergs and the Musks is why we cant have nice things. So. Lock it down we must. Cant really see an alternative.

 

[pmv]

The irony is I see a lot of criticism of it from the Trumpists, suggesting it's going to suppress 'free speech' from the right.

My worry is exactly the opposite - that it's Starmer, in his role as a representative of the right, potentially suppressing speech from the left. I don't know for sure, because I don't really understand the thing at all, other than people have said that it's easily subverted with a VPN.

There was this story recently - a discussion on 'free speech' and the alleged threat to it in Europe (as JD Vance and his fellow fascists keep warning about, even as they have people snatched off the street and taken to camps, for expressing opinions they don't like).

In which Farage shouted down an American Democrat who was trying to make the point that free speech is being attacked by the Trumpists in the US. Farage wouldn't let him speak, ironically enough. Because 'free speech' of course doesn't include any criticism of the right.

POLITICO Pro: UK’s Farage calls Jamie Raskin ‘pig-headed’ during London visit

A talk on online free speech became combative after the discussion brought up Donald Trump.

subscriber.politicopro.com

Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom’s conservative Reform party, shouted down Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) during a heated exchange about free speech Tuesday, effectively preventing the Democrat from continuing his remarks, four people in the room told POLITICO.

The U.S. lawmaker had just begun remarks on the history of free speech in the U.S. and turned to current threats posed by President Donald Trump when Farage interrupted, according to Raskin and the three other people, all Democratic lawmakers.

“We're not here to talk about Donald Trump,” Farage said, according to Raskin in an interview from London. “[Farage] said that I am a guest here, and I should act like a guest. And I told him that he was a host, and he should act like a host.”

Other Democrats who confirmed the exchange to POLITICO are Reps. Lou Correa (Calif.), Jasmine Crockett (Texas) and Eric Swalwell (Calif.). All called Farage’s eruption ironic for happening at the tail end of what had been a respectful discussion on free speech.
“Farage just looked unhinged and like a giant manbaby,” said Swalwell.
Spokespeople for Farage and House Judiciary Committee Republicans did not respond to requests for comment.
U.S. lawmakers are in the U.K. as part of a congressional delegation led by House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Republicans are using the trip to push back against the country’s new Online Safety Act, which they say violates free speech and unfairly targets U.S. tech companies. The law requires social media companies to check the age of users and block children from accessing pornography and other harmful content, and it includes hefty fines for any violations.
The law has also raised free speech concerns in the U.K., where Farage’s Reform UK Party this week threatened to repeal it.

[edit] missed out an important "don't"!

 

[nakedfrog]

Especially interesting given that the US is already doing the same thing, just not (yet) on a national level.

What to know about online age verification laws

The Supreme Court has upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children under 18 from seeing online pornography by verifying people’s ages online.

apnews.com

 

[Greenman]

Millions of age checks performed as UK Online Safey Act gets rolling

Now think about what news that is related to controversial or unsafe for minors might be restricted...
I can think of one since tik tok has been attacked in the U.S.

Disturbing images of starving children could very well be restricted.
visual proof of countries committing atrocities that the UK and the rest of the west favor could be labeled adult. so younger people who have been important for giving voice to things that the traditional broadcast and/or corporate media wantonly ignored in the early stages of the massacres leading up to the current purposeful starvation of children in Gaza will kept from seeing proof of war crimes in the future.

The UK government says its Online Safety Act will protect people, particularly children, on the internet. Critics say it’s ineffective against dangerous misinformation and may be a threat to privacy.

This is how MiniTru might be born and become able to govern speech on the internet.



____________________

Some of the states have done the same thing with porn, have to produce and register an actual ID to watch it.

 

[pmv]

Some of the states have done the same thing with porn, have to produce and register an actual ID to watch it.

I'm very nervous that it will be applied way beyond "porn". I mean, what does it cover? E.g. if I want to watch a YoutTube video discussing some aspect of The Walking Dead (a show that's probably not suitable for young children, hence such a video might have things covered by age-restrictions) will I be expected to provide ID proving my age?

What if I don't want to send copies of important identity documents to some unknown people in the US somewhere?

So far I haven't noticed anything much changing, but seems to me that the law is bound to have a mass of unintended concequences.

 

[Jaskalas]

To use the internet, you will be required to be positively IDed and monitored by the Government.
Fascism all the way.

 

[Greenman]

I'm very nervous that it will be applied way beyond "porn". I mean, what does it cover? E.g. if I want to watch a YoutTube video discussing some aspect of The Walking Dead (a show that's probably not suitable for young children, hence such a video might have things covered by age-restrictions) will I be expected to provide ID proving my age?

What if I don't want to send copies of important identity documents to some unknown people in the US somewhere?

So far I haven't noticed anything much changing, but seems to me that the law is bound to have a mass of unintended concequences.

Of course it will. Control over what gets said seems to be what a lot of people want. A lot of that is because we can't be civil and can't stop spreading propaganda. So now the state (and whatever party is in power) will decide what can and can't be said.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course it will. Control over what gets said seems to be what a lot of people want. A lot of that is because we can't be civil and can't stop spreading propaganda. So now the state (and whatever party is in power) will decide what can and can't be said.

Do you think that is good or bad?