@futurebird Big commercial social media to whom the cost is trivial.
Age assurance companies (i.e. data thieves).
Legacy media who think that if kids are blocked they'll start watching television again.

@RogerBW

"Legacy media who think that if kids are blocked they'll start watching television again."

God. it's so sad.

Tiktok and twitter should be worried about kids not watching videos at all anymore and engaging in live gaming sessions, and collaborations.

The biggest "show" with middleschoolers is a "let's play" competition with their favorite online personalities.

THAT's where it's going.

@futurebird it's just straight up censorship and those in power hating anonymous whistleblowers and activists. Porn-ban is just how they try to get enough support to push it through.

@futurebird they aren't invisible "This was due to pressure from children’s rights groups as well as the age and identity verification software lobby, which has sought to steer the UK’s post-Brexit Internet regulation regime in the interest of the creation of a market for their products." That was written 4 years ago https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/age-verification-in-the-online-safety-bill/

1/2
@futurebird I think it has been in the heritage foundation's planning documents for a long time. They have their traditonal patriarchal reasons for it, which have always been more about control than about prudishness, but prudishness is the surface cover.

@futurebird

It isn't about protecting children, it's about exerting control of your populace, and forcing them to give up anonymity to interact with the wider web.

Considering UK has cameras everywhere, makes you license your TV, revoked the people's right to self-defense. They have way too much control on their people's REAL lives, they want to move in on their DIGITAL lives as well.

Insane to me that you can illegaly enter with no ID, but you need ID to talk about it on Twitter.

@Bubbey

Yeah the way that's it being implemented makes it transparent that the focus isn't kids at all.

I don't know how you write a law that addresses online safety for kids, but I think it would have more to do with moderation, and responsiveness to complaints about things like bullying.

But that kind of stuff is no fun. (By "no fun" I mean there isn't an obvious way to make money doing it. And it's about asking companies to take responsibility for the safety of younger users more.)

@futurebird here in the US, they’ve being pushed by anti-sexworker and anti-lgbtq+ orgs and politicians. It’s very challenging because “Big Tech is exploiting children and we need to do something” is clearly true, but the things that would actually have an impact (strong privacy laws, severe penalties under existing consumer protection laws) are politically challenging because of tech’s influence. So legislation like this has bipartisan support because it lets legislators look like they’re doing something, and big tech companies are basically okay with it (because it’s a barrier to smaller companies, and because it normalizes surveillance and collecting data “ to keep people safe”)

@adrinux

OK but in terms of real people WHO is the kind of person who would be in one of these groups or support them?

@phpete

Who is Collective Shout?

What kind of person would spend their free time as a volunteer?

I smell astroturf.