this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
696 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

73833 readers
3947 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If they doing this might as well ban books also for harmful content to children:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 32 minutes ago

Those measures never did.

[–] SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago

Well, they don't care, because this is a good reason to start total control. Or they just want to raise a submissive generation of obedient dogs who don't know what it means to fight back or bite or think critically. China by the way is a great example of the alpha version of the shit that can await us.

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

A bureaucratic regulation doesn't actually do what it purports to do, and which is the entire point of it's existence?

No way.

Who could've forseen that?!

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago

Surely nobody who is not doing anything online which is or will ever be until the day they die deemed morally objectionable by those with access to those databases or those with power over anything on their lives who can be provided directly or indirectly with data from those databases, have nothing to fear from this.

[–] int32@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue or courts blocking services

So most federated platforms should be fine, as they don't have any revenue(usually) and blocking is hard because DNS is easy to bypass and there just are so many instances already.

[–] SnortsGarlicPowder@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 hours ago

Oh! So they can fine by revenue percentage but not against megacorps.

[–] themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This might actually make people move to Lemmy nice.

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Big not a lawyer caveat but if it is revenue then likely not. That would be all money collected before expenses which I could see including donations collected for server expenses.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 32 points 19 hours ago

Obviously not, but it's not like they're gonna be honest and call it the UK Online Spying Act.

[–] chromodynamic@piefed.social 76 points 1 day ago (18 children)

I saw an interesting video suggesting that the real motivation is to give megacorps like Google a new business acting as "banks" for identity, i.e. the Internet would get so inconvenient that people would just save their identity with Google (or Meta, etc) and then use them to log in to other websites.

I probably explained it badly, but the video I saw is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAd-OOrdyMw

People in the comments pointed out that those companies would also have the ability to delete or suspend your identity verification if you did something they didn't like (or refused to do something they wanted). Reminds me of the SIN from Shadowrun .

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, but the governments obviously want to know exactly what you're doing as well.

I think their only objection to Google et al having so much data is that they need to jump through hoops to get hold of it.

I suspect this will be in browser before too long. Mostly so they can automatically provide your full unique ID code to anyone who asks, so your government can keep track of you if you say "I support Palestine Action" anywhere, or so Google can look it up when you dare suggest AI is not our glorious future.

But also because there's only so many "let us check your ID" services you can use before you end up giving your details to somebody who is going to sell them directly. How long before a dodgy porn site does a "show us your face" check, before generating deepfakes starring yourself and demanding payment not to send them to a social media profile it's already detected based on your face?

I don't really want to be on an internet where instead of blackmist@feddit.uk, somebody can just click that and go "Oh, that's Jeff Timmons of 48 Badminton Way, Stoke-on-Trent. Ring Staffordshire police so they can go and grab him"

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

This is by far the most plausible theory.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

The other part is that christofascists really want to ban "porn" (read: anything they don't like), and they know age verification will make their operation almost impossible. The fact that corporations like Google might get to validate people they advertise to is a positive side effect.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Indeed. Anybody but the biggies will have an impossible task trying to convince people to verify their ID, so all the smaller sites will switch to only allowing registration/sign-in through Google/Apple/MS's Oauth, and depreciate the username/password option. When "signing in with Google/whatever", Google will simply pass a flag "adult" along with authorizing. In the end, they become the gatekeepers for the whole web, collecting tremendous valuable data in the process and gaining even more power over your identity.

Always keep in mind that the small players will always take the easiest option, and the big players want more control.

[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Bingo. they'll just tack it on to what they currently have with most sites that have you sign in with your google/apple/meta account. mask it as the easier option instead of using another email/registering an account on your own.

And they won't just stop on websites. Google will also incorporate this with your phone. FRP will now require you have a valid ID with Google, same with account recovery OR simply signing into a new device with your existing Google Account.

Hell wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft roles out that you must have a valid ID simply to install windows. Already requires users to have a Microsoft account and be online to install it, what's to stop them from now requiring you provide a photo ID?

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

your existing Google Account.

I don't have one. Obtanium, Fdroid and Aurora ftw.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 116 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You mean sharing their real identity with online companies who will sell and/or lose it to hackers doesn't make children sAfE oNLinE??!!?!11?!

[–] rozodru@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

If the recent Tea App crap is anything to go by doesn't even require a hacker for someone to gain access to your info. Just takes more companies using AI to build shit without security and someone will just happen to find their open to the public firebase bucket.

[–] balder1991@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Hopefully this will happen sooner than later and change people’s minds about the whole thing.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 21 hours ago

Yeah, it won't be good, but it's going to happen eventually. Sooner is better.

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It will make kids really good at bypassing the restrictions that get put in place, which will probably require them to go to some of the shadier places on the web, which could put them in more danger.

The people who made these rules don't understand the fundamental rule of the internet: any online restriction put in place, can be overcome with tools and knowledge that are also readily available on the Internet

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 24 points 1 day ago

Internet monitoring should fall to the parents. When the government parents, they parent everyone and abuse their power.

There are tons of products to prevent access to apps and websites. If all else pass a law so users opt-in to restricted internet access.

[–] VaalaVasaVarde@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 day ago

“The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” John Gilmore

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wingsfortheirsmiles@feddit.uk 42 points 1 day ago

Obviously emotive reason for an outright erosion of personal liberty and freedom, shocked Pikachu is shocked

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Makes identity theft much more likely though

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

And identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f5ni0zpl5E

[–] aarRJaay@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Well, who'd have thought.