This must be the most tedious conversation since the dawn of the internet.
I replied to some nutter inferring that this was some dastardly overreach by our authoritarian overlords.
Then you show up, basically saying the same thing I am but in the most unintelligible and snarky way possible?
This was always the stated plan though.
Think more about how to communicate.
What’s your point?
Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
It’s more than pearl-clutching though.
Kids dependency on social is a genuine social problem. Any parent that cares about their kids is deeply concerned about this.
I don’t really buy the “govt access to biometrics” angle. These companies have all the biometrics they could ever want.
The ban is going to be easy to circumvent technologically, but not so much socially. At this very moment, being the evening of 10 December, families around Australia are having conversations about social media and the problems it can cause.
It should be for the parents to let their children use social media or not
The issue is, parents who do not want to let their children use social media have really lost the battle because every other kid is on social media. So if even if a parent stands their ground on a strict “no social” policy, their kid is an outcast.
With this law, even though some kids will still be on social, parents are empowered to hold the line.
That’s not how the law is structured.
Sites are required to implement reasonable measures.
If kids are being evaluated as 18, with no additional checks, that’s not reasonable and they’re risking the penalties.
We’re going to find out whether the regulator has much appetite to issue those penalties, but we will see I guess.
Ooh, and social credit! Maybe you’ll need to earn social credit which you’ll require to access some websites, with some like social media only being provided to people with a high enough social credit score! /s
On the contrary.
Loads of new platforms have sprung up with are not listed amongst those required to implement age verification.
Yes, any which become successful will be required to implement age verification but… they will already be successful.
I’m genuinely curious who you think will be blocked next?
This is a wildly popular measure in Australia.
No, it’s not unwise. Mozilla has no mechanism with which to surveil your activities built into the browser.
That said, you should avoid categorising companies as generally trustworthy or untrustworthy. Any given service will have privacy considerations - some may be important to you, others may not.
I’m not denying that, but the comment above is talking about a story about a woman discovering she’s a bot,.
Lately there’s been someone chopping chives every day and posting a photo of the result.
There was a bit of a drama when someone noticed that the same photo was reused from a couple of weeks back.
The poster said they didnt have time to do it that day but wanted to keep the streak so they just re-posted an old one hoping no one would notice.
It was just such an amazing and engaging sequence of events and I feel fulfilled having been able to follow this roller coaster of emotion /s.
Bob only thinks hes human for about half a page?
I use redlib to lurk.
I find the drama subs like /r/AITAH entertaining. I know its all fake, but the groupthink responses are intriguing.
Ok, you’re probably right. It wasn’t “the reason”. It was part of the discussion at the time though.
“By simply banning ports, we get rid of abuse of content hosted by our IPs via ports, and can focus on giving better privacy for the broader mass of people,” said Jonsson.
He said: “Statically linked port-forwards are not good for privacy, it can be linked to a user account. A VPN service that can identify a user, is not a good option for using port-forward with, if anonymity is important.”
https://www.techradar.com/news/mullvad-removes-port-forwarding-on-security-grounds
Mullvad stopped doing it because it can’t be done anonymously.
I torrent through mullvad. I’m not “connectable”. It’s fine for my uses.
Here in not-america we generally don’t kill people who are not an imminent threat, like someone who has been disarmed.
I’ve seen the video of the guy being disarmed and moving away towards the bridge, but not the part where he re-armed himself.
Even if, in this particular case, the perp did rearm and injured more people, our hesitance to shoot someone who is not an imminent threat has no doubt prevented the deaths of many thousands of people over the years.