zlacker

>>mmaria+(OP)
I really don't understand why it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter. Parent sets up the phone and it's enabled by default. Much simpler option for everyone involved.

>>tapoxi+Vb
It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. They want online activity tied to real identity as a power grab.

>>john01+Td
Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores.

Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.

>>airhan+Te
At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.

>>ls612+Qi
What political speech is the UK blocking?

If the 'political speech' is not adult in nature, which is true 99.9% of the time, then it can't/won't be blocked under this rule.

Unless of course this political speech is happening on a porn site, or a subreddit that has been deemed 18+. Which I can't see a legitimate reason for.