zlacker

[return to "Online Safety Act – shutdowns and site blocks"]
1. b800h+W5[view] [source] 2025-08-13 07:45:19
>>azalem+(OP)
What's frustrating me about this is that theoretically this list should include every MUD and BBS, if they don't want to get in trouble. It's a horrible law, which forces people into the pockets of the largest sites which can afford to do the age verification.

Speaking as a Brit, I wish Wikipedia would just go black for the UK. That might focus some minds.

◧◩
2. cs02rm+B7[view] [source] 2025-08-13 08:03:20
>>b800h+W5
> Speaking as a Brit, I wish Wikipedia would just go black for the UK. That might focus some minds.

Likewise. People (organisations/companies), as far as possible, shouldn't be pandering to this stuff, it's not the answer, it doesn't help them or us.

◧◩◪
3. dabeee+Vf[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:21:33
>>cs02rm+B7
What is the answer?
◧◩◪◨
4. cs02rm+eh[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:35:28
>>dabeee+Vf
To online safety for children? The same as offline safety; parenting and education. There's not much money in those though.

https://x.com/moo9000/status/1950866445186818209

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. baubin+Yi[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:51:08
>>cs02rm+eh
Making content restrictions easier for parents to implement would help a ton — like being able to block all sites in a browser and create a whitelist of the ones kids are allowed to access. Similar whitelisting should be available and easy to implement for YouTube and social media. Having to individually block each site/video/profile you don’t want your kid to access is a futile game of whack a mole.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. b800h+zl[view] [source] 2025-08-13 10:16:45
>>baubin+Yi
I'm able to do this using the Google Family controls for my kids' mobiles. I've tied it down so much that they use them rarely and for specific purposes.
[go to top]