zlacker

>>azalem+(OP)
One thing I’ve realised over the past few weeks is that some parents must be delighted to have the government control the web for them.

When the parent does the enforcement themselves then they can be put under direct pressure by their children to drop the ban. When the government does it then the parent can say, honestly, sorry, there’s nothing they can do about it: It’s out of their hands. The child only has access to tier 1 support [parent] and the support agent’s only response is “sorry, corporate policy [law] requires AV for certain sites, there’s nothing I can do. Is there anything else I can help you with today?…”

I don’t say this to make the laws easier to swallow but the social economics of it make it more understandable why this law might be so popular with anyone already overloaded with angry teenagers.

Next up: the Bedtime Is At Nine PM Act 2026, Tuck Your Shirt In Act 2027, and No We Have One At Home Already Act 2028.

>>gorgoi+Xa
The most shameful thing is that the only websites actually harmful to children, aka social media, aren't banned or behind an ID check.

>>iLoveO+1f
This is not correct: the law primarily regulates what it calls "user-to-user" services, i.e. social media.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50

"All providers of regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed by children must comply with the following duties in relation to each such service which they provide—

(a)the duties about children’s risk assessments set out in section 11, and

(b)the duties to protect children’s online safety set out in section 12(2) to (13)."

>>pjc50+bk
They are literally all accessible without any ID check.