zlacker

>>JoshTr+(OP)
Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context.

From the article:

>First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act.

From the source (emphasis mine):

> On 18 March 2024, the Secretary of State was provided with a Submission which made it clear that Category 1 duties were not primarily aimed at pornographic content or the protection of children _(which were dealt with by other parts of the Act)_. Rather, the aim of Category 1 was to capture services that have a significant influence over public discourse. The submission offered, as a possible option, requesting information from Ofcom as to _how content recommender systems function on different types of service_.

The quote leaves out "which were dealt with by other parts of the Act" and the fact that the subject was specifically "Category 1 duties" not the Act in its entirety. It also doesn't mention that the subject was on content recommender systems.

_Again_ this is not a judgment on the Act itself, but providing the full context, which does change the message.

0: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Secret...

>>dustin+02
This is unfortunately quite a common tactic being used by people opposed to the OSA. Recently there was an article in the i newspaper which claimed you have to show ID to order pizza online, and it's because of the OSA. Turns out their source was a misleading tweet by a political activist who had ordered from Deliveroo or similar and were seeing the usual message shown to people who order alcohol. Nothing to do with the OSA at all.

>>icarou+L2
Hmm. New account, no history before this thread. Not at all suspicious.

So, DSIT, Age Verification Industry Association or Molly Rose astroturfer?

>>Mindwi+W3
A new account would tend not to have any history.

It seems uncharitable to immediately assume bad faith.

What is it about the content of the comment you disagree with?

I think it provides a further example to the parent post that regardless of what one thinks about the Act, the discourse isn’t entirely neutral.