zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. LAC-Te+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-13 07:34:27
At this point, I am pretty confident I can live the rest of my life without ever entering British air space.

So I ask myself - could I come up with a simple HTML page that would be illegal in the UK without age verification checks? I won't host pornography, but it seems to cover a lot more than that. Photos from contests? Calls to overthrow the government?

I'd put it under some creative commons license so other people could host the exact same content. What if there were thousands, or tens of thousands of sites that did it. It'd be wonderful if people were willing to put their money where their mouth is how them how impotent and illegitimate their laws really are.

replies(4): >>trinix+I >>isaacr+a6 >>cjs_ac+v6 >>zimpen+P8
2. trinix+I[view] [source] 2025-08-13 07:42:34
>>LAC-Te+(OP)
I don't think it will take long for most people in the UK to realize what's going on, they're already protesting, and it's clear that protest footage is being blocked too.

I also don't think it would take the UK too long to block sites like what you're describing. It's now totally doable that ISPs would run non-whitelisted websites through an AI screening before serving them to the user. Or they might choose to go after individuals accessing them multiple times, as repressive governments go after individuals possessing/viewing politically "harmful" material.

replies(1): >>LAC-Te+X
◧◩
3. LAC-Te+X[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 07:45:00
>>trinix+I
I would love to be blocked by the UK government. I'd wear that badge proudly.

Do you think I could get them to send me a certificate and everything?

replies(1): >>ENGNR+r1
◧◩◪
4. ENGNR+r1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 07:51:01
>>LAC-Te+X
Blocked. By Order the Queen.

I'm sure someone could whip up some merch super quickly as souvenirs/protest

replies(3): >>gschiz+U1 >>Digit-+f2 >>alpaca+t2
◧◩◪◨
5. gschiz+U1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 07:56:32
>>ENGNR+r1
> By Order the Queen

The King. Sorry to spoil The Crown for you, but Queen Elisabeth II has been dead for a few years.

replies(1): >>jagged+Z8
◧◩◪◨
6. Digit-+f2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 08:00:01
>>ENGNR+r1
What rock are you living under; our Queen died a while ago now. It will be by order of the King these days : - )
replies(1): >>devnul+h5
◧◩◪◨
7. alpaca+t2[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 08:02:05
>>ENGNR+r1
Block Save the King
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. devnul+h5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 08:32:41
>>Digit-+f2
Also, one of her final acts was paying off her son's legal battle with Virginia Giuffre. She was fighting the war on unsafety on the side of unsafety.
9. isaacr+a6[view] [source] 2025-08-13 08:37:59
>>LAC-Te+(OP)
Extend all your thoughts to Europe. UK and Australia are just the "bad cop".
10. cjs_ac+v6[view] [source] 2025-08-13 08:39:30
>>LAC-Te+(OP)
All laws are just words; they only have power because they are backed by a government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force[0].

The Online Safety Act has to be understood as a regulation of the Big Tech platforms that form what we might call the NormieNet. Your web page is unlikely to come to the attention of politicians, Ofcom (the relevant regulator) or the wider public, so you almost certainly would not suffer any adverse consequences, even if you were a resident of the UK.

Britain has a long history of libertarianism - it's where American libertarianism came from - but British libertarians don't make florid speeches about how free they are, they just quietly do whatever it is they want to do without telling anyone who might object. During the coronavirus pandemic, the UK had particularly strict lockdown regulations, because the Johnson government believed that most people wouldn't take any notice of them.

I'm sure someone will come along soon to tell me that this is a terrible principle on which to run a country, but the truth is that Britain is governed entirely by realpolitik, because the historical record shows that strongly principled government does not endure[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

replies(1): >>LAC-Te+77
◧◩
11. LAC-Te+77[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 08:44:56
>>cjs_ac+v6
I've asked some of my British friends to report my site. You are right it might still be ignored, but it's worth a shot.

Just need to come up with something to put on the page.

replies(1): >>cjs_ac+q9
12. zimpen+P8[view] [source] 2025-08-13 09:00:17
>>LAC-Te+(OP)
> could I come up with a simple HTML page that would be illegal in the UK without age verification checks?

Put up a page saying you support "Palestine Action". Given that group is (currently) a proscribed "terrorist organisation" (and therefore illegal to support, obvs.), your page would definitely be illegal in the UK.

(Although I suppose there's the light risk that MI6 might decided to rendition you with $LOCALCOUNTRY's assistance if they're feeling exuberant.)

replies(1): >>LAC-Te+rd
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. jagged+Z8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 09:02:01
>>gschiz+U1
Chuck Trey (is that lese majeste?) has male heirs, too. Unlikely that we'll see another Queen of the commonwealth in our lifetime.
◧◩◪
14. cjs_ac+q9[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 09:07:51
>>LAC-Te+77
The law doesn't work by having ISPs block websites. It works by imposing a legal duty on website operators to a) determine what risks there are to their users from the content that may appear on their website; and b) develop and implement policies to eliminate or substantially mitigate that risk. All of the blocks listed above are voluntary self-censorship to avoid obligations under the Act.

If Ofcom does decide to pursue you, they will start by asking to see your risk assessments and policy documents, and would then in theory proceed to legal action, but in practice would just ignore you, because you're just protesting, and they have no chance of getting the millions in fines out of you.

I'm not sure what content you could put on your page, but if anyone suggests a message of support for a protest group called Palestine Action, I most strongly recommend that you don't do this, because the nature of their protests has led to their proscription as a terrorist organisation, and the resultant legal action against you would be of a very different nature.

replies(1): >>LAC-Te+Hq
◧◩
15. LAC-Te+rd[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 09:46:37
>>zimpen+P8
When you said terrorist organisation, I expected to see bombs and people being murdered, so I checked out the wikipedia page.

Vandalism, property damage and trespassing. Illegal, sure, but terrorism? Really now...

I'd put that up on a page.

◧◩◪◨
16. LAC-Te+Hq[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 11:42:09
>>cjs_ac+q9
I have prepared a page that has a message of support for Palestine Action, as well as calls to dissolve parliament. I'll sleep on it, but I'll probably deploy tomorrow.
replies(1): >>cjs_ac+2t
◧◩◪◨⬒
17. cjs_ac+2t[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-13 12:04:25
>>LAC-Te+Hq
While I'm very interested to see what the outcome of your experiment, I think this choice of content will be a bad test. Calls for the dissolution of Parliament are innocuous, but support for a proscribed terrorist organisation is beyond the scope of Ofcom and, if it is investigated, would be investigated by the Secret Intelligence Service. Depending on the relationship that the country where you live has with the United Kingdom, you may be denied service by financial institutions, for example.

Starting with less extreme content, such as a how to buy drugs guide, and gradually escalating to provoke a response, would be wiser.

[go to top]