No-one says "cigarettes are censored!", because, obviously, they're not. Same for adult content online. It can still be accessed, as long as proof of age is provided.
No, you are just tracked when you access them - «cigarettes» being, of course, all """controversial""" expressions.
(Already putting children as an excuse for that...)
*** They have censored lobste.rs . The "for adults only site" lobste.rs ***
> Identity technology used at a county's pubs and nightclubs since 2023 is to be extended for a further three years.
> Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC) Danielle Stone has agreed to provide funding to keep the scheme at 25 venues that open beyond 01:00.
Most online service providers who verify age are using third-party suppliers who don't provide any details of one's identity, just whether the user has been age verified or not. And much of that is done by recording a selfie, not handing over identity documents.
Stop trying to oversimplify the concept, it’s not a pub, it’s not a store, it’s a virtual service. This comparison doesn’t help us at all.
About the face and not ID: good thing we can’t identify someone using their face! /s
news.ycombinator.com | Hacker News
https://news.ycombinator.com
Reported: 15 August, 2025 at 10:09
Shut down on: 15 August, 2025
Shutting down due to OSA
Discussion site for insufferable nerds.
SubmittedI do not see context because this is the beginning of "present an ID to access the web", and I do believe in slippery slopes, especially in a world where societies have lost the basics.
And I do not see content because I am not sure you want to suggest anything relevant with that.
For the rest, we can joke whenever we are both here fondly mate, but you have probably picked the worst topic for it.
--
Edit:
> where societies have lost the basics
And that's why I feel your use of "nerd" is so out of current reality (besides its application to the attending). A world of voluntary subjects, and the term for the sieged would be "nerd"?!
It's a way different set of incentives and outcomes.
Last time I checked it (here I barely have any Internet connection) it contained complaints from people unable to straightly conduct their usual web activities, of a sensitivity nature above Peppa Pig.
Hysterics? Possibly. But the first steps that could lead to the worse are taken. I have little trust in the profiles I see to have faith the future steerings.
> Is this you?
If you were suggesting that I could be behind childish acts, in the proper societies I lament are going missing you were supposed to apologize.
My age is private, not low.
So, what did you mean? Have I fell into some confusion in legislations?
It’s a bill about safety online. The onus is moved to the provider to mitigate harms or decide they don’t apply/are low risk.
For porn providers the outcome is fairly clear, to check your users are of age. This was kind of always the case but “are you over 18 yes or no” is not enough.
For other sites it’s making sure there are reporting mechanisms for child abuse content. It’s making sure there’s moderation to manage grooming, self harm stuff etc.
People can fairly argue about the bill but it’s not about age or user verification. That’s one outcome for one set of sites.
I understand from that source that the legislation "mandates that any site accessible in the UK - including social media, search engines, music sites, and adult content providers - enforce age checks"; all accessible sites that could contain """harmful content""" (so basically a dramatically high amount of sites of importance - with particular regard to search engines, which link to the controversial).
Now: how will, say, a search engine conduct age verification without identifying the user.
Because the issue here is that of anonimity online (i.e., the disappearance of the "online" - the end of the Web).
> That’s one outcome for one set of sites
We understand from the article that the set, as said, includes the basics...