Potential Rule 8 Question: Regarding the Recent Anti-NSFW Content Bans...

[TheFabulousCustodes]

SCOTUS last Month also threw in some complication from FSC v Paxton by putting Age Verification in a Schrödinger's Constitutional Right by instead of reviewing Porn as the content it was reviewed on who it impact and declaring it's a violation for adults to be forced to do Age Verification but not children.

Click to shrink...

So wait, the Supreme Court ruled it's okay to force internet age verification on minors, but not on adults?

How would you tell the difference when someone tries to access content?

The only way I could think of at the moment would be for Internet Providers to check the account owners age before allowing access to said content, and because the VAST majority of phone, cable, and internet bills are paid for by adults, effectively every access attempt would go through.

Maybe something could be done with phones, because they're registered to individual people, but through tablets, pc's, etc connecting to home wifi?

 

[Silvercrystal]

I find it very amusing and ironic that governments are forcing age/identity verification to use the internet… in the early days it was the parents/adults responsibility to keep children out of bad sites, that and the children's fear of getting caught by said parents if they went there anyways.

*admin snip*

 

[NumberSix]

I find it very amusing and ironic that governments are forcing age/identity verification to use the internet… in the early days it was the parents/adults responsibility to keep children out of bad sites, that and the children's fear of getting caught by said parents if they went there anyways.

[elided by moderation]

Click to shrink...

Hey, parents nowadays are too busy with more important stuff to actually parent their crotch fruit or keep age inappropriate electronics out of their hands.

Schools are also too busy with important stuff to teach stuff like internet safety and enforce basic discipline.

As to governments, well:



I mean, it is not like historically unpopular governments would do something like suppress the opposition or spy on them, right, right.

And we also have the alleged "demographics crash", which some of these patronizing moral guardians blame on porn and the internet.

 

[D'znn-Xy'lll MetaChthonia]

Thread Tax to try and avoid getting another Infraction for even simply participating in Discussion:
Something for Utah:
SB73:
They're pushing forward an anti-VPN Bill by making Age Verification a thing even if using VPN for Commercial Websites... somehow. Also making providing instruction on using one Illegal*. It's only if the Website has "substantial material harmful to minors".

VPN companies arguments against it is it's basically demanding world wide ID checks and is a liability trap.

Anyone concerned about this: England also is trying and failing to and China gave up long ago trying to. If China can't do it Utah sure as Hells ain't gonna succeed. Trying to legislate the planet again.

*never seen a single Website provide such, it's always Advertisements on YouTube or just people saying you should be using one from the amount of Viruses and Malware making the Internet hazardous to any computer without one.

Also a somewhat funny side thing in SB73:
Utah put a Tax on NSFW Content specifically. Not sure how they'll do that.

Only one NSFW specific I could find. Rest probably violates the "no general Censorship" thing from it being Social Media AV. Still might impact QQ from that technically being Social Media but it's not NSFW specific.
[Edit]
I mean countrywide, not Utah specifically. Only NSFW specific one was for Utah.
[/Edit]

I find it very amusing and ironic that governments are forcing age/identity verification to use the internet… in the early days it was the parents/adults responsibility to keep children out of bad sites, that and the children's fear of getting caught by said parents if they went there anyways.

I mean the governments have no issue requiring ID/Age to buy Lottery Tickets, Booze, Smokes and Cigs, travel to other countries etc. so this isn't really that much of a stretch (other then of jurisdiction)… But asking for ID to vote is where some draw the line… like pick a fucking lane!

Click to shrink...

It's the Logic that "Porn=Drugs". It's even one of the arguments for Age Verification that they're just doing the same thing as if it were a liquor store. Ignoring how there's a mountain of difference. They also cite Pseudoscience.

Hey, parents nowadays are too busy with more important stuff to actually parent their crotch fruit or keep age inappropriate electronics out of their hands.

Click to shrink...

Like campaigning to make the Government do it for them to suppress Wrongthink and Incorrect Ideas from Society as a whole, to forcibly create a candyland echo chamber where only Morally Approved Ideas are allowed.

Moral Guardians just are useful idiots for the ones who fantasizing about children when they say "think of the children" who feed them whatever they are told to blame.

 

[ultima333]

I find it very amusing and ironic that governments are forcing age/identity verification to use the internet… in the early days it was the parents/adults responsibility to keep children out of bad sites, that and the children's fear of getting caught by said parents if they went there anyways.

*admin snip*

Click to shrink...

Please keep government-related topics on the subject of censorship, do not bring in other policies/stances.

 

[da3monh0st3d]

If you mean the prompts that ask you which cookies you want to allow and what date you are ok to share that was part of the EU GDPR.

Click to shrink...

It's not, it's malicious compliance by the companies.

You don't need to have any notification if you don't spy on the users.

 

[BobtheNORMALguy]

Still might impact QQ from that technically being Social Media but it's not NSFW specific.

Click to shrink...

Think QQ and other NSFW sites might have to try and block Utah if this passes? Considering its Utah, it becoming law is probably likely.

 

[Cadmus von Eizenbern]

In the event things get worse (and they certainly seem to be going that way)... I've got three questions:
+What is the size of QQ atm? (excluding some backend stuff, like libraries needed to actually run the site, auth bits, etc. I only mean content here)
+What is the QQ policy on scraping?
+How much advance warning would be reasonable to expect?

I mean, Wikipedia keeps a downloadable version, why not QQ? XD

 

[NumberSix]

Think QQ and other NSFW sites might have to try and block Utah if this passes? Considering its Utah, it becoming law is probably likely.

Click to shrink...

Mor(m)onistan will have to block QQ and not the other way around IMHO.
Also, in the USA at least these things would probably go into stuff like first amendment rights and interstate commerce regulation, one is consrirurinal and above the legislative prerogatives of the individual stated to control and the other is a monopoly of the US federal government.
Unless QQ is hosted in Mor (m)onistan I doubt there would be anything they can do to interfere eith QQ.
Somebody with knowledge of US law correct me if I am wrong.

On a related note, can somebody rec some good porn that makes fun of Utah's preferred weirdo apostasy?

It's not, it's malicious compliance by the companies.

You don't need to have any notification if you don't spy on the users.

Click to shrink...

Ahem.

Cookies, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy Directive - GDPR.eu

Cookies can give businesses insight into their users’ online activity. Unforunately they are subject to both the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive, making compliance difficult.

gdpr.eu

Cookie compliance

To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:

• Receive users' consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
• Provide accurate and specific information about the data each cookie tracks and its purpose in plain language before consent is received.
• Document and store consent received from users.
• Allow users to access your service even if they refuse to allow the use of certain cookies
• Make it as easy for users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give their consent in the first place.

ePrivacy Regulation

The EPD's eventual replacement, the ePrivacy Regulation (EPR), will build upon the EPD and expand its definitions. (In the EU, a directive must be incorporated into national law by EU countries while a regulation becomes legally binding throughout the EU the date it comes into effect.)

The EPR was supposed to be passed in 2018 at the same time as the GDPR came into force. The EU obviously missed that goal, but there are drafts of the document online, and it is scheduled to be finalized sometime this year even though there is no still date for when it will be implemented. The EPR promises to address browser fingerprinting in ways that are similar to cookies, create more robust protections for metadata, and take into account new methods of communication, like WhatsApp.

The rules regulating cookies are still being set, and cookies themselves are continually evolving, which means maintaining a current cookie policy will be a continuous job. However, properly informing your users about the cookies your site is using and, when necessary, receiving their consent will keep your users happy and keep you GDPR-compliant.

Click to shrink...

It is part of the GDPR.
I ha e to fo through a frigging training for this shit once or twice a year so I am painfully familiar with some aspects of it.
Malicious compliance would be if they block access if you don't agree to non essential cookies like some shitty UK newspapers do.