taizou @lion@computerfairi.es
Joined Jun 2017
taizou
boosted
UKpol, (hopefully) doing stuff about transphobia
this morning i wrote to my MP to ask him to sign EDM 240, a motion to disapprove guidance that would exclude trans people from single-sex services in the UK. i ended up publishing it on my pillowfort bc i figure it might benefit someone to see what a letter to one's political representative can look like, to have talking points that they can use in discussions of this issue, or to have sources for some of the facts of the matter (cw for, as you might expect, transphobia, bathroom talk, and brief mentions of sexual violence): https://www.pillowfort.social/posts/7820353
ukpol
I just remembered how the government claimed they'd trial different social media restrictions on groups of teenagers and study the effects before proceeding with anything but I suppose that's all gone out of the window now dickhead Starmer thinks it's politically expedient to push something through
re: ukpol
Also "online products that are not covered by the ban – such as gaming apps – will face new restrictions such as having the option to chat to strangers removed"
I have no idea how a platform can distinguish "strangers" so I can only see this resulting in communication features being blocked outright
re: ukpol
"There will also be restrictions for older teenagers up to the age of 18 that prevent “scrolling” late at night – after 8.30pm."
taking this as read they want to put a curfew on 16-17 year olds - who they want to give the vote, and who can join the army, and legally live alone - for SCROLLING??
You can only view content that fits on one screen after 8:30pm? And in what world is that "late at night"? The teens need to get up at 4am for their milk rounds now?
re: ukpol
once again trying to parse out what they actually mean and what rights they are proposing to take away from these fuck ass articles written from a 3rd hand game of telephone amongst people who all have no idea about the technology they're trying to regulate is driving me insane
ukpol
no offence to Australians but nothing described as "Australia plus" has ever been a good idea
ukpol
drives me mad that i can only find out about what rights this fucking government wants to take away from people through second hand summary posts because they advance leak their policy announcements to paywalled right wing media
even the old trick of using that dodgy archive site doesn't seem to work on the times any more
re: ukpol
how does govt micromanaging teens' internet use even square with the "parents rights" set (who to be clear i disagree with but have been a big part of this push)? surely it's not only taking away the rights of the child but also the parent to decide what kind of usage is appropriate for their child?
ukpol
can't read this due to the times paywall but it seems like they actually are going with their stupidest fucking idea, digital curfews, with an arbitrarily higher age of 17??
they want 16 year olds to have the vote but at the same time Daddy Starmer is taking their phone away at bedtime??
https://bsky.app/profile/heatherburnstech.bsky.social/post/3moaaq3nnms2m
I did in the end manage to do it by retrying something I had tried before, which hadn't worked originally, but now it does 🤷
actually it won't even build on a machine i HAVE built it on before
nothing makes me feel like a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything quite like trying to build a C/C++ project on a machine i haven't built it on before
taizou
boosted
re: ukpol
@lion a blanket ban would be basically impossible, adding to Ofcom’s growing list of failures to enforce the OSA. Basically none of the sites they have gone after with enforcement action have complied. I expect they will name the biggest sites which will be interesting. I expect it may even force adoption of smaller (riskier, potentially) sites too. All this lobbying might backfire on the likes of Meta and X.
taizou
boosted
Ukpol
Once again, the government has totally ignored a consultation and pushed ahead with a braindead plan based on a single stat squeezed out of it (“9 in 10 parents would support a ban” - unfortunately being a parent doesn’t make you clever or right, parents do not always know best).
This will be interesting…
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/12/uk-to-ban-under-16s-from-high-risk-social-media-apps
re: ukpol
In other words they may have abandoned the proposals that might require tech companies to moderate addictive design patterns or algorithms pushing harmful content but doubled down on the ones taking away agency and privacy from young people. Very typical UK government behaviour
re: ukpol
it's also notable what is missing from the proposals in the consultation tbh
Nothing about engagement-driving features like algorithmic content or infinite scrolling, despite compulsive use being a key focus of the ban campaign (unless they define "high risk" platforms as the ones w/ those features)
re: ukpol
Anyway we'll see on Monday exactly what stupid bullshit those wankers have come up with
re: ukpol
The other is "chats with adult strangers" but as there is no "child verification" (any adult is a "child" if they do not verify) and no real way for a platform to distinguish "strangers" I can only see this as ban on making friends and private communication online full stop, which massively sucks
re: ukpol
As for the features they want to ban on "safe" platforms - 2 seem to target ephemeral forms of communication - disappearing messages and livestreaming - probably due to concerns over abuse using such channels - but surely that only becomes worse if you enforce anything sent or received is permanent
Joined Jun 2017
