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.
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
re: ukpol
Full announcement will come on Monday but their plan is to restrict "high-risk" platforms entirely and introduce functionality restrictions on "safer" ones - no info on what "high-risk" means, the article seems to suggest they may name specific platforms rather than trying to generically define such
ukpol
Well after two and a half weeks of ignoring the consultation it appears that the UK government is ready to move on new online restrictions for under 16s (and therefore everybody who has not ID verified)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/12/uk-to-ban-under-16s-from-high-risk-social-media-apps
as for the hardware itself... you may have noticed it has HDMI output. the video is upscaled with a hq3x filter applied to it. the audio is pretty bad and seemingly missing the native DPCM channel altogether. so I couldn't exactly recommend this as a way to play NES games. It is interesting though!
oh when i said Mapper 0 and 3 two posts ago I meant 0 and 4, as in NROM and MMC3. sorry for spreading misinformation etc etc
There are 782 games on the card and "300" built in (with repeats), unfortunately I didn't find anything particularly unusual or undumped in either set so far, both of them mostly consist of regular NES/FC games with some romhacks and Nice Code games mixed in
I have several of these SD card accepting VT-chip-based famiclones already, I've been trying to document the ones on the market https://museum.12bit.club/SD_card_VT_consoles
This is in line with the others in terms of capability, it can run mapper 0 and 3 and a small number of VTxx .bin files
but there was this fucking metal weight loose inside which was rattling around in shipment and broke the ribbon cable off one of the 2 PCBs. even if I bridge the pins connected to the power switch on the main PCB it doesn't seem to work. someone spotted that C37 seems to have been broken off as well
RE: https://myke.social/@imyke/116721068646749888
Most of the cis white men commenting Apple's announcements regarding increased parental controls and restrictions on their children's devices are failing to see how dangerous these can be for queer and marginalized kids.
> “It feels like parents today need help to have better tools and guidance to make the right decisions for their children.”
Fuck no. Ask any trans kid whether their parents can make the right decisions for them. It's one thing to want to protect kids (who doesnt?), it's another to provide absolute power to the parents over them like they're their property.
Kids' rights are human rights should not be an empty statement. It should mean fight back against age verification, fight back against their systematic surveillance, fight back against removing kids' rights to digital privacy. And fight back against this insane idea that parents should inherit an almost divine right to police everything about their children's lives.
RE: https://hachyderm.io/@avakining/116715652126950192
and this.
increased digital surveillance and constraints on kids are straight up dangerous.
Fuck offfffffff kids are human people. They need to be allowed to have privacy. Parents shouldn’t be spying on kids.
Everyone deserves privacy and this shit has two outcomes: either it conditions kids to accept surveillance and fascism or it trains them not to trust other adults and not come forward when bad shit happens to them