Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Unexpectantly Tulip can't take gardening leave, so instead she's been 'forced' to spend more time with her family, lovely. 

I feel like she'll end up having to step down as an MP.

I don't really get why Starmer positioned it as "door remains open". Also slightly mad that she had self-reported fora breach of the Ministerial Code to the Independent Advisor which was all what she should have done and seemed enough for the government - it would be wrong to comment while the Independent Advisor is assessing etc etc.

Then the Independent Advisor finds that she hasn't breached the Ministerial Code, but she resigns anyway because it's become an issue. On literally the same day Bangladesh opens a corruption investigation into her.

Maybe outsourcing integrity and political judgement to an unelected bureaucrat no-one knows to run a process and make a decision isn't the answer people seem to think it is (and it's not just Starmer, it's very much in line with the Rest is Politics types etc). I don't quite know why Siddiq was appointed in the first place (and think attention may turn to that) given that her links with Hasina's government and the Awami League were not unknown - the clip of her slightly threatening a journalist was from a 2017 Channel 4 News investigation. (I hate to indulge in the "politics of envy", but I just don't think Labour should be anywhere near someone who owns six London properties...)

In exciting news Tulip Siddiq's replacement as City Minister (in charge of anti-corruption) is Emma Reynolds who was previously a lobbyist for the City involved in lobbying successfully to keep China off the "enhanced tier" on foreign interference in politics. When that story was first reported in December the government line was that Reynolds would not work on China policy. She's now the minister responsible for anti-corruption policy and the City as Rachel Reeves makes a pitch that London is the "natural home" for Chinese finance.

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwye3qw7gv7o?at_format=image&at_bbc_team=editorial

All porn sites must 'robustly' verify UK user ages by July

All websites on which pornographic material can be found, including social media platforms, must introduce "robust" age-checking techniques such as demanding photo ID or running credit card checks for UK users by July.

The long-awaited guidance, issued by regulator Ofcom, has been made under the Online Safety Act (OSA), and is intended to prevent children from easily accessing pornography online.

Research indicates the average age at which young people first see explicit material online in the UK is 13 - with many being exposed to it much earlier.

"For too long, many online services which allow porn and other harmful material have ignored the fact that children are accessing their services", said Ofcom boss Melanie Dawes, adding: "today, this starts to change."

Ofcom confirmed to the BBC this meant user-to-user services such as social media platforms must implement "highly effective checks" - which in some cases might mean "preventing children from accessing the entire site".

However, some porn sites and privacy campaigners have warned the move will be counterproductive, saying introducing beefed-up age verification will only push people to "darker corners" of the internet.

'Readily available'

The media regulator estimates that approximately 14 million people watch online pornography in the UK.

But it is so readily available that campaign groups have raised concerns that children see it at a young age - with one in 10 children seeing it by age nine, according to a survey by the Children's Commissioner.

"As age checks start to roll out in the coming months, adults will start to notice a difference in how they access certain online services," said Dame Melanie.

The rules also require services which publish their own pornographic content - including with generative AI tools - to begin introducing age checks immediately.

Age verification platform Yoti called such technology "essential" for creating safe spaces online.

"It is important that age assurance is enforced across pornographic sites of all sizes, creating a level playing field, and providing age-appropriate access for adults," said chief regulatory and policy officer Julie Dawson.

However Aylo, parent company of the website Pornhub, told the BBC this sort of age verification was "ineffective, haphazard and dangerous".

It claimed pornography use changed significantly in US state Louisiana after similar age verification controls came into force, with its website's traffic dropping 80% in the state.

"These people did not stop looking for porn, they just migrated to darker corners of the internet that don't ask users to verify age," it claimed.

"In practice, the laws have just made the internet more dangerous for adults and children."

Firms get clarity

Ofcom has published what it calls a "non-exhaustive" list of technologies that may be used to verify ages, which includes:

• Open banking
• Photo ID matching
• Facial age estimation
• Mobile network operator age checks
• Credit card checks
• Digital identity services
• Email-based age estimation

The rules specifically state that "self-declaration of age" is no longer considered a "highly effective" method of checking ages - and therefore is not acceptable.

It also states that pornographic content should not be accessible to users before they have completed an age check.

Other age verification firms have responded positively to the news.

"The regulator's long-awaited guidance on age assurance means adult content providers now have the clarity they need to get their houses in order and put in place robust and reliable methods to keep explicit material well away from underage users," said Lina Ghazal, head of regulatory and public affairs at Verifymy.

But privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch warned that many age-checking methods could be circumvented, and should not be seen as a panacea.

"Children must be protected online, but many technological age checking methods are ineffective and introduce additional risks to children and adults alike including security breaches, privacy intrusion, errors, digital exclusion and censorship," said boss Silkie Carlo.

"We must avoid anything like a digital ID system for the internet that would both eradicate privacy online and fail to keep children safe," she added.

[HVC]

Well I guess they fixed the internet. No one will ever see porn again.

[Tamas]

Well I guess they fixed the internet. No one will ever see porn again.

With a lot of effort and cost they might succeed in driving teenagers and adults to exchange porn via torrents, chat groups and other non-covered platforms I can't immediately think of. Well done.

[Syt]

Well I guess they fixed the internet. No one will ever see porn again.

With a lot of effort and cost they might succeed in driving teenagers and adults to exchange porn via torrents, chat groups and other non-covered platforms I can't immediately think of. Well done.

Well, that's why they're pushing for backddoors to check if any files shared/on your phones/devices is sex abuse material.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

And this is how democracy dies: with the sound of thunderous fapping

[Tamas]

Well I guess they fixed the internet. No one will ever see porn again.

With a lot of effort and cost they might succeed in driving teenagers and adults to exchange porn via torrents, chat groups and other non-covered platforms I can't immediately think of. Well done.

Well, that's why they're pushing for backddoors to check if any files shared/on your phones/devices is sex abuse material.

I am touched by their selfless concern pushing them to demand unrestricted access to my life.

[Tamas]

BTW Google is pushing you to enable Gemini on your Android phones but if you read the (short) terms what you agree to is giving them access, including to store for months, to pretty much everything including your emails, chats etc. But hey, in exchange you can play with a sophisticated chatbot, so who cares.

[Syt]

Well I guess they fixed the internet. No one will ever see porn again.

With a lot of effort and cost they might succeed in driving teenagers and adults to exchange porn via torrents, chat groups and other non-covered platforms I can't immediately think of. Well done.

Well, that's why they're pushing for backddoors to check if any files shared/on your phones/devices is sex abuse material.

I am touched by their selfless concern pushing them to demand unrestricted access to my life.

I'm sure AI will be able to tell your family vacation photos from the beach from horrendous abuse material.

[HVC]

Well I guess they fixed the internet. No one will ever see porn again.

With a lot of effort and cost they might succeed in driving teenagers and adults to exchange porn via torrents, chat groups and other non-covered platforms I can't immediately think of. Well done.

I always wonder if people who pass things like this are delusional enough to think it's effective, or know it's bullshit but can buy political points.

[crazy canuck]

I often wonder if people who are so stridently opposed to regulating the Internet Are so delusional that they don't see the harms that are currently being inflicted.

[Syt]

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Well I guess they fixed the internet. No one will ever see porn again.

With a lot of effort and cost they might succeed in driving teenagers and adults to exchange porn via torrents, chat groups and other non-covered platforms I can't immediately think of. Well done.

I always wonder if people who pass things like this are delusional enough to think it's effective, or know it's bullshit but can buy political points.

Just expanding control over the subjects so that when other laws are voted in they already have the data to control, fine or imprison you.
We've seen that with the cameras on the roads here. First it was to check for terrorists, but it ended up being a way to fine people who make traffic infractions. Criminals, on the other hand, have little to fear from police and courts.

[Tamas]

Well, one more stpet toward becoming the 51st state, Musk is defining British politics as well now: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/16/yvette-cooper-announces-urgent-national-review-on-grooming-gangs

I have to admit I was probably wrong in the past not being bothered by extreme wealth concentrations, considered them an anomaly rather than a genuine issue. Musk is sure proving me wrong.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Condolences on your future PM Tommy Robinson.