UK age verification laws. Question to the admins.

Anon4321

Conversation Conqueror
Jun 24, 2017
7,618
6,269
So I went to that link, and it gave me this: To read this article free, enter your email address for 7 days’ website access. I should've looked at the "co.uk" part of the address.
If you're quick, you can CTRL+A and CTRL+C to copy the article and paste it in notepad

Spotify threatens to delete accounts that fail age-verification

Spotify has threatened to delete people’s accounts if they fail new age verification checks.

The music streaming app, which has nearly 700m users, said it would remove accounts that fail age estimation checks within 90 days as it seeks to block younger teenagers and children from accessing explicit music and videos.

“You cannot use Spotify if you don’t meet the minimum age requirements for the market you’re in,” a new page on Spotify’s website reads. “If you cannot confirm you’re old enough to use Spotify, your account will be deactivated and eventually deleted.”

On Wednesday, social media users began reporting a new pop-up appearing within the music streaming service asking listeners to verify their age using Yoti, a smartphone app that uses face-scanning technology to estimate a person’s age.

Those judged to appear underage will be asked to complete a further ID check. The accounts of users that fail to pass an ID check within 90 days will be deleted.

Spotify said users who are asked to verify their age could decline to undertake the check, but they would be blocked from accessing adult videos.

“Some users will now have to confirm their age by going through an age assurance process,” Spotify said. “For example, when a user attempts to watch a music video that has been labelled 18+ by the rights-holder for that video, Spotify may serve a prompt for that user to confirm the user’s age.”

Spotify has said its platform is designed for users as young as 13, but it includes songs and music videos intended for mature listeners. The Times reported last month that the app had also hosted pornographic podcasts, despite a ban on “sexually explicit content” on the app.

Spotify is just the latest digital giant to introduce age checks in an attempt to block children from accessing adult content. It comes in the wake of new rules brought in under the Online Safety Act, Britain’s flagship tech law.

As of last Friday, technology businesses must confirm the age of users attempting to access pornography, as well as other media intended for adults, such as graphic violence. Tech giants are also required to enforce age limits set out in their terms of service.

The rules have prompted new age verification checks for porn websites, such as Pornhub. They have also resulted in social media sites including Reddit and X, formerly Twitter, adding age verification prompts for some posts and videos.

Sites that fail to properly enforce their terms of service and block children from harmful posts risk fines of up to 10pc of their turnover.

The arrival of online safety age checks last week has prompted a backlash against Britain’s digital rules. A petition calling for a repeal of the Online Safety Act, which was passed under the last Conservative government, reached 420,000 signatures.

In response, the Government said it had “no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections”.
 
Last edited:
Sep 17, 2024
21
33
So I went to that link, and it gave me this: To read this article free, enter your email address for 7 days’ website access. I should've looked at the "co.uk" part of the address.
Sorry about, looks like someone else took care of it though, so thanks on my behalf.

Here's another tidbit, and this one seems like it's . And for those that don't want to click the link:

Google is using AI age checks to lock down user accounts

Google will soon cast an even wider net with its AI age estimation technology. After announcing plans underage users on YouTube, it will start detecting whether Google users based in the US are under 18.
Age estimation is rolling out over the next few weeks and will only impact a “small set” of users to start, though Google plans on expanding it more widely. The company says it will use the information a user has searched for or the types of YouTube videos they watch to determine their age. Google in February.
If Google believes that a user is under 18, it will apply the same restrictions it places on users who proactively identify as underage. In addition to enabling bedtime reminders on YouTube and limiting content recommendations, Google will also turn off Timeline in Maps, disable personalized advertising, and block users from accessing apps for adults on the Play Store.
In case Google incorrectly identifies someone as under 18, users can submit a photo of their government ID or a selfie to verify their age. The move comes for age verification, with politicians in the US pressuring tech companies to make their platforms safer for kids, and the requirement affecting platforms like Bluesky, , and .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Anon4321

Alice_Margatroid43

New Member
Mar 1, 2024
14
15
So I went to that link, and it gave me this: To read this article free, enter your email address for 7 days’ website access. I should've looked at the "co.uk" part of the address.
UKGDPR is fucking worthless, news sites will have a bitch fit if you don't give them a couple of quid to remove the cookies.
 

TSSG59

Active Member
Jun 7, 2021
527
400
The new privacy laws in the UK are worse than first thought,.
Included in the 200+ page document is a clause whereby the minister in charge can change the goalposts any time he see's fit and ban anything or anyone on the internet he doesn't like without consulting anyone.
That really is a dictatorship.
 

Alice_Margatroid43

New Member
Mar 1, 2024
14
15
The new privacy laws in the UK are worse than first thought,.
Included in the 200+ page document is a clause whereby the minister in charge can change the goalposts any time he see's fit and ban anything or anyone on the internet he doesn't like without consulting anyone.
That really is a dictatorship.
You're serious? Please tell me this is just bullshit?
 

Count Morado

Fragrant Asshole
Donor
Respected User
Jan 21, 2022
11,125
21,711
The new privacy laws in the UK are worse than first thought,.
Included in the 200+ page document is a clause whereby the minister in charge can change the goalposts any time he see's fit and ban anything or anyone on the internet he doesn't like without consulting anyone.
That really is a dictatorship.
What is the page number where this is included?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Icarus Media

Anon4321

Conversation Conqueror
Jun 24, 2017
7,618
6,269
The new privacy laws in the UK are worse than first thought,.
Included in the 200+ page document is a clause whereby the minister in charge can change the goalposts any time he see's fit and ban anything or anyone on the internet he doesn't like without consulting anyone.
That really is a dictatorship.
What is the page number where this is included?
What is the page number where this is included?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZoneTan20

Icarus Media

F95 Comedian
Donor
Game Developer
Jun 19, 2019
9,805
36,476
The video I posted above brings up the very thing
I prefer direct sources, hearsay is legally inadmissible for a reason in the law of evidence. The only thing I can find so far is:

172Statement of strategic priorities
(1)The Secretary of State may designate a statement for the purposes of this section if the requirements set out in section 173 (consultation and parliamentary procedure) are satisfied.

(2)The statement is a statement prepared by the Secretary of State that sets out strategic priorities of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom relating to online safety matters.

(3)The statement may, among other things, set out particular outcomes identified with a view to achieving the strategic priorities.

(4)This section does not restrict the Secretary of State’s powers under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment.

(5)A statement designated under subsection must be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6)A statement designated under subsection may be amended (including by replacing the whole or a part of the statement with new material) by a subsequent statement designated under that subsection, and this section and sections 92 and 173 apply in relation to any such subsequent statement as they apply in relation to the original statement.

(7)Except as provided by subsection , no amendment may be made under subsection within the period of five years beginning with the day on which a statement was most recently designated under subsection .

(8)An earlier amendment may be made under subsection if—

(a)since that day—

(i)a Parliamentary general election has taken place, or

(ii)there has been a significant change in the policy of His Majesty’s Government affecting online safety matters, or

(b)the Secretary of State considers that the statement, or any part of it, conflicts with any of OFCOM’s general duties (within the meaning of section 3 of the Communications Act).

173Consultation and parliamentary procedure
(1)This section sets out the requirements that must be satisfied in relation to a statement before the Secretary of State may designate it under section 172.

(2)The Secretary of State must consult—

(a)OFCOM, and

(b)such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,

on a draft of the statement.

(3)The Secretary of State must allow OFCOM a period of at least 40 days to respond to any consultation under subsection .

(4)After that period has ended the Secretary of State—

(a)must make any changes to the draft that appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary in view of responses to the consultation, and

(b)must then lay the draft before Parliament.

(5)The Secretary of State must then wait until the end of the 40-day period and may not designate the statement if, within that period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it.

(6)“The 40-day period” is the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House on the same day, the later of the days on which it is laid).

(7)In calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.

AND:

175Directions in special circumstances
(1)The Secretary of State may give a direction to OFCOM under subsection or if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that circumstances exist that present a threat—

(a)to the health or safety of the public, or

(b)to national security.

(2)A direction under this subsection is a direction requiring OFCOM, in exercising their media literacy functions, to give priority for a specified period to specified objectives designed to address the threat presented by the circumstances mentioned in subsection .

(3)A direction under this subsection is a direction requiring OFCOM to give a public statement notice to—

(a)a specified provider of a regulated service, or

(b)providers of regulated services generally.

(4)A “public statement notice” is a notice requiring a provider of a regulated service to make a publicly available statement, by a date specified in the notice, about steps the provider is taking in response to the threat presented by the circumstances mentioned in subsection .

(5)OFCOM may, by a public statement notice or a subsequent notice, require a provider of a regulated service to provide OFCOM with such information as they may require for the purpose of responding to that threat.

(6)If a direction under subsection or is given on the ground mentioned in subsection , the Secretary of State must publish the reasons for giving the direction.

(7)The Secretary of State may vary or revoke a direction given under subsection or .

(8)If the Secretary of State varies or revokes a direction given under subsection , OFCOM may, in consequence, vary or revoke a public statement notice that they have given by virtue of the direction.

(9)In subsection “media literacy functions” means OFCOM’s functions under section 11 of the Communications Act (duties to promote media literacy), so far as functions under that section relate to regulated services.

(10)In subsections and “specified” means specified in a direction under this section.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Count Morado

Icarus Media

F95 Comedian
Donor
Game Developer
Jun 19, 2019
9,805
36,476
The new privacy laws in the UK are worse than first thought,.
Included in the 200+ page document is a clause whereby the minister in charge can change the goalposts any time he see's fit and ban anything or anyone on the internet he doesn't like without consulting anyone.
That really is a dictatorship.
Are you referring to clause 175 above?
 

Anon4321

Conversation Conqueror
Jun 24, 2017
7,618
6,269
I prefer direct sources, hearsay is legally inadmissible for a reason in the law of evidence. The only thing I can find so far is:

172Statement of strategic priorities
(1)The Secretary of State may designate a statement for the purposes of this section if the requirements set out in section 173 (consultation and parliamentary procedure) are satisfied.

(2)The statement is a statement prepared by the Secretary of State that sets out strategic priorities of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom relating to online safety matters.

(3)The statement may, among other things, set out particular outcomes identified with a view to achieving the strategic priorities.

(4)This section does not restrict the Secretary of State’s powers under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment.

(5)A statement designated under subsection must be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6)A statement designated under subsection may be amended (including by replacing the whole or a part of the statement with new material) by a subsequent statement designated under that subsection, and this section and sections 92 and 173 apply in relation to any such subsequent statement as they apply in relation to the original statement.

(7)Except as provided by subsection , no amendment may be made under subsection within the period of five years beginning with the day on which a statement was most recently designated under subsection .

(8)An earlier amendment may be made under subsection if—

(a)since that day—

(i)a Parliamentary general election has taken place, or

(ii)there has been a significant change in the policy of His Majesty’s Government affecting online safety matters, or

(b)the Secretary of State considers that the statement, or any part of it, conflicts with any of OFCOM’s general duties (within the meaning of section 3 of the Communications Act).

173Consultation and parliamentary procedure
(1)This section sets out the requirements that must be satisfied in relation to a statement before the Secretary of State may designate it under section 172.

(2)The Secretary of State must consult—

(a)OFCOM, and

(b)such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,

on a draft of the statement.

(3)The Secretary of State must allow OFCOM a period of at least 40 days to respond to any consultation under subsection .

(4)After that period has ended the Secretary of State—

(a)must make any changes to the draft that appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary in view of responses to the consultation, and

(b)must then lay the draft before Parliament.

(5)The Secretary of State must then wait until the end of the 40-day period and may not designate the statement if, within that period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it.

(6)“The 40-day period” is the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House on the same day, the later of the days on which it is laid).

(7)In calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.

AND:

175Directions in special circumstances
(1)The Secretary of State may give a direction to OFCOM under subsection or if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that circumstances exist that present a threat—

(a)to the health or safety of the public, or

(b)to national security.

(2)A direction under this subsection is a direction requiring OFCOM, in exercising their media literacy functions, to give priority for a specified period to specified objectives designed to address the threat presented by the circumstances mentioned in subsection .

(3)A direction under this subsection is a direction requiring OFCOM to give a public statement notice to—

(a)a specified provider of a regulated service, or

(b)providers of regulated services generally.

(4)A “public statement notice” is a notice requiring a provider of a regulated service to make a publicly available statement, by a date specified in the notice, about steps the provider is taking in response to the threat presented by the circumstances mentioned in subsection .

(5)OFCOM may, by a public statement notice or a subsequent notice, require a provider of a regulated service to provide OFCOM with such information as they may require for the purpose of responding to that threat.

(6)If a direction under subsection or is given on the ground mentioned in subsection , the Secretary of State must publish the reasons for giving the direction.

(7)The Secretary of State may vary or revoke a direction given under subsection or .

(8)If the Secretary of State varies or revokes a direction given under subsection , OFCOM may, in consequence, vary or revoke a public statement notice that they have given by virtue of the direction.

(9)In subsection “media literacy functions” means OFCOM’s functions under section 11 of the Communications Act (duties to promote media literacy), so far as functions under that section relate to regulated services.

(10)In subsections and “specified” means specified in a direction under this section.
I wouldn't say hearsay, as the individual is a member of a political party in the UK
 

Xenon-San

Active Member
Jun 16, 2017
734
1,033
i don't like to discuss politics on porn site (although soon this may be the only place that allows it) but i can see incredibly based opinions here
whitch means that everyone should be careful cuz glowies will report this (as hate speech or whatever buzz word)
 

Icarus Media

F95 Comedian
Donor
Game Developer
Jun 19, 2019
9,805
36,476
I wouldn't say hearsay, as the individual is a member of a political party in the UK
Definition of Hearsay
Noun

  1. Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge or experience.
  2. Unverified information acquired from another person, which is not part of one’s own knowledge.
Origin

1525-1535 Translated from Middle French par ouïr dire (hear say)



You can't confirm the act says what he says it does unless you look at it yourself and understand legalese. Otherwise you can only confirm that Zia Yusuf alleges the act says that. I'm not saying what Zia Yusuf alleges the act says is true or false, I'd need to read the whole of it first, so I withhold my judgement on that, there is also the empirical evidence of my own observations, such as If in the future I SEE directly what he alleges then prima facie it would give rise to the validity of his allegations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Count Morado

Anon4321

Conversation Conqueror
Jun 24, 2017
7,618
6,269
Definition of Hearsay
Noun

  1. Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge or experience.
  2. Unverified information acquired from another person, which is not part of one’s own knowledge.
Origin

1525-1535 Translated from Middle French par ouïr dire (hear say)



You can't confirm the act says what he says it does unless you look at it yourself and understand legalese. Otherwise you can only confirm that Zia Yusuf alleges the act says that. I'm not saying what Zia Yusuf alleges the act says is true or false, I'd need to read the whole of it first, so I withhold my judgement on that, there is also the empirical evidence of my own observations, such as If in the future I SEE directly what he alleges then prima facie it would give rise to the validity of his allegations.
I know what hearsay means, and I totally understand wanting to confirm things, I would too
and while I did bring up the video, I would at least hope that the person, given his position, wasn't fudging the truth too much, hopefully

but as I don't play in politics, what would I know
 
Last edited:

Icarus Media

F95 Comedian
Donor
Game Developer
Jun 19, 2019
9,805
36,476
but as I don't play in politics, what would I know
It's brutal and full of skullduggery. I joined a party at 18, became the Chairman of the youth part (18-30) of the party for my area at 19 by working my way up the ranks for the year and then instituting a prosecution of the then chairman for Fraud by giving Police evidence of fraudulent personal transactions of his (one of his victims was myself). I went on to the selection committee who chose the MP candidate for my area who successfully got in for the next general election. Then I went to University and handed it over when I enrolled. Looking back I don't like what it made me become, but it is the way the game is played, and it behooves anyone involved in that to learn how it played regardless of personal feelings on the situation.
 
  • Thinking Face
Reactions: Leeduva

TSSG59

Active Member
Jun 7, 2021
527
400
You can't confirm the act says what he says it does unless you look at it yourself and understand legalese. Otherwise you can only confirm that Zia Yusuf alleges the act says that. I'm not saying what Zia Yusuf alleges the act says is true or false, I'd need to read the whole of it first, so I withhold my judgement on that, there is also the empirical evidence of my own observations, such as If in the future I SEE directly what he alleges then prima facie it would give rise to the validity of his allegations.
[/QUOTE]

But isn't it interesting that not a single Labour MP has denied what Zia has said to be true.
Even some Conservatives have now come out in support of Yusuf's statement, no doubt they all rushed to read it to confirm.
Human rights and free speech organisations are all saying this is the greatest attack on free speech in our history and the most draconian attempt to crush peoples rights since Stalin came to power in the Soviet Union.
 

Insanatee

Member
Jul 3, 2017
213
328
Please don't take the blackpill during all of this. Yes it is serious and sudden but I think the greatest indicator that this censorship push will fail is how loud and immediate the backlash has been. I can't speak for the UK or AUS since they voted for this but it does seem they are realizing how authoritarian these laws are. As for Youtube if they follow through with the AI crap it will completely decimate their bottom line once big names in areas like VTubing and Letsplay start getting banned.

Never take the blackpill. This is temporary as long as we keep bringing attention to it. It will fail.