I guess that’ll depend on the instance. The options as I see it are.
Block uk ip’s themselves.
Implement checks like big sites.
Ignore it, eventually be issued with a fine, ignore that, eventually get geoblocked in the UK once ofcom get a court order. Which might take long enough for this god awful law to be amended or repealed.
So you’re pro climate change, pro dismantling the nhs, pro tax cuts for the rich and rises for the poor.
Got it.
This was my wife’s immediate comment when I showed her this
No it’s video. I should think a deep fake would work though.
They’d have to keep it for businesses. So I guess next headline: number of uk sole traders jumps by 1400%.
That’s a very good point.
This is why more places should have performance related pay. Either as performance related pay rises or bonuses. That way people like Chad can do the minimum to not get fired, then bitch and moan about how they didn’t get a bonus this year.
I can’t see why that would be the case. The UK users using the UK instance would still have had their ages checked. As far as I understand it doesn’t matter where the adult material on the site has come from. It’s not a law to try to protect against the creation of material by people who aren’t verified, but rather try to reduce the amount of under 18s accessing material.
It’s rated for about half an hour water resistance, so you’d probably get water ingress before that.
Yeah, but don’t drink it.
They’ll get blocked in the UK. Which, to be honest for a non profit fediverse instance isn’t going to be a bad thing as they’ll loose traffic alongside any donations. Expect UK based instances to start doing something for their users. But there’s lots of other verification options they could use.
If this law says in place and is actually enforced all fediverse instances will need to start verifying age for UK users too.
It gets you to turn your head. It’s not just a selfi.
Aren’t most plumbers shelf employed though?
Slang for kinda generic sausages in the UK. Usually not high quality.
But why that metric? What makes that metric a good metric to use? Was that metric genuinely the best, or was it the best to get the answer they wanted to satisfy whoever was funding the study?
we’re not voting for president of the mammals.
No, but in general it’s worth questioning any stats and figures because people we vote for use them to make policy decisions
Which I think is intentionally disingenuous as it massively favours the large mammals over the far higher number of species of smaller mammals.
For example you’d need over 70 squeal monkeys to make to the biomass of an average American.
Humans and other great apes can be considered mega fauna, so it doesn’t seem surprising that us and the animals we consume make up a higher percentage of bio mass. Were bigger.
Now watch the animals of farthing wood
Is why we need a
LIB.
DEM.
SURGE