- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
2025-07-25 - OFCOM: "Ofcom engagement - Availability of KiwiFarms in UK"
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
An Idle Observer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2025
OK. I got got. Gimme my fell for it again award, I did not notice the FBI seal.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
An Idle Observer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2025
Probably both.
Cringe for falling for obvious joke post.
Based for having the balls to admit it and laugh at yourself.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
An Idle Observer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2025
I'd probably lean cringe. Not because I oppose animal control per se, but that means they actually know what they're doing and actually know where to find the dark corners of the internet.
Yes. My opinion of the UK's actual knowledge of internet culture is that bad. We shall see if they lock the gate of the zoo.
Yes. My opinion of the UK's actual knowledge of internet culture is that bad. We shall see if they lock the gate of the zoo.
kiwiburgerplanet
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
You are a delusional faggot, and the only sweeping is for whites that harm children. I think child predators/rapists of all creeds, races, religions, and economic classes should be brutalized and murdered. How about you faggot?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
Brown, shit-stinking hands wrote this. Get out of my country, go back to Pakistan and prey on your cousins like your inbred ancestors have done since the first one got rejected by a goat.
I want all nonces hanged regardless of colour, but I don't see why we should have a single wog in this country in the first place to form their explicitly racially motivated child rape gangs.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
This is a massive, massive assumption. Brown hands are writing those posts, probably while taking a break from molesting a small boy.
- Joined
- May 3, 2023
For those who are unaware. Ofcom's document shows how a slippery slope works and demonstrates why nothing should ever be banned unless it's proven to actually be directly harmful to the common majority of people.
As it's a 480 page monstrosity, I can't be bothered to go through everything in one sitting, but since our Labour party insists anybody opposed to this pile of wank must be on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Saville, I figured I'd take a look at the typical "protect the children" bits being thrown about.
Terrorism (p36-51)
Ofcom considers "expressing an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organisation" to be terrorism. That can be anything from agreeing with the wrong animal rights activists, to disagreeing with a bunch of zionists as to what land they're actually entitled to.
They also have "collection of information likely to be of use to a terrorist" on the list of things considered to constitute terrorism. We've already seen past Freedom of Information Act request results be deemed as that (including information provided by the Police) and seen people arrested for refusing to destroy the information they were legally provided with. They then go in-depth on explaining how these so-called 'terrorists' can use just about any online service to do just about anything.
In other words: What you say today, may be considered terrorism tomorrow. Even websites like Wikipedia contain plenty of information which is likely to be of use to a terrorist. Wikileaks is also definitely on the chopping block with this one. If you run a website which accepts comments or posts from the general public and don't manually check everything before it becomes available to other users, you're liable to big problems.
CSEA (p52-63) & Grooming, CSAM (p64-102)
The usual problem is described of how anything with user-to-user communication, irrespective of whether it is public or private can be abused by groomers, including video games. A major point of note is the mention that helplines exist to report things and the common theme is that people either feel they won't be believed or that they fear they'll be arrested for reporting what they've seen because the law technically makes it illegal to see things and also considers children who make CSAM to be themselves criminals. Generative AI is mentioned and how that can be used to create CSAM by using existing images of children, that common AI models normal people are using right now have had CSAM included in their training sets, and that AR/VR can be also be abused in real-time.
Ofcom now has definitions of CSAM with the word consensual in them (such as 'Consensual SGII') because now they want to classify every slutty image a teenager posts on social media as being illegal to try and better protect children. Ofcom admits over half of all reported cases of takedowns (52%) are caused by children and over 9 out of 10 of takedown reports in general (92%) are for multimedia created by children.
In other words: Every major website which has pictures of children on it can be reported as containing CSAM, even if it doesn't have a single image depicting child sexual abuse. There's nothing in Ofcom's supplied documentation clearly explaining where the line is drawn; it seems extremely subjective. If there's evidence that something resembling a child is being sexualised, even if the image itself isn't intended to be sexual; then it should still be taken down, just to be safe. The poorer you are as a website owner, the stricter you will need to be.
My take on this
The actual meat and potatoes of this, and why age checks are being applied to everything, boils down to the "risk assessment" requirements and how anything/everything is a risk, and risk might as well be synonymous with liability at this point.
It's possible for Ofcom to achieve their goals without being authoritarian dickwads toward the majority of Internet users. All Ofcom needs to do is stop businesses from encouraging children to upload pictures/audio/video of themselves to public websites and most of the problem goes away. Instead of using those dumb selfie scanners to estimate all users ages, have large online service providers use them to estimate the ages of subjects in their publicly uploaded photos/videos instead. This would very quickly reduce the publicly available pool of images depicting children in general.
In terms of the (mostly harmless) risk of kids seeing some T&A: We already had an elegant system to handle children accidentally landing on adult content and it infringed on nobody's freedoms, as Internet bill payers had control over the level of filtering in place. ISPs actually put effort into giving parents real controls and it was easy for parents to use. Politicians made it secure-by-default with DPI-based enforcement for new customers, but grandfathered older customers into having a less secure DNS-only filter by default. It was vulnerable to fewer loopholes than these new checks and it didn't encourage kids to learn how to use VPNs (or worse, Tor) to gain access to basic Internet services.
This is a collossal fuckup from a child protection standpoint and it appears the real aim is likely just to impose Russian/Chinese style censorship of free speech long term.
As it's a 480 page monstrosity, I can't be bothered to go through everything in one sitting, but since our Labour party insists anybody opposed to this pile of wank must be on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Saville, I figured I'd take a look at the typical "protect the children" bits being thrown about.
Terrorism (p36-51)
Ofcom considers "expressing an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organisation" to be terrorism. That can be anything from agreeing with the wrong animal rights activists, to disagreeing with a bunch of zionists as to what land they're actually entitled to.
They also have "collection of information likely to be of use to a terrorist" on the list of things considered to constitute terrorism. We've already seen past Freedom of Information Act request results be deemed as that (including information provided by the Police) and seen people arrested for refusing to destroy the information they were legally provided with. They then go in-depth on explaining how these so-called 'terrorists' can use just about any online service to do just about anything.
In other words: What you say today, may be considered terrorism tomorrow. Even websites like Wikipedia contain plenty of information which is likely to be of use to a terrorist. Wikileaks is also definitely on the chopping block with this one. If you run a website which accepts comments or posts from the general public and don't manually check everything before it becomes available to other users, you're liable to big problems.
CSEA (p52-63) & Grooming, CSAM (p64-102)
The usual problem is described of how anything with user-to-user communication, irrespective of whether it is public or private can be abused by groomers, including video games. A major point of note is the mention that helplines exist to report things and the common theme is that people either feel they won't be believed or that they fear they'll be arrested for reporting what they've seen because the law technically makes it illegal to see things and also considers children who make CSAM to be themselves criminals. Generative AI is mentioned and how that can be used to create CSAM by using existing images of children, that common AI models normal people are using right now have had CSAM included in their training sets, and that AR/VR can be also be abused in real-time.
Ofcom now has definitions of CSAM with the word consensual in them (such as 'Consensual SGII') because now they want to classify every slutty image a teenager posts on social media as being illegal to try and better protect children. Ofcom admits over half of all reported cases of takedowns (52%) are caused by children and over 9 out of 10 of takedown reports in general (92%) are for multimedia created by children.
In other words: Every major website which has pictures of children on it can be reported as containing CSAM, even if it doesn't have a single image depicting child sexual abuse. There's nothing in Ofcom's supplied documentation clearly explaining where the line is drawn; it seems extremely subjective. If there's evidence that something resembling a child is being sexualised, even if the image itself isn't intended to be sexual; then it should still be taken down, just to be safe. The poorer you are as a website owner, the stricter you will need to be.
My take on this
The actual meat and potatoes of this, and why age checks are being applied to everything, boils down to the "risk assessment" requirements and how anything/everything is a risk, and risk might as well be synonymous with liability at this point.
It's possible for Ofcom to achieve their goals without being authoritarian dickwads toward the majority of Internet users. All Ofcom needs to do is stop businesses from encouraging children to upload pictures/audio/video of themselves to public websites and most of the problem goes away. Instead of using those dumb selfie scanners to estimate all users ages, have large online service providers use them to estimate the ages of subjects in their publicly uploaded photos/videos instead. This would very quickly reduce the publicly available pool of images depicting children in general.
In terms of the (mostly harmless) risk of kids seeing some T&A: We already had an elegant system to handle children accidentally landing on adult content and it infringed on nobody's freedoms, as Internet bill payers had control over the level of filtering in place. ISPs actually put effort into giving parents real controls and it was easy for parents to use. Politicians made it secure-by-default with DPI-based enforcement for new customers, but grandfathered older customers into having a less secure DNS-only filter by default. It was vulnerable to fewer loopholes than these new checks and it didn't encourage kids to learn how to use VPNs (or worse, Tor) to gain access to basic Internet services.
This is a collossal fuckup from a child protection standpoint and it appears the real aim is likely just to impose Russian/Chinese style censorship of free speech long term.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
This is honestly a reason, by itself, to reject it as utter garbage.
If you're saying something completely insane, like people shouldn't be allowed to speak their opinion, a proposition where the opposite can be expressed in something as short as the First Amendment, and it takes you 480 fucking pages to say it, it's BULLSHIT.
You can just tl'dr that shit and shoot whoever said it.
kiwiburgerplanet
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
The only thing I find insulting about this is you assuming I am from England and a mud. You people and your English elite are low class. It's American values, strength, and blood that run the world, not you free loading, kiddie diddling degenerates. You and your lot belong on that Island.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2022
No-one sweeps this hard for nonce pakis unless they are:
A) retarded
B) a paki
C) a nonce
D) all of the above
So which are you?