Watch this video ad-free and sponsor-free on NEBULA at https://nebula.tv/videos/slownewsday-metas-war-with-the-uk-government

Get 50% off an annual subscription to NEBULA at https://go.nebula.tv/slownewsday

the |YouGov poll results are due to the way its worded though

"Do you support regulating Adult content?" is much easier to say yes to in a vacuum than, "do you support ID checks and regulations that could prevent people accessing suicide support, Addiction support, fishing blogs, etc..?"

It annoys me that this is always what the OSA debate boils down to because it blocked A LOT more than just porn.

I doubt the online safety act is actually popular. Polls like that are way too easy to fudge & cherry pick when organised by people with an agenda.

Leading questions that would lead people in one direction without thought or simply choosing the right crowd to sample. I could claim the majority of the UK are furries if I sampled people on the street just outside of a furry convention. Most often polls supporting something vocally unpopular are taken within a political echo chamber that already supports the thing. Even why they aren’t the people doing the polling often are, as seen with the Kamala Harris just not writing down any dissatisfaction with the big I.

I don't want to give my info to anyone.

I would argue WhatsApp is intended to be a social media app, it just wasn't successful. During the "make every app do everything every other app does" phase, they added features like stories (called statuses) on WhatsApp. They added a community feature and made it possible to follow public pages. Just because nobody uses those features doesn't mean they aren't there.

5:24 The exact phrasing of the question is important. Polls on contentious issues always remind me of the West Wing episode where Josh kept incessantly citing a poll that said “63% of the public think we spend too much on foreign aid, and 54% think it should be cut.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if 75% of Brits support age-gating certain content online while 60-80% oppose requiring people to upload their ID to access that same content. The problem with relying on polls is that the median voter has not thought through their policy preferences and thus believes contradictory things. As a result, you can get polling results like this that make it appear as though the people are idiots.

The OSA was something thought up by a party who famously doesn't believe in big government (but has always had a fascination about what you do in the bedroom) and Labour (who wanted an ID card recently.) The OSA wasn't set up in good faith. It penalises adults and takes away the responsibility of adults to educate kids about this about the type of content that they should or shouldn't be looking at. Kids have always had access to porn in less than legal ways (most famously from railway sidings back in the day) and have always circumvented technology that tries to stop them. Yes, we didn't have access to smart phones and access to the internet on various devices but we also usually accessed the internet via computers which were in shared family rooms where looking at illicit material was much more difficult. Giving every child access to unlimited internet access was always going to be a problem but it was also possible to limit access to adult sites via your ISP if the account holder (usually a parent) wanted. A person shouldn't need to hand over their personal ID over to random companies in order to enjoy a perfectly legal activity in the privacy of their own home.

I just wanna get my rocks off 👍 ✨

It's ironic since Mark is funding the act

The osa was just censorship.
The government didnt have the *
To tackle the digital companies.
So dont care zuck is taking them to court.

Age restricting stuff doesn't mean kids have to get ID, it means we all have to get ID.

If the state provided the ID, from its secure databases it wouldn't be so bad, but it will privatise, and our data will not be secure at all. The contracts won't even go to UK companies.

It will be the opposite of keeping us safe - it is yet another way of shifting money into wealthy pockets, and while giving the wealthy more means of observing us for targeted advertising, and worse.

I kind of wanted this to end with "This video is sponsored by Surfshark VPN"

American courts can't hold you liable for things your users publish... They just add you the the proscribed organization list and get you internationally debanked so you can't receive or send money to pay for your internet anymore, like they just did to destroy a bunch of activist blogs hosted by a volunteer collective in Italy.

Sorry bud, YouGov being a reasonable source only really applies when the wording o the question they asked doesnt fully obscure what the context is.
Deflecting around the OSA isnt great either, partially due to how man dataleaks have been from the 3rd parties who do the verification for companys and more due to what content is accessable regarding helplines and such which I dont have information on.

Government polls have a history of dishonestly phrasing questions so that all possible answers can used to push their story.

This is the same thing as Digital ID: an end to Privacy as a human right, and a way to ban someone from participating in society.

Two things:
1) The online safety act is different from most in that it requires everyone else to prove that they are not a child as opposed to proving that they are.
2) The moment that social media platforms introduced algorithms that determine and curate what you do or do not see in your feed they lost the argument that they could not be held responsible for what their users and advertisers posted. The algorithms select what you see. Your feed is no longer a random list of what everyone else posts.

I just wanna get in early and say the Online Safety Act is awful and it’s ruining the internet with the mission creep features and other nations copycat bills.

As much as I loathe Meta, I wanna see them succeed here just to spite the uk government.

I just think this was a religious christian policy because they are sexually repressed and want to impose a p0rn ban on everyone - and everyone’s too scared to say they don’t want it.

Dawg don't make me root for Facebook...

OSA "protecting children" is a huge nonsense, it's a censorship act designed to burn the last ashes of online anonymity and none of the companies can be trusted to not hold onto your data, as has been seen in the numerous leaks. This is in a setting where identity theft is a thriving industry btw

No, that's not still a debate at all, Tom!