-
Australia Government: “OVER THERE, LOOK, LOOK, CAPITALISTS, IT IS NOT US OPPRESSING OUR CHILDREN! PLEASE LOOK AT THE CAPITALISTS!”
No humility from the Australian government regarding being sued by their own children, and continuing to push the perspective that platforms serve users rather than users use platforms, wherever they may be hosted: Social media ban: Australia won’t be intimidated by tech firms, minister tells BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnv2z059745o
Fediverse reactions
-
India orders smartphone makers to preload state-owned cyber safety app | Reuters | WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Also, how utterly different from what the UK wishes to achieve with the near obligatory BritCard Digital ID card app, of course. India’s telecoms ministry has privately asked smartphone makers to preload all new devices with a state-owned cyber security app that cannot be deleted, a government order showed, a move likely to antagonise Apple
Fediverse reactions
-
Starmer’s digital ID cards are the last thing Britain needs
The benefits of BritCard accrue not to us, but to the state: a unifying ID which bureaucrats can use to oversee our lives, linking all the parts together. But it is not fulfilling an unmet need. There is no market failure in digital identity services in 2025. The UK’s private sector identity market is thriving.
Fediverse reactions
-
The UK Has It Wrong on Digital ID. Here’s Why | Electronic Frontier Foundation
…digital ID leaves vulnerable and marginalized people not only out of the debate and ultimately out of the society that these governments want to build. We remain concerned about the potential for digital identification to exacerbate existing social inequalities, particularly for those with reduced access to digital services or people seeking asylum. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/uk-has-it-wrong-digital-id-heres-why
Fediverse reactions
-
UK Parliament, 2009: “Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language”
This is a fun official read: Sir Richard said: “The evidence must be that this discontentment built up and this behaviour was such as could not go on.” In English, this would be translated as: “People were being quite outrageous and had to stop.” https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubadm/17/17.pdf
-
Jolyon Maugham’s “GoodLawProject” bang the drum calling for for localised censorship on a globalised internet, not realising nor caring about the impact
This is how you kill privacy & anonymity, and disenfranchise the weak, people; do you not ALSO care about that, JM?
Fediverse reactions
-
Mullvad” “An important victory – but we still need to stop Chat Control”
From the outset, Chat Control was a proposal that aimed to introduce mass surveillance. That ambition is clearly still present … among many of the member states in the Council. [It] failed to introduce mass surveillance but has succeeded in paving the way for new attempts Long tweet. Full version: The Council of Ministers in
Fediverse reactions
-
The first #AgeWall ? Substack is introducing Age Verification to cut UK people off from seeing “Potentially Harmful” Substack content
Paid subscribers get a bypass, of course: Why is Substack asking to verify my age? The UK Online Safety Act requires restricted access to content that could be considered sensitive for younger audiences. If you see blurred or blocked content, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the content is harmful, it just may fall into a
-
If Ofcom want to stop UK people visiting a non-UK website, they need to stop the UK people, not tell the non-UK website to work to prevent the UK hordes
This should be obvious, no? It’s how we deal with football hooligans: Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 (Notes) …The measures proposed would provide recourse to the law to prevent a range of offenders from attending matches in this country and travelling to and attending designated matches abroad. One could try to argue “Yes but
age verification censorship football geoblocking ofcom online safety online safety act surveillance VPNFediverse reactions
-
X/Twitter exposing user location in such a safety-positive way makes a modest dent in the EU’s approach to protecting personally-identifiable information
I’m confident a few privacy activists across Europe are seeking GDPR (etc) arguments to critique the mechanisms behind the location-based exposure of “Foreign, Fake MAGA Agents”; I disagree, but I think there will be ripples of positive & negative consequences until a new norm is established & understood. Of course I’m not the only one
Fediverse reactions