#nannystate — Public Fediverse posts

Wer gibt mir die Lebenszeit zurück, die ich Woche für Woche durch Warten auf die komplett sinnlose Empfängerprüfung bei SEPA-Überweisungen verliere?
Wann gibt es endlich Möglichkeit, diesen Paternalismus abzustellen?!
Ich möchte nicht in einem Land leben, das mich vor einem Risiko bewahrt, das nie eintritt oder dessen Eintritt ich tragen kann, wenn der Schutz mich in meinem Leben einschränkt.
#Nannystate

ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-unaccompanied-minors-fraud-suspects-trss-contract/

ICE Is Using Data Broker Tools to ‘Identify Unaccompanied Minors’ and ‘Fraud’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wired.com/story/ice-unaccompanied-minors-fraud-suspects-trss-contract/

#Michigan parents charged with #murder & #torture in #death of autistic 255 lb morbidly obese 7 yr old who apparently lived in squalor and was fed mostly #FrenchFries & #PotatoChips 🍟

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/michgan-parents-charged-murder-obesity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.GVT-.CX0l4hmBrXUx #GiftLink #NYTimes #NannyState #ObesityEpidemic #Parenting #Autism #AmericanFamilyValues

#Michigan parents charged with #murder & #torture in #death of autistic 255 lb morbidly obese 7 yr old who apparently lived in squalor and was fed mostly #FrenchFries & #PotatoChips 🍟

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/michgan-parents-charged-murder-obesity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uFA.GVT-.CX0l4hmBrXUx #GiftLink #NYTimes #NannyState #ObesityEpidemic #Parenting #Autism #AmericanFamilyValues

Nanny State: Joshua Rosenberg on the UK Palestine Action ban and the politics of criminalising dissent!

Joshua Rosenberg’s attack on Palestine Action, published yesterday in the Law Society Gazette, gets one thing badly wrong from the start: it treats the state’s label as if it were the law itself. If the UK government calls disruptive protest “terrorism,” that does not make it so. The real legal question is whether the conduct fits the statute, whether the response is proportionate, and whether terrorism law is being stretched to protect political power rather than the public.¹

The label is not the law

Rosenberg’s article relies on a simple but powerful move: call the group dangerous, then present the ban as self-justifying. That is not legal analysis. It is a conclusion dressed up as common sense.

The state already has ordinary criminal offences for damage, trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy. What needs justification is the leap from protest-related wrongdoing to terrorism law.²

Gaza is the moral centre

The Gaza context is not background noise. It is the reason many people feel so strongly about these protests.

The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures in the genocide case and later reaffirmed them. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on allegations including starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity.³ UN experts have also warned that arms transfers to Israel that may be used in Gaza are likely to violate international humanitarian law and should stop immediately.⁴

That does not mean UK law currently permits criminal damage as a defence. It does not. But, it does mean the law should be honest about the moral urgency behind the protest instead of flattening it into vandalism.⁵

Direct action has a democratic pedigree

Rosenberg’s article also misses a basic historical truth: direct action has always played a major role in democratic reform. The abolition of slavery did not happen because people politely waited. The suffragettes did not win votes by being “reasonable” in the narrow, state-approved sense. Trade union and civil-rights movements, too, relied on pressure, disruption, and refusal.⁶

The same is true of the campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa, where boycotts, divestment, and sanctions helped force a political reckoning. That history matters because it shows that disruptive action is not automatically anti-democratic. Sometimes it is the route by which democracy forces power to listen.⁷ The idea that protest is only acceptable when it does not disrupt anything is not a principle of freedom; it is a principle of managed dissent.⁸

The double standard

The argument, developed in earlier Truthaholics posts, is that the UK state increasingly punishes anti-war dissent while shielding power-aligned interests.⁹ That concern becomes sharper when compared with the way climate protest and Just Stop Oil are usually charged under ordinary offences like criminal damage or obstruction, while anti-war direct action is pushed toward the language of extremism and terror.¹⁰

That is not consistency. It is selective severity.

HRA 1998 and ECHR rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 brings Convention rights into domestic law, especially Articles 10 and 11 on expression and peaceful assembly.¹¹ Those rights are qualified, so proportionality matters. In protest cases, courts have sometimes had to ask whether conviction is a justified interference with those rights.¹²

But this is where the current doctrine is uneven. After DPP v Ziegler, Article 10 and 11 analysis matters in some protest settings, especially where the offence itself turns on obstruction and the interference is non-violent.¹³ By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s 2024 criminal-damage ruling sharply narrows the room for using beliefs, urgency, or moral importance as a lawful excuse.¹⁴

That creates a real tension. The law recognises that disruptive protest can still fall within Convention protection, but it often refuses to let that protection do any serious work where criminal damage is concerned. A serious legal system should at least admit that this is a narrowing choice, not a neutral inevitability.¹⁵

What should change

A better legal approach would not create a blanket excuse for criminal damage. It would simply stop the state from using terrorism law where ordinary criminal law is enough. It would also force the system to distinguish properly between vandalism, civil disobedience, and genuine terrorism.¹⁶

That is the real issue Rosenberg’s article avoids. It assumes the conclusion it wants to prove: that state suppression equals public safety. But the legal and moral picture is more complicated than that.

Bottom line

If the law is to remain credible, it must be able to distinguish between protest, criminal damage, and terror. Rosenberg’s article blurs those lines. The law should not.

If the law is to retain any credibility, it must stop confusing protest with terror and inconvenience with danger. Palestine Action may be controversial and unlawful, but that is not the same as terrorism. The real scandal is not that people are protesting Gaza too loudly; it is that the state is reaching for the most draconian label available to protect itself from accountability. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of power.

When a state calls dissent “terrorism” to protect its own complicity, the problem is no longer the protest movement — it is the political system itself.

Footnotes

1. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
2. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss 1 and 5.
3. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures Order (26 January 2024); ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine (21 November 2024).
4. OHCHR, ‘Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts’ (23 February 2024).
5. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(a).
6. Truthaholics, ‘An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!’ (13 June 2026).
7. Truthaholics, ‘Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!’ (15 June 2026).
8. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity: Great Israeli Real Estate Event & the Constitutional Case Against Palestine Action Proscription!’ (16 June 2026).
9. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity …’; Truthaholics, ‘Criminalising Direct Action? Why the UK Supreme Court Should Reverse the Court of Appeal!’ (15 June 2026).
10. The Guardian, ‘Climate protesters in England and Wales lose criminal damage defence’ (18 March 2024).
11. Human Rights Act 1998, ss 2–3, 6; European Convention on Human Rights, arts 10, 11.
12. DPP v Ziegler UKSC 23.
13. ibid.
14. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
15. Human Rights Act 1998, s 3; DPP v Ziegler; Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
16. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
    

Nanny State: Joshua Rosenberg on the UK Palestine Action ban and the politics of criminalising dissent!

Joshua Rosenberg’s attack on Palestine Action, published yesterday in the Law Society Gazette, gets one thing badly wrong from the start: it treats the state’s label as if it were the law itself. If the UK government calls disruptive protest “terrorism,” that does not make it so. The real legal question is whether the conduct fits the statute, whether the response is proportionate, and whether terrorism law is being stretched to protect political power rather than the public.¹

The label is not the law

Rosenberg’s article relies on a simple but powerful move: call the group dangerous, then present the ban as self-justifying. That is not legal analysis. It is a conclusion dressed up as common sense.

The state already has ordinary criminal offences for damage, trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy. What needs justification is the leap from protest-related wrongdoing to terrorism law.²

Gaza is the moral centre

The Gaza context is not background noise. It is the reason many people feel so strongly about these protests.

The International Court of Justice has indicated provisional measures in the genocide case and later reaffirmed them. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on allegations including starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity.³ UN experts have also warned that arms transfers to Israel that may be used in Gaza are likely to violate international humanitarian law and should stop immediately.⁴

That does not mean UK law currently permits criminal damage as a defence. It does not. But, it does mean the law should be honest about the moral urgency behind the protest instead of flattening it into vandalism.⁵

Direct action has a democratic pedigree

Rosenberg’s article also misses a basic historical truth: direct action has always played a major role in democratic reform. The abolition of slavery did not happen because people politely waited. The suffragettes did not win votes by being “reasonable” in the narrow, state-approved sense. Trade union and civil-rights movements, too, relied on pressure, disruption, and refusal.⁶

The same is true of the campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa, where boycotts, divestment, and sanctions helped force a political reckoning. That history matters because it shows that disruptive action is not automatically anti-democratic. Sometimes it is the route by which democracy forces power to listen.⁷ The idea that protest is only acceptable when it does not disrupt anything is not a principle of freedom; it is a principle of managed dissent.⁸

The double standard

The argument, developed in earlier Truthaholics posts, is that the UK state increasingly punishes anti-war dissent while shielding power-aligned interests.⁹ That concern becomes sharper when compared with the way climate protest and Just Stop Oil are usually charged under ordinary offences like criminal damage or obstruction, while anti-war direct action is pushed toward the language of extremism and terror.¹⁰

That is not consistency. It is selective severity.

HRA 1998 and ECHR rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 brings Convention rights into domestic law, especially Articles 10 and 11 on expression and peaceful assembly.¹¹ Those rights are qualified, so proportionality matters. In protest cases, courts have sometimes had to ask whether conviction is a justified interference with those rights.¹²

But this is where the current doctrine is uneven. After DPP v Ziegler, Article 10 and 11 analysis matters in some protest settings, especially where the offence itself turns on obstruction and the interference is non-violent.¹³ By contrast, the Court of Appeal’s 2024 criminal-damage ruling sharply narrows the room for using beliefs, urgency, or moral importance as a lawful excuse.¹⁴

That creates a real tension. The law recognises that disruptive protest can still fall within Convention protection, but it often refuses to let that protection do any serious work where criminal damage is concerned. A serious legal system should at least admit that this is a narrowing choice, not a neutral inevitability.¹⁵

What should change

A better legal approach would not create a blanket excuse for criminal damage. It would simply stop the state from using terrorism law where ordinary criminal law is enough. It would also force the system to distinguish properly between vandalism, civil disobedience, and genuine terrorism.¹⁶

That is the real issue Rosenberg’s article avoids. It assumes the conclusion it wants to prove: that state suppression equals public safety. But the legal and moral picture is more complicated than that.

Bottom line

If the law is to remain credible, it must be able to distinguish between protest, criminal damage, and terror. Rosenberg’s article blurs those lines. The law should not.

If the law is to retain any credibility, it must stop confusing protest with terror and inconvenience with danger. Palestine Action may be controversial and unlawful, but that is not the same as terrorism. The real scandal is not that people are protesting Gaza too loudly; it is that the state is reaching for the most draconian label available to protect itself from accountability. That is not the rule of law. It is the rule of power.

When a state calls dissent “terrorism” to protect its own complicity, the problem is no longer the protest movement — it is the political system itself.

Footnotes

1. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
2. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, ss 1 and 5.
3. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures Order (26 January 2024); ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine (21 November 2024).
4. OHCHR, ‘Arms exports to Israel must stop immediately: UN experts’ (23 February 2024).
5. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(a).
6. Truthaholics, ‘An Exploration of Arguable Routes of Appeal against the Outrageous Filton Trial Sentences & Criminalisation of Direct Action as Terrorism!’ (13 June 2026).
7. Truthaholics, ‘Drawing the Line: Why the Palestine Action Case Matters for the Future of British Dissent & Direct Action!’ (15 June 2026).
8. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity: Great Israeli Real Estate Event & the Constitutional Case Against Palestine Action Proscription!’ (16 June 2026).
9. Truthaholics, ‘Asymmetry of UK State Impunity …’; Truthaholics, ‘Criminalising Direct Action? Why the UK Supreme Court Should Reverse the Court of Appeal!’ (15 June 2026).
10. The Guardian, ‘Climate protesters in England and Wales lose criminal damage defence’ (18 March 2024).
11. Human Rights Act 1998, ss 2–3, 6; European Convention on Human Rights, arts 10, 11.
12. DPP v Ziegler UKSC 23.
13. ibid.
14. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
15. Human Rights Act 1998, s 3; DPP v Ziegler; Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023.
16. Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2023; Terrorism Act 2000, s 1.
    

"A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/vpn-ban-table-july-labour

#UK #VPNs #Privacy #NannyState #Surveillance #BigBrother #AgeVerification #DigitalID

"A VPN ban could be on the table as part of the ongoing internet safety crackdown, which has already seen the Government announce a social media ban for under-16s.On Monday, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall announced a law change, set to be put in place by 2027, which will ban children from social media and AI chatbots as well as introduce ‘curfews’ to stop ‘doomscrolling’.

The ban was announced in response to concerns that social media is unsafe, making children miserable, and could cause lasting damage to their mental health. On Tuesday morning, Ms Kendall hinted that further restrictions could be introduced on Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

VPNs have become increasingly popular in the UK since the Online Safety Act was enacted. Often used by employers to create a network to share resources, VPNs can also be used to spoof or hide your browsing location, thereby sidestepping geographical restrictions. A VPN is a system which connects somebody’s device – normally a computer or smartphone – to a server in a different location. This means that the websites that person visits cannot see their IP address.

It is used by many people for privacy or to get around restrictions that websites place on who can visit a page. It can also be useful for allowing people to work from home and still access their workplace’s resources."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2217934/vpn-ban-table-july-labour

#UK #VPNs #Privacy #NannyState #Surveillance #BigBrother #AgeVerification #DigitalID

#sarcasm Thanks, Grandpa Britain. I would have been a train wreck of an adult without your daddy approach to social media. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/16/the-uks-teen-social-media-ban-is-political-theater-not-child-safety-policy/
#UnitedKingdom #socialMedia #ageVerification #Australia #dataPrivacy #KeirStarmer #LabourParty #nannyState

#sarcasm Thanks, Grandpa Britain. I would have been a train wreck of an adult without your daddy approach to social media. https://www.techdirt.com/2026/06/16/the-uks-teen-social-media-ban-is-political-theater-not-child-safety-policy/
#UnitedKingdom #socialMedia #ageVerification #Australia #dataPrivacy #KeirStarmer #LabourParty #nannyState

""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

"A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/15/britain-plots-digital-bedtime-after-kicking-under-16s-off-social-media/5255341

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Oligopolies #Censorship #BigBrother #BigTech #Privacy #Anonymity

""Every failed attempt to make children safer online is followed by more surveillance and censorship," he said. "Children have rights too and these policies will harm their free expression and privacy rights, and push them into less regulated spaces. Meanwhile the business models driving harms are untouched."

Others questioned whether the measures can realistically be enforced. Mark Jones, an online harms specialist and partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, noted that the consultation closed only weeks ago and warned that determined teenagers have a habit of finding ways around restrictions.

"A social media ban only helps if it is genuinely enforceable," Jones said. "If large numbers of young people simply circumvent the restrictions, parents will just lose visibility into where their children are actually spending time online rather than reclaiming any control."

The political case for the crackdown appears relatively straightforward, but the practical one is less so. The government now has to persuade social media companies to enforce the rules and teenagers not to find ways around them."

https://www.theregister.com/personal-tech/2026/06/15/britain-plots-digital-bedtime-after-kicking-under-16s-off-social-media/5255341

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Oligopolies #Censorship #BigBrother #BigTech #Privacy #Anonymity

Driver Aids Have Ruined Driving: How Far Will This Go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

...an examination of the #UX of the current Toyota Prius which segues into an epic rant from #Driving4Answers which is definitely on-topic for the Surfhosting orbit.

#Cars #UXfail #NannyTech #NannyState #Safety #Technology #Unpredictability #Control

Driver Aids Have Ruined Driving: How Far Will This Go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

...an examination of the #UX of the current Toyota Prius which segues into an epic rant from #Driving4Answers which is definitely on-topic for the Surfhosting orbit.

#Cars #UXfail #NannyTech #NannyState #Safety #Technology #Unpredictability #Control

From ‘Living life online’ to ‘Being respectful and responsible’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zx24xg8/articles/znv4dnb#zfbkjfr

What better defence of the ‘Nanny State’ in support of billionaire fascist techno creeps could you possibly get?

Let’s face it, it didn’t take bad and evil actors long to realise the internet was fertile ground for intelligence, surveillance, scamming, espionage, expropriation of resources, sex traffickers, money laundering, troll farms, bots, racketeering and spawning fascist cults, by amplifying grievance and hate towards minorities. Just to add, who have had their Nations repeatedly decimated by Empires. The argument that people are too apathetic to care or take responsibilities for their interests is perhaps the most spurious ever conceived. Nevertheless if you accept the people have been sucker punched into accepting an unbelievably diabolical shit show, it has popular support. It is possible that the fascist creeps can hold onto their cherished inequality and injustice and avoid revolution, but they are begging for it. How else to end it, the contagion of their Hydra then by giving diverse interests democratic rights? #RepublicSovereignty #PeoplePower #NannyState #EndingCorporateEvil #Foundation #Ethics #Philosophy #DialecticPrinciple
#TheFederation #SovereignRepublics

From ‘Living life online’ to ‘Being respectful and responsible’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zx24xg8/articles/znv4dnb#zfbkjfr

What better defence of the ‘Nanny State’ in support of billionaire fascist techno creeps could you possibly get?

Let’s face it, it didn’t take bad and evil actors long to realise the internet was fertile ground for intelligence, surveillance, scamming, espionage, expropriation of resources, sex traffickers, money laundering, troll farms, bots, racketeering and spawning fascist cults, by amplifying grievance and hate towards minorities. Just to add, who have had their Nations repeatedly decimated by Empires. The argument that people are too apathetic to care or take responsibilities for their interests is perhaps the most spurious ever conceived. Nevertheless if you accept the people have been sucker punched into accepting an unbelievably diabolical shit show, it has popular support. It is possible that the fascist creeps can hold onto their cherished inequality and injustice and avoid revolution, but they are begging for it. How else to end it, the contagion of their Hydra then by giving diverse interests democratic rights? #RepublicSovereignty #PeoplePower #NannyState #EndingCorporateEvil #Foundation #Ethics #Philosophy #DialecticPrinciple
#TheFederation #SovereignRepublics

Again, to involve the government in culture wars is gratuitous when we consider that it is supposed to settle disputes, not pick winners and losers. The free speech-restricting FCC's attempted power grab regulating gender content surely looks like the agency playing the parent. https://reason.com/2026/05/31/the-fcc-wants-warning-labels-for-shows-with-transgender-content/
#FCC #censorship #cultureWars #FirstAmendment #freeSpeech #LGBTQ #moralPanic #nannyState #trans

Again, to involve the government in culture wars is gratuitous when we consider that it is supposed to settle disputes, not pick winners and losers. The free speech-restricting FCC's attempted power grab regulating gender content surely looks like the agency playing the parent. https://reason.com/2026/05/31/the-fcc-wants-warning-labels-for-shows-with-transgender-content/
#FCC #censorship #cultureWars #FirstAmendment #freeSpeech #LGBTQ #moralPanic #nannyState #trans

Just because it's a Zyn doesn't mean that it's a crime (but I'm sure the sententious moralists in power will all disagree). https://reason.com/2026/05/26/france-is-banning-zyn-and-threatening-to-jail-people-for-5-years/
#France #harmReduction #morality #nannyState #nicotine #nicotinePouches #puns

I posted this on Facebook in 2023:

"I am very close to becoming a single issue voter: If you support making pseudoephedrine prescription-only, you don't get my vote."

My position becomes much more militant when I have a sinus infection.

#NannyState

A summary of the #GovernmentDecidesAct in short skit form.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zbpe--AZOeI

#papersPlease #computerKillswitch #nannyState #uspol #ParentsDecideAct

A summary of the #GovernmentDecidesAct in short skit form.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zbpe--AZOeI

#papersPlease #computerKillswitch #nannyState #uspol #ParentsDecideAct

Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/13/opinion_os_verification/

#HackerNews #NannyState #Linux #KidsID #Booting #TechNews #OpenSource

Nanny state discovers Linux, demands it check kids' IDs before booting

https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/13/opinion_os_verification/

#HackerNews #NannyState #Linux #KidsID #Booting #TechNews #OpenSource

Whether it's loony progressives like RFK Jr. quarreling over meat and vaccines or both blue and red states distrusting well-meaning parents of transgender kids, one thing is for sure. The more I think about it, the more I realize that not even nannies agree on what's best for kids, or in this case citizens, and that is an argument against the nanny state.

#nannyState #MAHA #meat #RFKjr #trans #vaccines

No hacks or kooks, and certainly no politics in science. It's time to ignore, dispense with and abolish the Food and Drug Administration. I'm sure all those private health organizations would love to fill the void, and maybe then we will have as many things approved here as already in Europe and other developed countries.

https://www.cato.org/blog/when-fda-becomes-political-patients-autonomy-suffers

#AbolishTheFDA #bureaucracy #FDA #nannyState #overregulation #paternalism #politicizationOfMedicine #politicizationOfScience

"French lawmakers are preparing a renewed push to limit children’s online exposure, unveiling a proposal that would block anyone under 15 from using social media platforms.

The draft legislation, reviewed by AFP, sets September 2026 as the target date for enforcement.

President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the plan and urged Parliament to take it up.

France’s effort follows a similar move in Australia, which recently became the first country to impose an outright ban on under-16s accessing social media.

To apply such a rule, online platforms would need to verify every user’s age at sign-up or login. This would go far beyond the current model of self-declared birthdays and instead rely on official credentials such as national IDs, driver’s licenses, or government-backed digital identity wallets.

In effect, it would introduce a form of digital ID into everyday internet use."

https://reclaimthenet.org/france-social-media-ban-under-15-digital-id-age-verification

#France #EU #Macron #SocialMedia #NannyState #PoliceState #Censorship #DigitalID #AgeVerification #Surveillance #Privacy

"French lawmakers are preparing a renewed push to limit children’s online exposure, unveiling a proposal that would block anyone under 15 from using social media platforms.

The draft legislation, reviewed by AFP, sets September 2026 as the target date for enforcement.

President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the plan and urged Parliament to take it up.

France’s effort follows a similar move in Australia, which recently became the first country to impose an outright ban on under-16s accessing social media.

To apply such a rule, online platforms would need to verify every user’s age at sign-up or login. This would go far beyond the current model of self-declared birthdays and instead rely on official credentials such as national IDs, driver’s licenses, or government-backed digital identity wallets.

In effect, it would introduce a form of digital ID into everyday internet use."

https://reclaimthenet.org/france-social-media-ban-under-15-digital-id-age-verification

#France #EU #Macron #SocialMedia #NannyState #PoliceState #Censorship #DigitalID #AgeVerification #Surveillance #Privacy

"Australia has activated a new requirement for search engines to verify the ages of their signed-in users, with companies now facing a six-month countdown to full compliance.

The rule, which began on December 27, sits within a newly registered industry code under the authority of the eSafety Commissioner and extends the country’s expanding system of online content controls.

Search services such as Google and Bing must soon introduce age-assurance checks when logged-in users perform searches that might surface adult or otherwise “high-impact” material.

The mechanisms vary, but common approaches include prompting users to confirm their age through a pop-up screen or submitting an official document, credit card details, or digital ID.

The eSafety framework allows companies to choose their method, yet the guidance materials show a narrow range of real-world options: facial-recognition age estimates, photo ID scans, parent verification for minors, or reliance on third-party verification services already holding age data.

All options are privacy-invasive and would end anonymous searches.

For those not logged in, searches will still function, but some content may appear blurred.

Logged-in users under 18 will automatically receive filtered results excluding topics the government labels as harmful.

How these controls will coexist with privacy-focused or anonymous search engines remains unclear."

https://reclaimthenet.org/australia-enforces-age-id-checks-for-search-engine-users

#Australia #Surveillance #AgeVerification #NannyState #PoliceState #Censorship

"Australia has activated a new requirement for search engines to verify the ages of their signed-in users, with companies now facing a six-month countdown to full compliance.

The rule, which began on December 27, sits within a newly registered industry code under the authority of the eSafety Commissioner and extends the country’s expanding system of online content controls.

Search services such as Google and Bing must soon introduce age-assurance checks when logged-in users perform searches that might surface adult or otherwise “high-impact” material.

The mechanisms vary, but common approaches include prompting users to confirm their age through a pop-up screen or submitting an official document, credit card details, or digital ID.

The eSafety framework allows companies to choose their method, yet the guidance materials show a narrow range of real-world options: facial-recognition age estimates, photo ID scans, parent verification for minors, or reliance on third-party verification services already holding age data.

All options are privacy-invasive and would end anonymous searches.

For those not logged in, searches will still function, but some content may appear blurred.

Logged-in users under 18 will automatically receive filtered results excluding topics the government labels as harmful.

How these controls will coexist with privacy-focused or anonymous search engines remains unclear."

https://reclaimthenet.org/australia-enforces-age-id-checks-for-search-engine-users

#Australia #Surveillance #AgeVerification #NannyState #PoliceState #Censorship

"We could, and indeed should, discuss not only whether to use social media, but also, and above all, which social media we would like to use, or rather, how to implement them. Social media, in fact, are software products, and therefore infinitely more flexible than, say, cigarettes or alcohol, to name two products that have been heavily regulated with respect to minors. We should, therefore, broaden the debate by aiming to design social media capable of contributing to the intellectual, social, and emotional development of children and young people. Naturally, we should also address the broader question of the role we would like social media to have in contemporary society, but for now, let's limit ourselves to the specific category of young users. Given that a social media project specifically designed for children and young people should involve various professionals, particularly psychologists and teachers, it seems possible to identify six key characteristics from which to begin the discussion.

First, eliminate data collection. No data of any kind is collected on minors, with no exceptions.

Second, zero advertising. Even excluding minors, social media users still number in the billions, so it's more than legitimate to ask companies to subsidize services for minors with the huge revenue generated by all other users. The same goes for the ban on data collection.

Third, strictly limit the daily screen time."

https://ilmanifesto.it/cambiare-i-social-media-invece-di-vietarli-ai-minori

#SocialMedia #Censorship #NannyState #AgeVerification

"We could, and indeed should, discuss not only whether to use social media, but also, and above all, which social media we would like to use, or rather, how to implement them. Social media, in fact, are software products, and therefore infinitely more flexible than, say, cigarettes or alcohol, to name two products that have been heavily regulated with respect to minors. We should, therefore, broaden the debate by aiming to design social media capable of contributing to the intellectual, social, and emotional development of children and young people. Naturally, we should also address the broader question of the role we would like social media to have in contemporary society, but for now, let's limit ourselves to the specific category of young users. Given that a social media project specifically designed for children and young people should involve various professionals, particularly psychologists and teachers, it seems possible to identify six key characteristics from which to begin the discussion.

First, eliminate data collection. No data of any kind is collected on minors, with no exceptions.

Second, zero advertising. Even excluding minors, social media users still number in the billions, so it's more than legitimate to ask companies to subsidize services for minors with the huge revenue generated by all other users. The same goes for the ban on data collection.

Third, strictly limit the daily screen time."

https://ilmanifesto.it/cambiare-i-social-media-invece-di-vietarli-ai-minori

#SocialMedia #Censorship #NannyState #AgeVerification

"Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has unveiled a new framework urging social media and technology companies to censor so-called “misogynistic” content as part of its A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls campaign.

The initiative, framed as an effort to protect women from online abuse, further weakens the distinction between “harmful” conduct and lawful expression, a tension Ofcom itself acknowledges in its own documentation.

The regulator’s new guidance encourages platforms to adopt a wide range of “safety” measures, many of which would directly influence what users can post, see, and share.

These include inserting prompts that nudge users to “reconsider” certain comments, suppressing “misogynistic” material in recommendation feeds and search results, temporarily suspending users who post repeated “abuse,” and de-monetizing content flagged under this category.

Moderators would also receive special training on “gender-based harms,” while posting rates could be throttled to slow the spread of unwanted speech.

Ofcom’s document also endorses the use of automated scanning systems like “hash-matching” to locate and delete non-consensual intimate imagery.

While intended to prevent the circulation of explicit photos, such systems typically involve the mass analysis of user uploads and can wrongly flag legitimate material."

https://reclaimthenet.org/ofcom-online-safety-rules-censorship-misogyny-social-media

#UK #FreeSpeech #Censorship #SocialMedia #Misogyny #OnlineSafety #Ofcom #NannyState

"Britain’s communications regulator, Ofcom, has unveiled a new framework urging social media and technology companies to censor so-called “misogynistic” content as part of its A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls campaign.

The initiative, framed as an effort to protect women from online abuse, further weakens the distinction between “harmful” conduct and lawful expression, a tension Ofcom itself acknowledges in its own documentation.

The regulator’s new guidance encourages platforms to adopt a wide range of “safety” measures, many of which would directly influence what users can post, see, and share.

These include inserting prompts that nudge users to “reconsider” certain comments, suppressing “misogynistic” material in recommendation feeds and search results, temporarily suspending users who post repeated “abuse,” and de-monetizing content flagged under this category.

Moderators would also receive special training on “gender-based harms,” while posting rates could be throttled to slow the spread of unwanted speech.

Ofcom’s document also endorses the use of automated scanning systems like “hash-matching” to locate and delete non-consensual intimate imagery.

While intended to prevent the circulation of explicit photos, such systems typically involve the mass analysis of user uploads and can wrongly flag legitimate material."

https://reclaimthenet.org/ofcom-online-safety-rules-censorship-misogyny-social-media

#UK #FreeSpeech #Censorship #SocialMedia #Misogyny #OnlineSafety #Ofcom #NannyState

This is what paranoia looks like folks.
To become sick from #asbestos you have to work with the dusty/fluffy form of it for long periods of time.
The form which is locked in cement or present in damp sand is probably harmless.
#nannystate
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-19/potentially-asbestos-contaminated-coloured-sand-at-diwali/106027712

This is what paranoia looks like folks.
To become sick from #asbestos you have to work with the dusty/fluffy form of it for long periods of time.
The form which is locked in cement or present in damp sand is probably harmless.
#nannystate
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-19/potentially-asbestos-contaminated-coloured-sand-at-diwali/106027712

Someone is deliberately trying to provoke Queenslanders right?
And everyone else with a healthy distaste for authority?

Amazing, Mastodon has gone from "highly recommended" to "go elsewhere - stinks like rotten fish" with a single wildly offensive pop-up.

#Queensland #NannyState

Someone is deliberately trying to provoke Queenslanders right?
And everyone else with a healthy distaste for authority?

Amazing, Mastodon has gone from "highly recommended" to "go elsewhere - stinks like rotten fish" with a single wildly offensive pop-up.

#Queensland #NannyState

Now doing the one for the Dutch high voltage grid operators.

APPARENTLY I cannot bring my dog to a 380kV station. #nannystate

Now doing the one for the Dutch high voltage grid operators.

APPARENTLY I cannot bring my dog to a 380kV station. #nannystate

"4chan and Kiwi Farms sued the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) over its age verification law in U.S. federal court Wednesday, fulfilling a promise it announced on August 23. In the lawsuit, 4chan and Kiwi Farms claim that threats and fines they have received from Ofcom “constitute foreign judgments that would restrict speech under U.S. law.”

Both entities say in the lawsuit that they are wholly based in the U.S. and that they do not have any operations in the United Kingdom and are therefore not subject to local laws. Ofcom’s attempts to fine and block 4chan and Kiwi Farms, and the lawsuit against Ofcom, highlight the messiness involved with trying to restrict access to specific websites or to force companies to comply with age verification laws.

The lawsuit calls Ofcom an “industry-funded global censorship bureau.”"

https://www.404media.co/4chan-and-kiwi-farms-sue-the-uk-over-its-age-verification-law/

#UK #AgeVerification #NannyState #Surveillance #Censorship #4Chan #Ofcom #KiwiFarms #SocialMedia #FreedomOfSpeech

"First, there’s the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, introduced in 2016, which she describes as “deeply authoritarian”. Earlier this year, The Washington Post reported that the Home Office had used a “technical capability notice” under the Act to demand Apple provide access to a user’s encrypted messages and data. The leaked story caused a furore in Washington. Apple has appealed, and the Home Office looks set to back down. But for some, the episode has cast a shadow over the UK.

“It’s a very, very disturbing power,” says Whittaker. If such a “back door” was opened, she says, it would create a technological weakness that could enable other governments and powers to infiltrate all users’ data. “There’s no one back door in an interconnected network,” she network,” she says, meaning that if you create one, more can be created. “If you implement that in the UK … it poisons the whole network. So that’s Ukraine. That’s Belarus. That is anywhere else.”

She says that one of the “most pernicious and alarming” problems is that if a company accepts a “technical capability notice”, it is prohibited from informing users.
(...)
Then there’s the Online Safety Act, under which tech platforms such as Facebook and X are required to use age-verification tools and block posts in order to protect under-18 users from “harmful” content, such as pornography and self-harm videos. Whittaker describes this “technically incoherent” law as “a mess”, citing the removal of LGBTQ+ posts on some platforms and a surge in the use of virtual private networks (VPNs), with which people can hide their identity, location and age.

Whittaker thinks these two pieces of legislation are “deeply incoherent” with the UK’s stated desire to become an “AI champion”. “You get real boosterism on that side, which I think is in many cases ill-conceived.”"

https://www.thetimes.com/article/fbca3eda-fd9f-4e46-a2f7-36d0b05acccb

#UK #Surveillance #Censorship #OSA #OnlineSafetyAct #Privacy #NannyState

"The UK is having a moment. In late July, new rules took effect that require all online services available in the UK to assess whether they host content considered harmful to children, and if so, these services must introduce age checks to prevent children from accessing such content. Online services are also required to change their algorithms and moderation systems to ensure that content defined as harmful, like violent imagery, is not shown to young people.

During the four years that the legislation behind these changes—the Online Safety Act (OSA)—was debated in Parliament, and in the two years since while the UK’s independent, online regulator Ofcom devised the implementing regulations, experts from across civil society repeatedly flagged concerns about the impact of this law on both adults’ and children’s rights. Yet politicians in the UK pushed ahead and enacted one of the most contentious age verification mandates that we’ve seen.

The case of safety online is not solved through technology alone.
No one—no matter their age—should have to hand over their passport or driver’s license just to access legal information and speak freely. As we’ve been saying for many years now, the approach that UK politicians have taken with the Online Safety Act is reckless, short-sighted, and will introduce more harm to the children that it is trying to protect. Here are five reasons why:"

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/blocking-access-harmful-content-will-not-protect-children-online-no-matter-how

#UK #AgeVerification #OSA #OnlineSafetyAct #NannyState

"Reddit has introduced age verification on its UK site to stop people aged under 18 from looking at "certain mature content".

The social media platform brought in the measures to comply with new rules under the UK's Online Safety Act which require sites that show adult material to introduce "robust" age checking techniques.

Reddit, known for its online communities and discussions, said that while it does not want to know who its audience is: "It would be helpful for our safety efforts to be able to confirm whether you are a child or an adult."

Ofcom, the UK regulator, said: "We expect other companies to follow suit, or face enforcement if they fail to act."

Reddit said that from 14 July, an outside firm called Persona will perform age verification for the social media platform either through an uploaded selfie or "a photo of your government ID", such as a passport.

It said Reddit will not have access to the photo and will only retain a user's verification status and date of birth so people do not have to re-enter it each time they try to access restricted content.

Reddit added that Persona "promises not to retain the picture for longer than seven days" and will not have access to a user's data on the site.

The new rules in the UK come into force on 25 July."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4ep1znk4zo

#UK #SocialMedia #Reddit #AgeVerification #NannyState #PoliceState #OnlineSafetyAct

Look what I found! My favourite beer, hard to get these days! #brewdog #nannystate #stirling

"The second approach is much broader, covering every social media user, and that’s tackling the way the platforms function. We have plenty of reporting and research that shows social media platforms are designed to be addictive — to ensure people spend more time on the app, thus generating more advertising profits. Social media platforms learned techniques from gambling companies to keep users hooked by using likes, notifications, and other methods to entice people to keep coming back, triggering dopamine responses that their brains craved even if the platforms made them feel worse at the same time.

Tackling those addiction design practices, dark patterns in interface design that nudge people to perform certain actions, and the way the platforms’ algorithms spread and amplify certain (often extreme or sensationalist) content to keep people engaged is a more difficult task than a hard age limit. Despite the country’s decision to move forward with an age limit, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has already been examining and reporting on platform design issues and the issues with algorithmic recommendation systems.

If we’re serious about minimizing the harms of social media platforms, design interventions and algorithmic limits are a much more promising approach."

https://www.disconnect.blog/p/social-media-must-be-reined-in

#SocialMedia #AddictiveDesign #Algorithms #BigTech #DarkPatterns #AgeVerification #NannyState

"The latest version of KOSA states that the bill would require social media platforms to “remove addictive product features,” give parents more control and oversight of their kids’ social media, create a duty for platforms to mitigate content focused on topics like suicide and disordered eating, and require transparency from social media platforms to share the steps they’re taking to protect children.

Those who are in favor of the bill say it would hold platforms legally accountable if they host harmful content that minors should not view. Opponents said it could inadvertently affect sites that host LGBTQ content. They’re also concerned it could lead to more censorship online.

“Sponsors are claiming—again—that the latest version won’t censor online content. It isn’t true. This bill still sets up a censorship regime disguised as a ‘duty of care,’ and it will do what previous versions threatened: suppress lawful, important speech online, especially for young people,” Joe Mullin, senior policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.

However, updates made to the bill help to make its reach less broad and remove attorneys’ general ability to prosecute platforms. It also makes more precise the harm it expects social media and other websites to protect against. This has led to some opponents of the bill changing their stance."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/republicans-seek-new-oversight-online-speech-boosting-ai-rcna207347

#USA #GOP #SocialMedia #ContentModeration #Censorship #KOSA #FreedomOfSpeech #Section230 #CDA #NannyState