this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
849 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

73379 readers
4237 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Prominent backbench MP Sarah Champion launched a campaign against VPNs previously, saying: “My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems.” And the Labour Party said there were “gaps” in the bill that needed to be amended.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ronno@feddit.nl 3 points 34 minutes ago

"Stop defending yourself, and let me hit you" vibes.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 47 minutes ago

I love watching politicians try to understand the internet.

VPNs have loads of vanilla use cases.

It would be infinitely more productive to regulate the predatory practices of stream providers and reduce the incentive for piracy.

[–] falynns@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago

"Hey! Stop using well known workarounds to my idiot demands! Surely this is brand new technology that no one could have known about!"

[–] possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 hours ago

I'm looking forward to the next UK election where the headline will be: Labour has lost the election in a landslide that left them with dozens of votes total

Every single person who didn't think this would affect them who watches porn in any capacity is very likely highly pissed off and will continue to be for as long as this draconian bullshit is enabled.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 4 hours ago

just do what the chinese do to get around thier great wall. use proxies and anti-detect browsers, its the next step after VPN.. you might want to look around how to set these up.

[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 24 points 6 hours ago

But they can't seem to muster up the "political" will to tax the rich

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 14 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Someone should start a bussiness near the border of Republic of Ireland and get two antennas pointed at each other across the border, with the RoI side having connected to the free internet, then the UK Northern Ireland side connected to the Intra-net. You pay a "Club Membership Fee" to get access to the proxy network.

Its not a VPN, its a Nerd Techie Club, just with a free proxy service as part of the club membership 😉

[–] ThePrivacyPolicy@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Gonna end up with a country-wide rogue WiFi mesh network setup that's fed from neighboring countries haha

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's it possible to turn our phones into Intranet nodes and have some connect to the uncensored Internet?

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 2 points 4 hours ago

Possible? Yes. Probable? No. LTE would work wonderfully for such usecase, but the firmware to it is never shared. Wifi would work theoretically, but the distance would get in a way. Bandwidth would go down all the way to a rounding error.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 95 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

If they outlaw VPNs then all internet-connected businesses will flee and everyone will just move to the dark net. Then you’ve got a whole other problem.

These ancient tyrants are in over their heads.

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Selfishly, I think this is great for I2P/Snowflake/Tor. The incoming legitimate traffic helps to protect its most vulnerable users.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (5 children)

Honest question but what makes you think that would happen? Do most businesses use VPNs?

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 hours ago

VPNs are one of the core security measures of all large companies.

VPNs aren't just a "hide your IP" tool, they're a way of giving someone access to an organisation's internal network. Sensitive servers such as databases, wikis, scheduling tools etc don't have publicly exposed IPs, they only have connections that are accessible from inside that VPN. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_(computing)

[–] Mamdani_Da_Savior@lemmy.world 22 points 9 hours ago

I have never worked for a company that didn't utilize VPNs.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 14 points 9 hours ago

Damn near every business uses VPN technology. They literally cannot exist in the modern world without it. It would be incredibly expensive and impractical to do without.

[–] itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 hours ago

I work in consulting. I have a VPN for my company and also for each client

[–] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

I have no less than 7 VPNs installed on my work laptop, and I work for one single company.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago

The UK has long championed writing legislative checks that their emaciated state infrastructure can't cash.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 26 points 11 hours ago

This online safety bill is dishonest. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money.

[–] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 28 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

They can come and pry TOR from my cold dead hands lmfao

this law can eat shit. i ain't gonna dox myself and feed my personal info to companies. maybe they should take this as a hint that most people care about their privacy

if you don't want kids seeing NSFW stuff be an actual parent and don't raise your kids on the internet??

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm Australia we have just decided to ban all social media for people under 16, i think it's great honestly because screw from insta etc but I don't think it's the government ls job to prevent kids from using social media.

I really think it's a way to force adults to register their id to accounts not about protecting kids.

Parents should monitor what their kids are doing not the government

[–] magickrock@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago

I agree that it should primarily be a parents responsibility to keep kids off social media. But the big problem with social media is that a large proportion of young children don't want to be on social media and recognise the detrimental impact it has on them, but the fear of missing out or being excluded is what keeps them on it. it then becomes a collective action problem, to get them off it you need to get a lot of their peers off it as well. There are movements where groups of parents try to do this, but reaching the critical mass necessary to do it is difficult.

Hopefully the ban keeps a large number off to reduce the pressure on kids to be on it and at the same time the parents can do their bit as well.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 40 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

"Safety" meanwhile these same mp's can't budget can't run critical public services like bloody hospitals.

But don't worry, your thoughts and activity are policed.

Democratic failure to prioritise and run a country at its finest on display for the world to see. The waste is astounding.

[–] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 13 points 11 hours ago

it's both hilarious and sad how this is coming from a "please think of the children!!" perspective meanwhile gender affirming care for trans kids got banned pretty recently

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 8 points 12 hours ago

We call this a waste of tax payer's money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems.”

When I was a kid, Reddit and general public Internet access weren't things, but I sure managed to get my hands on pornography. I'm pretty confident that even entirely killing Internet access isn't going to stop kids who want to get ahold of porn from getting ahold of it.

[–] ThePrivacyPolicy@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 hours ago

Kids will be out there studying for their ham radio licenses to setup wireless long range packet networks and bbs's just to exchange porn lol

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 71 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (5 children)

It would have been smarter for the UK to mandate that every ISP must provide a family filter for free as part of their service. Something that is optional and can be turned on or off by the account holder but allows parents to set filters (and curfews) if they want. They could even require that ISPs require new signups to affirm if they want it on or off by default so people with families are more likely to start with it enabled.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 22 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is that content filters don't work all that well in the age of https everywhere. I mean, you can block the pornhub.com domain, that's fairly straightforward ... but what about reddit.com which has porn content but also legitimately non-porn content. Or closer to home: any lemmy instance.

I think it would be better if politicians stopped pearl clutching and realized that porn perhaps isn't the worst problem in the world. Tiktok and influencer brainrot, incel and manosphere stuff, rage baiting social media, etc. are all much worse things for the psyche of young people, and they're doing exactly jack shit about that.

They know. The "think of the children" angle is just cover to enrage the tabloid readers and to be used as a straw man against anyone criticisng the law ("you're a pedophile"). The real purpose is "let's enumerate the IDs of everyone who uses the internet for anything we don't like" and "let's censor anything we don't like starting with LGBTQ content"

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 12 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

The problem is that they're not trying to protect kids. They're trying to be like China where every user has to identify themselves so they can be tracked across the internet.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

The new Christian nationalist orders are not so patient. Even Charles X of France rolled back rights too speedily, sparking public outcry resulting in Parisian haircuts. (a bit off the top 🪟🔪)

SCOTUS used to be sneakier, carving out sections of fourth- and fifth-amendment protections, but since Dobbs the Federalist Society Six have tossed subtlety and reason to the wind and now adjudicate away rights based on vibe and conservative rhetoric grievance.

Hopefully the US and UK both will recognize why the French public was swift to act when manarchists took shears to the Napoleonic Code.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 57 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] portnull@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 65 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Damn. Labor really wants to lose that election to Farage. Good luck to Corbyn and Sultana, I guess.

[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Farage: Gets elected.

Everyone: At least you'll abolish the OSA!

Farage: Nah, I said that because it would make me popular. Amma use the OSA to ban things I consider "woke".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

Enterprises will love that. A perfect excuse to end wfh. However, this will cripple business travelers. I'm sure there'll be some exception for corporations where they can exercise maximum control over their employees while still being allowed to generate capital.

Hey UK: suck it.

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They couldn't switch off VPNs for businesses. I work in a hospital and we use VPNs to create secure tunnels to other third party health care companies as well as NHS adjacent health services amongst other things. This is to protect patient sensitive data amongst other things. This would cripple our service and go against NHS england and government requirements for the secure transfer and sharing of data.

This would have to be public VPNs only. Despite the fact that it would be complete bullshit either way.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 10 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

Exactly. The best they could hope to do would be to create an exemption for businesses in which case I open my own fapping business.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

(NOTE: Any links to politician tweets in this comment are from Nitter mirrors, not direct links to Elon Musk's nazi bar.)

The Technology Secretary, Peter Kyle, pretty much called Nigel Farage a paedophile in a news network interview earlier today because he opposed the Online Safety Act, by saying he's on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile.

He then went to Twitter and doubled-down on this stance:

If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that.

This of course generated a lot of fury among the site's users.

For context, the Online Safety Act has been used to censor and age-gate anything and everything deemed "illegal content" under Ofcom guidelines. Any social media platforms must comply, else risk getting fined up to 10% of your annual global revenue. This is so broadly worded that it includes anything related to illegal immigration and people-smuggling (literally quoted in the GOV.UK page I linked.)

Twitter had genuinely been forced to censor all coverage around anti-asylum seeker protests behind age verification requirements, which has riled up a lot of right-wing politicians here. The reason for these protests is that the previous (Conservative) government had been paying exorbitant amounts of money to house asylum seekers in hotels, effectively lining the pockets of hotel chain executives - all while we deal with a massive housing and cost of living crisis.

This was meant to be a measure to give asylum seekers temporary accommodation which was put in place at the start of COVID, but has been government policy since 2020 with no end in sight.

Labour have also done jack-shit to resolve our skyrocketed (legal) immigration levels since they got into power, except for scrapping the Rwanda Deal which would have deported any illegal migrants to a third country for processing (which as the name obviously suggests, is the East African state of Rwanda.)

Zia Yusuf (head of Reform's DOGE division, yes they're ripping off Trump and Elon Musk) had this to say about the OSA on Twitter:

Britain is now a country which you can enter illegally without ID, but need photo ID to watch a protest against people entering without ID.

Let that sink in.

Labour have fucked up so catastrophically hard with how they've handled this legislation, that they've straight-up generated bipartisan sympathy for the leaders of a right-wing populist party - who are the only political force that have vowed to repeal the legislation because it is being used for mass surveillance and censorship.

Also, if you're thinking of voting Reform UK in 2029 (and it has honestly crossed my mind because age verification checks are a major sticking point for me), then you should take the pledges from Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf with a grain of salt. Richard Tice (the party's deputy leader) openly tweeted support for pushing through mandatory ID checks on social media four years ago.

If Labour don't get rid of Keir Starmer, do a full cabinet reshuffle and reverse course, we are going to see a Reform landslide in the next election...

load more comments
view more: next ›