Just like with Digital ID, it will likely be sold not just for "the safety of children" but the replacement for passwords in the same manner as Face ID on phones and tablets.
And yes, when the UK implements this, others will follow - the UK is likely taking the lead to sell this to other countries.
It's also likely the phone will act as a bridge for devices that may not have a camera such as game consoles, TV's, digital media players (ie. Chromecast, Roku, Fire TV) and so forth. They'll likely have facial recognition via their apps that communicates with the device.
No websites for you. I suspect though I haven't seen anything yet that you'll have to verify via your phone if it has a camera. Which is likely how consoles will have to work around the requirements if they don't have a camera add-on.
Is this globally subject to "undue efforts" kinds of language? Since it would be such an onerous undertaking for the whole rest of the world to manage the ID system for the UK alone, will it be disregarded when the UK tries to fine foreign countries for not participating?
They'll try to come after companies, Brazilian style, who break the law while outside UK jurisdiction. If you remember what happened to X. ISPs and VPN's who operate in the UK will also have to block websites ordered to by Ofcom and the courts in the same manner as Russia's Roskomnadzor.
Will the entire UK just become its own walled garden internet like the North Koreans?
That's ultimately what the UK wants but they can't just disconnect from the Internet entirely unlike North Korea because it would decimate their economy. So they'll need time to think of a two tier network - an Intranet for the masses and a heavily restricted Internet for the elites and business.
I do wonder how the public will act when they have to verify their identity every single time they want to access Facebook, Netflix or do their grocery shopping online. Like I say, this is going to be a nightmare. That's probably when people will notice and get angry. But in private, it's likely websites will shut down their comment sections to avoid the risk of ruinous fines and social media will have to heavily moderate posts.
Archive: https://archive.ph/HMKaH
Not mentioned in the article is when it is due to be implemented. From my understanding, websites will have to implement it by the middle of March 2025. And it doesn't just apply to adult websites and social media, every website accessible in the UK will have to implement it and for every visit, not every account like how gambling websites work today after age verification. Otherwise you shut down if you're in the UK, block the UK (and VPN's) if you're outside the UK or risk a fine of £18m or 10% of your worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
This is going to be an absolute nightmare.
...the ones that still have a traditional upbringing are usually married in their late teens/early 20s so are out of this stupid culture.
They're also the ones who want relationships and are in them. Their single peers do not - they only want lifestyle sponsors. You can probably see why men in their mid twenties onwards are logically opting out of dating.
They are really pushing the German national and atheist lines hard.
Several ex-Muslims also claim he is not an ex-Muslim but is practicing the Islamic concept of taqiyya to conceal his identity. This and his pro-Gaza stance puts doubt on the Jewish theory.
The media also seem very keen on pushing an agenda on how terror is being performed, not by the religious, but by the irreligious - atheists. Suggesting that they are the true threat to the west, not migration or a specific religion.
Naturally they're also pushing the "far right", the "lone wolf" (a.k.a. "incel") and AfD line as well.
Yes. And it's only going to get worse. In the UK, the Online Safety Act will require all websites available in the UK to protect the safety of women and girls. That will require the likes of dating apps to vet men and stop unwanted attention and communication lest they face fines of £18m or 10% of their worldwide income, whatever is bigger. Only Chad will be able to continue unabated on dating apps, everyone else risks being banned as companies in fear of the fines overcompensate.
It's even worse nowadays. Women are actively rejecting the "beta bux" and going it alone, the state and alloparenting providing resources for them and their offspring via wealth distribution. Alongside affirmative action and young women now outearning their male counterparts.
The loneliness epidemic is only going to grow as more and more men get disenfranchised from dating and society.
You can't negotiate attraction with banter, flirting and game. And from revealed preferences (what they do as opposed to what they say), physical appearance is the biggest factor for attraction.
I've also found that the women who want relationships are already in them. Single women today, including non-feminist ones, are on the dating apps but aren't looking for a relationship. A good way to describe what they're seeking was stated in another community by another individual - a "lifestyle choice".
Men are rejecting cold approach regardless because it's too much of a risk now for much less payoff. They're even stationing police officers in UK nightclubs to deter men from making "unwanted advances".
The loneliness epidemic is going to grow exponentially and it doesn't help when the likes of ShortFatOtaku have been on a recent anti-single crusade to denounce single men as misogynists and state that you're only a man if a woman finds you attractive.
Maybe I don't follow the same people you do but I have found that creators are making longer videos and absolutely stuffing them full of advertisements as opposed to churning out daily videos (bar for an Advent Calendar - it is that time of year). I think YouTube is financially incentivising them to maximise the number of advertisements in their videos, particularly the five ad breaks every few minutes ones for two reasons - it makes the creator a lot more money compared to the usual two ads every five minutes model and it nudges viewers to subscribe to Premium. Even creators want people to move to Premium rather than watch ads. One creator I watched (I think it was EEVBlog but don't quote me on that) stated in a video from his analytics that despite Premium viewers making up a tiny minority of the viewership, it's around half his income compared to the free ad supported viewers (who don't ad-block).
Making longer videos keeps people engaged with them, boosts their revenue and takes revenue away from other creators. YouTube content creation is a competitive market like any other business and all the creators are competing with one another for ad/Premium money.
I'm old enough to remember when the main attack on gaming came from traditional Christian conservatives who were protesting about how violent video games were corrupting children, pushing them away from God and into sin and turning them into proto-violent criminals.
The most prominent activist against violent and sexual media in the UK was a fundamental evangelical Christian and social conservative. Was because she passed away in 2001.
The rationale around health and mental risks, genetic defects and other consequences are universally accepted. However, one thing looking through Hansard that caught my eye was this line:
However, the way to redress the issue is not to empower the state to ban adults from marrying each other, not least because I do not think such measures would be effective or enforceable.
I whiff a Trojan horse of more Government intervention in people's lives that will go beyond cousin marriages. There is going to be a "but" added after that sentence because Governments never let an opportunity to have more control over your private lives slip from their fingers. It'll be sold on the grounds of ending cousin marriages, a noble goal but won't stop there.
Charming = calling out to her by an attractive man. Harassment = calling out to her by an unattractive man.
The state is softening us up for the criminalisation of unwanted attention and behaviour. Which will also include being rejected in the dating market.
We are reaching the point now where increasing numbers of men, never mind transgender individuals, are going to have to be told that no-one is going to date them and we are going to, as a society, deal with telling them this reality and have them live the rest of their lives being outcast from the dating pool.
It will break twenty to thirty years of conditioning they have had around the concept of the "soulmate" and "there is someone for everyone". But it will be for the best. It'll be hard medicine to swallow but it's for their own good.
Something similar happened with the DANMASK study into the efficacy of face masks. "The Science™" had already determined that face masks were the solution to stop the virus spreading, the study stated otherwise and they were constantly thwarted in their attempts to publish the results. It did get published but in a kneecapped manner.
The advocates of "The Science™" love the scientific method and praising the role of science until it gives an uncomfortable finding that goes polar to their beliefs. Then they become authoritarian and ideological. They even reverse the scientific method - having the conclusion first and finding anything that fits that conclusion - such as during 2020 and 2021.
The ironic thing is, this was being recommended while the Tories were in power. If they won, this would still be a thing. Even Reform UK are on the side of "protecting the children".