Reclaim The Net reporting: https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-act-ofcom-age-verification-algorithmic-suppression-rules
According to Ofcom, the measures apply to apps and sites used by children, like social media, gaming, and search services.
Translation - as all websites are theoretically accessible or used by children, all websites are mandated to implement age verification. From my understanding of Ofcom's documents, there are websites that can exempt themselves (the ones that deem themselves "child safe") but it must contain no age restricted content (think Universal BBFC rated/MPA G rated films/PEGI 3/ESRB E).
I don't think people are taking any notice of this and assume they'll be unaffected because they're not an adult site. In reality, it has wide reaching consequences. For example, online retailers have age restrictions as to who can use their services in their terms of service. They will have to verify the age of every visitor for every visit to comply with the law.
To no shock to anyone, child safety campaigners who would like the UK to abolish the Internet and replace it with a national Intranet have said the measures go nowhere near far enough.
The reason I posted the link to Ofcom rather than a media organisation is that the media is playing lies by obfuscation, trying to make out only specific websites and services will be targeted. In reality, the law applies to all websites and services.
I noticed this too. Just last night I was listening to a radio interview where they were talking glee at the prospect of millions of people losing their jobs to automation as a way to improve efficiency and bring in more money for the Government by getting rid of low quality, low paid jobs.
If we go back to exclusively "street smarts", we're back to hunting for mammals and living in mud huts. I'd personally rather have central heating, appliances, plumbing and computers that have come about from accrued and applied knowledge.
You just confirmed my theory that you have very little to no experience with real women. You are overthinking it all and are using the terminally online strategy of hyperfocusing on weak science in a field that has shown that over 80% of studies ever done fail the repeatability test.
Really, you need to get outside dude. Women are not alien, they are not logical, they are not special.
I call this the "we don't know how the universe was created therefore God done it". We do have general ideas of what women and men want in someone. Otherwise we've just dismissed the scientific principles and theories behind biology and evolution. People are not blank slates and there are generalisations that apply in relation to sexual dimorphism.
People are irrational and individual but we still have revealed preferences and solidified theories such as hypergamy. Otherwise we're suggesting that the whole point behind a lot of things such as the loneliness epidemic, MGTOW and hikkomori is irrational and not based in anything truthful.
The thing with the idea that 21 year old women are choosing 40-50 year old men is a hypothesis and therefore testable. Should be easy to get 10,000 dating profiles of 21-25 year olds and see both their stated age preferences and following up by seeing who they actually form a relationship with (revealed preferences).
That's the thing with revealed preferences - it is the practice of "don't listen to what they say, watch what they do".
Bonus article from the BBC: https://archive.ph/Rdcfz
[NASUWT] Union members will debate motions at its annual conference in Liverpool this weekend, including one that suggests far-right and populist movements have shifted their recruitment on to social media, messaging and online gaming platforms.
We're all far right again. kek
ETA: I've found the press release from the NASUWT that the BBC refers to and it doesn't mention anything about Tate, misogyny or the manosphere in its press release. Sadly I suspect the details of the survey are for members only.
https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/article-listing/teachers-declare-pupil-behaviour-emergency.html
It used to be the case that older women would tie down a man with wealth as a retirement plan. Now they have the state and are still in jobs that will fund them and therefore don't need no man. I personally know of many older women doing exactly this.
Men do also have a peak - it isn't at 35+ as Rollo Tomassi et al will tell you (and giving you damaging advice in the bargain). Well, technically, men have two peaks. One in their early to mid 20's when they're the most attractive to young women who all men find the most attractive and another in their mid to late 20's when they're the most attractive to women in general. While men don't have the problem of a finite amount of gametes that women have, they do face a decline in sperm quality in middle age which increases the prospect of autism in offspring (and autism WILL pretty much destroy your prospect of finding love as women instinctively select against such men) and men age too - they're not exempt from the laws of gravity or the effects of ageing, regardless of how much working out you do at the gym.
Statistically, men's ability to find someone also goes down with age and the 21 year old women are not selecting the 50-60 year old men unless they want to be a sugar daddy. That is a cope. The average age gap is 2-4 years in developed countries.
But in general, the idea that women only go for money falls apart when you see deadbeats becoming fathers. If it was about money, you would never see men on welfare getting any woman pregnant.
I would highly recommend setting an hour aside and watching this. While I knew a lot already having read books such as A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth and Free Your Mind by Laura Dodsworth and Patrick Fagan, it's interesting to know the psychological rationales and biology behind brainwashing and control.
It confirmed what I already knew about one psyop that is being used to push a moral panic that is currently on going in the UK but getting global attention. One around smartphones, social media and the manosphere. We've currently finished the media blitz that went around Adolescence and are waiting for a large event that will prompt the Government into the new law they had in mind all along.
The court had to put in something to appease both sides but be in no doubt, the Equality Act refers to biological sex only when it comes to the protected characteristic of sex.
Expect people to interpret this as protection of the identity of woman only and not men
From what I can tell, Ofcom intends to pressure payment processors and businesses who do business in the UK to deplatform websites outside the UK.
Also, if they allow anyone to visit from the UK using a VPN, the law considers them as a website accessible in the UK and liable.
The ironic thing is, in a recent BBC Newsnight interview, Lily Phillips (her of 101 men in a day fame) was convinced by the interviewer to agree to a ban on pornography - you know, the thing she makes a living from - on the grounds of abuse, misogyny and hatred of women.
The puritan feminists do want it banned and they're the ones who are winning.
She will go "boy sober" until Chadrone enters the picture then she will "boy lapse" until she realises he won't commit to her and the cycle will continue. Same with the 4B movement.
Meanwhile increasing numbers of men don't have a choice in the matter.
They will create the very thing they warned everyone else would happen.