I'll wager they'll rebrand as a "girlfriend experience", drop the nudity and learnt the lessons from the first time they tried this.
They'll still have to age verify their account holders though if they want to be legally accessed in the UK.
The media is focusing on adult entertainment websites but it would also have to be applied to digital age rated content or anything not deemed safe for kids or work. In the UK we have the concept of the "watershed" that determines safe for kids content before 9pm on TV and 24 hours on radio.
Not sure how that would work with age restricted video games to comply with the law and ensure kids aren't given the controller once the age check has been performed?
Worse. It's now "implied" speech even if exclusively in a private setting such as a group chat or a residential home.
Once someone reports a woman for rejecting a man based on his height on a dating app or on a date and that reaches the press, the height category will suddenly and quietly be dropped from the legislation.
As already pointed out by others, I can't see how this could be realistically enforced and adhered to.
There's also a push to blame it all on Telegram, to get it blocked or shut down. Ultimately they would also like user generated content banned too so you can't talk between others and will only be allowed to hear approved speech, think approved thoughts and say approved lines. Anyone who dissents will be treated in a brutal and harsh fashion. It's also why they don't like the cut of Elon's jib.
The dark web will become the digital speakeasy where the illicit trades of exchanging ideas, free speech and civil disagreement will take place.
The UK is currently having a Covid Inquiry. I think they've already made their conclusion - to have quicker, brutal lockdowns and to make restrictions once implemented - permanent. Unsurprisingly testimony to fit this conclusion has recently been voiced to the inquiry. And what a surprise, a novel and serious outbreak that would allow all of this to be implemented has mysteriously started to happen again in China just before elections are due to happen in major western economies.
It's dishonest to sell this service as a one-to-one chat with the model herself. I suspect they do this because they know that no-one will dare challenge this with the likes of the FTC/trading standards in that country out of public shaming, embarrassment and condemnation that will come their way if they dare speak out. Nor do they have the backbone and moral conviction to challenge the system that exploits their loneliness and desire for social connection.
Subscription based access where you pay a monthly fee and then an additional one off fee for each individual product and they run advertising and sponsorship within while accessing and selling your personal data is slowly becoming the model of the future. It keeps you tied in with a service, has you pay for a licence, displays adverts and requires your personal information all to maximise profit and limit consumer freedom.
Everything will go this way unless everybody pushes back against it. Not just video games but utilities, your alarm clock, shopping, websites, white goods - you name it - if it provides you "value" as Louis Rossmann says - it will adopt this model.
I have noticed a good amount of contempt and vitriol from a number of women against unattractive men, neuroatypical men, geeks, nerds and men not succeeding in dating in replies to evolutionary psychologists. And in particular for some reason, from women on the autistic spectrum. The sort of rhetoric that if the roles were reversed, there would be widespread uproar and condemnation.
They can keep their nerd fest...
...for now. Gamers know where this leads and where the demands will go.
Nitter link: https://nitter.1d4.us/ChristineHillCo/status/1725664699360952545
Archive: https://archive.li/Qbc83
The consequence of the newly emerging subscription and fee per product hybrid model. Where you don't own the product you paid for and you pay an ongoing licence fee to be able to use it. At any moment, if you even so much as look at a EA moderator in the wrong way, your purchases are seized and your access to the things you paid for is permanently denied. They can also implement planned obsolescence so if they want you to upgrade and pay for the new product, they can nudge you in that direction.
They feed on the psychology of fear of missing out (FOMO) to get everyone to embrace the model.
Eventually after the lawsuit, he will call their bluff and make X non-reliant on advertising any more and encourage everyone to subscribe because its harder to get individuals to cancel compared to a small number of large organisations. Strength by numbers. The only problem for the public is that it will make the Internet very expensive.
The usual diatribe of "something exists, men at fault, men lazy and men are failing women".
...men turning away from college, dropping out of the work force or failing to look after their health.
Buyers remorse from the consequences of affirmative action, diversity quotas and focus on women's health to not be seen as institutionally sexist. It is also a consequence of the conflict between primordial instincts with ideology - something both men and women have.
Ms. Kearney, for example, acknowledges that improving men’s economic position, especially men without college degrees, is an important step toward making them more attractive partners.
And the second that anything is done to help men, there will a deafening scream of sexism and misogyny as it will have to come to a cost for women. It will never happen.
...nearly half of college-educated women said they were single because they had trouble finding someone who meets their expectations, versus one-third of men.
Hypergamy in action. When childless women are outearning their male peers, it is of no surprise to anyone that said men won't be seen as attractive. And from experience, those expectations only ever go one way, particularly as women age - it's known colloquially as being an "alpha widow". She will be comparing you to not only her growing expectations but to the positive aspects of every single one of her ex's. The vast majority of men simply won't meet those expectations and women would rather be alone than settle. The concept of "beta bux" is starting to come to an end as women increasingly opt out and the provision and protection aspect of men in a relationship is replaced by the state, her social circle, her community and her family.
The behaviors were ubiquitous enough that Ms. Inhorn compiled a sort of taxonomy of cads, such as the “alpha males” who “want to be challenged by work, not by their partners” or the “polyamorous men” who claim “that their multiple attachments to women are all ‘committed.’” Her breakdown — Table 1.1 in the book — reads like a rigorous academic version of all the complaints you’ve ever heard from your single female friends.
The top percentage of men whom treat Tinder, Hinge, Bumble et al as their little black books and who don't need to commit because they have options and there's always younger options. And the chances are, the highest status men don't need dating apps because they're in long term relationships! Meanwhile most men statistically barely get any matches and messages, never mind dates, outside of women promoting their Instagram/OnlyFans accounts, scammers and attention seekers.
Sadly for them their choice is to either compromise and settle like many had to in history and make it work or invest in wineries and cat food manufacturers.
There was commentary just after the Online Safety Act became law from supporters of it that it does not go far enough and it needs more powers. You'll never satisfy the technocratic authoritarians that are truly in charge.
They appear to already have their sights on the manosphere and bachelors as well as Russell Brand and Rumble as their first targets.
They already do (enabled by default) but the new law goes much further. It has the wide reaching power to protect women and children and that includes preventing children from accessing age restricted digital content and ensuring that the person viewing the content matches the photo ID on file for that individual. It's to stop someone 18 or over doing the check and then handing over the phone/computer/controller to someone under 18.
As a side note, I noticed recently that one brand of webcam is being sold in Europe with "Face ID" attached to its description. Coincidence?