aspectpriority

[aspectpriority]

sigh. rent in Darvel is only £400 a month. if only it wasn't in the middle of nowhere and also 8 miles from the nearest train station.

[aspectpriority]

"Single people are on average less healthy, less financially stable, and overall less satisfied with life than partnered and married people are. This must mean that monogamous relationships and marriage are the solution to society's problems"

Huh, it's almost like society, both socially and financially, is set up to specifically benefit people who have monogamous relationships and get married and punish people who don't partner or get married. It's almost like there are financial benefits that exist specifically to incentivize people to get married and have kids and be a nuclear family. It's almost like it was very culturally normal until very very very recently to just not have any deeper platonic relationships after you get married, meaning that single people past a certain age just get left behind and get treated as spinsters or loser bachelors. It's like life just is not designed for single people to be able to easily participate and survive while still being single. Huh, very weird. I'm sure marriage will fix this.

[aspectpriority]

autists who don't get filtered by the tertiary education system and land a comfy job at lockheed and decide to speak for all disabled people about "universities are really accommodating nowadays and the people who say otherwise are just lazy anti-intellectuals looking for an excuse" are fucking ghouls whose faces should get torn off

[aspectpriority]

hm. tumblr won't load on desktop lmao. immensely ominous I fear

[aspectpriority]

anyway uh. sorry 2 our regular followers about that one lmao i'm normal now

[aspectpriority]

ALSO also i'm sorry but the restriction of genuine sources of information PAIRED with the rise of the disinformation machine that is generative AI is fucking insane. the uk government took wikipedia of all things to court over the OSA. but genAI bots are their most special little guy who they're rewriting copyright law to facilitate? this was and will never be about misinformation or keeping kids safe. i'm going to explode.

[aspectpriority]

anyway the next person to say "I think they have a point But-" about line censorship gets torn apart with my angry little hands. there's a lot of god awful shit online but you cannot trust someone with absolute power over your access to information to make those kinds of choices on a sweeping, national level. for every Andrew Tate the OSA deplatforms, there's going to be hundreds of sex workers and journalists and refugees and abuse survivors and activists and artists who just lost access to their livelihoods and their life's work and their platform to share what they're going through, who just lost access to their support network, possibly forever. and for every single one of them, we lose not only an essential data point regarding the reality of the world we're living in, but a person, too. they're finding new ways of re-consolidating the information you have access to back to mainstream media and y'all are nodding along and going "social media fucking sucks these days anyway, women shouldn't be making money off of porn... people don't have the time or energy to raise their own children, and the solution to this is obviously to hand over More control to the government who's put them in that situation to begin with"

[aspectpriority]

"the premise of restricting inappropriate content for under 18s isn't a bad one" is a fundamentally flawed approach to this issue I think, because, it IS a bad premise. there is no way to restrict "inappropriate content" without first defining "inappropriate content", and giving that power to Somebody.

It isn't bad because they might censor queer people, or because they might mislabel something as porn. it's bad because it's a fundamentally dangerous amount of power to give somebody! And queer folk aren't the only people who need to share information or talk openly about their experiences. Not all experiences are Easy or Pleasant or "Appropriate". Nobody is neutral and giving a government the ability to dictate what you are physically capable of accessing (or at the very least, what is Easily accessible) is dangerous!

There's a difference between moderating what a child or a teenager can access, as an adult who is responsible for them, and the government - or payment provider - dictating what is Available to access. And even then, "what should my child be able to access" is a hugely complex topic that has to take into consideration SO many factors, and it's something that a lot of parents use to actively shape what their children know about the world and their rights and their roles in society, for better and for worse.

I cannot fucking believe some of y'all are willing to compromise on the concept of freedom of information because "what if they see porn."

[aspectpriority]

[aspectpriority]

dislike how many mental health posts on here are just "you've never done anything wrong in your life ever and they were evil for that"

[aspectpriority]

dislike how many mental health posts on here are just "you've never done anything wrong in your life ever and they were evil for that"

[aspectpriority]

I will not doompost and I will not give in to despair But Also jesus fucking christ. head in hands.

[aspectpriority]

Poll request:

Menstrual cup users: have you ever had your cup accidentally dislodge?

1. Yes, it's been pushed out while exercising

2. Yes, it's been pushed out while using the restroom

3. Yes, it's dislodged during the normal activities of the day

4. Yes, something else

5. No

6. ???

[aspectpriority]

Y'know. There are a lot of people who say "problematic" when they actually mean "sinful". And I kind of wish they would just say "sinful".

It'd be more honest about their perspective, and it'd save me time trying to determine whether they're critiquing something in good faith or just being reactionary conservatives.

[aspectpriority]

[aspectpriority]

There is literally no circumstance where I support age verification to access a website. As I've said before I'm very much the "there's nuance here" person on almost everything but on this issue there's no nuance for me, it's awful and horrible in and of itself and it also sets an awful and horrible precedent

[aspectpriority]

A serious (and seemingly obvious) problem with the implementation of the Online Safety Act is that it requires malicious actors to not exist.

Since the UK govenment in any form hates paying for things, especially things required for their goals, the current situation is that websites have to work out to do age verification themselves. There is no government-approved or provided service for this - it's a free-for-all of third-party verification providers.

Now, some people are pointing out that depending on how these companies handle the data given to them to perform verification, it's possible this data could be stolen or leaked. This is a worrying possibility. This danger is primarily one of passive incompetence, although if your driver's licence gets leaked, you won't be happy either way.

But passive incompetence probably isn't going to hurt anyone before active malice does.

Normalising showing your face or identity documents to random websites is an incredibly stupid thing to do. You know who benefits from this? Actual criminals! Phishing attacks continue to be successful because people will put their banking details into websites that are very much not their banks. And while random websites asking for your banking details is suspicious, the OSA makes it so that random websites asking for your driver's license or passport or other such things will now be expected.

Meaning an enterprising criminal can set up a website, stick a fake age verification pop-up on it, and harvest a whole bunch of things that come in useful for committing identity theft. Or blackmail perhaps.

The overall point here is that in this respect, the Online Safety Act is going to make the internet more dangerous, in a way that should be obvious if you actually think about the potential negative consequences.