Is LL gonna be banned in the UK due to new porn rules

[Count Chocula]

The concern among privacy advocates in the U.S. is the RESTRICT Act, which seeks to, based on my quick and dirty reading of articles about it, ban certain technology products that use technology from six "enemy nations." TikTok would potentially be banned in the U.S. if it passed. And  while the Act does not mention VPNs and presumably would not make VPN usage per se illegal, the concern is that, based on the wording of the Act, it would criminalize using a VPN to do something that the bill does prohibit (e..g., accessing TikTok should the Act become law and result in TikTok becoming illegal).

 

So if the Act became law and if for some odd reason accessing pornhub or Loverslab or Nexusmods were prohibited by the Act, then maybe using a VPN to access those sites would be illegal.

[Miauzi]

Vor 2 Stunden sagte GrimReaper:

Wenn Sie den Beitrag lesen, auf den ich ursprünglich geantwortet habe, werden Sie sehen, dass es um Zahlen ging. Das heißt, es bräuchte viel mehr Menschen, die ihre Unzufriedenheit mit dem neuen Gesetz zum Ausdruck bringen, um die Regierung zu einer Änderung zu drängen. Die 3,5-Prozent-Regel bezieht sich auf den Sturz von Regierungen durch gewaltlose Proteste, was offensichtlich ein viel, viel extremeres Ergebnis ist. Wenn das der Fall ist, kann man davon ausgehen, dass man viel weniger als 3,5 Prozent bräuchte, um deutlich zu machen, dass etwas, was die Regierung getan hat, nicht gewollt ist. Unter diesen Umständen sind über 400.000 Menschen, die im Wesentlichen sagen, dass sie dieses Gesetz nicht wollen, ziemlich viel, insbesondere da es in Großbritannien im letzten Jahr einige zusätzliche Phasen politischer Unruhen gab. Als herrschende Klasse können Sie diese Umstände, die Sie idealerweise zu einem Kurswechsel zwingen würden, natürlich ignorieren. Zumindest bis zu einem gewissen Punkt.

 

Well, in 1989, I was a "part" of that aforementioned 3.5 percent in East Germany... and as history has shown, we overthrew that dictatorship.

 

At that time, approximately 16 million people lived in this state - the first tipping point was the demonstration in Leipzig on October 9, 1989... there were 70,000 demonstrators on the streets.

 

The second tipping point was on November 4, 1989 - the first demonstration officially registered by the opposition in the history of the state - which attracted approximately 250,000 people... there are also estimates that put the number at 400,000.

 

Even though the borders (aka "Wall") to the then Federal Republic of Germany (aka "West Germany") were opened on November 8 and 9, 1989, the changes had already been irreversibly initiated.

What many historians still fail to recognize is that in our case, the absolute majority of demonstrators were members of the ruling parties... but they saw no other way to change anything through "official channels."

In terms of membership alone, the opposition groups (persecuted by the State Security) never had more than 5,000 members - but their initial protest and the brutal "battalion" response of the state apparatus (including planned military operations "within the country") triggered this avalanche-like reaction on the streets.

The first demonstrations in Leipzig in September 1989 had only a few hundred members and were brutally dispersed with police batons in just a few minutes!

-

So, not only is a minimum proportion of the population required, as described, but also a corresponding starting point... the term "revolutionary situation" had been coined earlier.

In "Little Britain," social upheaval is becoming increasingly severe – the "botched" Brexit isn't the sole cause... but it has contributed massively to the exacerbation.

The incompetent Conservative governments have massively increased the mountain of national debt, and the former opposition party in power today has no chance of implementing the improvements to the social situation of the poorer population (see also the healthcare system) it promised during the election campaign.

So, a secondary theater of war is needed as a distraction – the previous government left behind something "wonderful"!

🤢

[Grey Cloud]

You post a video by some numpty who can't string two sentences together and who continually tells you what to think. He references another video by another numpty and he in turn cites another video by a third numpty. At no point is any primary source material looked at in any depth.

 

8 hours ago, Wandering_Mania said:

But they are also looking to ban VPNs now as well.

Can you read?

 

12 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

Labour has ruled out a possible VPN ban after reports thousands of UK households were at risk following the Online Safety Act kicking in under the government. Labour Party Tech Secretary Peter Kyle has revealed that the Government is "not considering a VPN ban" - after reports in Guido Fawkes suggested it was possible.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/uk-households-could-face-vpn-32152789

 

This is the actual 'elite police unit' story from the right-wing Daily Telegraph:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20250727/281492167365845

 

As Reg readers know, VPNs are a popular tool for users concerned about privacy or simply keen to use a geo-restricted service. In January, Pornhub withdrew from Florida following the implementation of an age verification mandate. The act coincided with a more than 1,000 percent surge in Floridians seeking to use a VPN to appear as if they were visiting from out of state.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/28/uk_vpn_demand_soars/

 

Here's the back story: In March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed the Online Protection for Minors act, aka House Bill 3, into law. The legislation requires websites to verify visitors' ages, and for those hosting a "substantial portion of material harmful to minors," such as Pornhub, to block access to anyone under 18 in an effort to prevent kids and teens from peeping on any pornographic videos. Making sure children aren't looking at smut online requires identity and age verification, which Pornhub isn't willing to get into.

HB3 allows fines of up to $50,000 for websites that don't comply with the regulations. 

And so in response, Pornhub's parent company Aylo decided to yank the site from Florida users as it had already done in other states with similar laws, including Kentucky, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, North Carolina, Montana, Mississippi, Virginia, Arkansas, and Utah. 

https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/05/pornhub_vpn_demand_surge/

[special]

8 hours ago, Ryoken1972 said:

can confirm LL loading ok, in sunny UK

Yes indeed, LL is working for me in the UK today, I can't get on some other sites that show a CloudFlare 'You have been Blocked' page but again works with VPN, that is different to what LL was doing last night

[Grey Cloud]

1 hour ago, special said:

Yes indeed, LL is working for me in the UK today,

Seems better for me too.

[SirDuke]

With all respect my mates...

But you all may need to take a huge breath of "chill the heck out"

Yes, I've heard you over there in the U.K.
Sounds pretty fucked up, I know...

But may I tell you...

...people will always find a way to reach their porn.
- always -

Even if you cry out load "whaaaahaaaaa they're gonna ban VPN. Everything is dark! I have to fap on grandpas old used magazines again"

No.

You wont.

Somebody will find a way.
...find a solution.

But first, you should wait and see, what is actually happening for real.
Not what you're heard somewhere, read somewhere or dreamt of at night.

Porn is part of the human nature.
Since the dawn of mankind.

Trust your local perverts, geeks and nerds.
They'll never let you down.

Calm down, relax and fap out out.
You all sound like you really need it.

Edited July 31, 2025 by SirDuke

[Grey Cloud]

nom de fucking dieu

[WaterRabbit]

On 7/29/2025 at 3:50 PM, Grey Cloud said:

Well if he says then it must be so.

 

The guy is a complete fuckwit who hasn't a clue about anything and is just spouting rage bait.

 

I'll post a link to his video seeing how you didn't have the wit to do it.

Hero Hei

 

Contra Hero Hei

 

Your opinion is your opinion, but you don't have to be a prick about it. I know how to post a video, but I figured that anyone who cared would be able to find it themselves. So GFY.

[Count Chocula]

13 minutes ago, WaterRabbit said:

Your opinion is your opinion, but you don't have to be a prick about it.

I'm pretty sure he does.

[The92Ghost]

On 7/29/2025 at 6:10 AM, Count Chocula said:

I don't think there is going to be any third party verification in Loverslab's future. It's going to be either "Loverslab does not fall within the scope of the U.K. law" or "Loverslab will block U.K. IPs."

Regretfully, all mature websites will have to do it one way or another because a lot of the community is in the USA, or Europe, and some Eastern parts. And more countries are adding this, as well. Including the EU with time. This is a serious matter and Evrotrust is a verification tool which covers whole Europe, maybe except UK. 

[yukitokuroya]

Australia has a similar law, and not surprising, by the LABOR party.

[Blehbreh]

On 7/26/2025 at 11:34 AM, Grey Cloud said:

Neither the monarch nor the PM has 34 felony convictions.

 

I feel as though you may have some kind of mysterious personal biases toward some available information. Like around 50% of it or so. It's just a hunch, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

[GrimReaper]

15 hours ago, SirDuke said:

With all respect my mates...

But you all may need to take a huge breath of "chill the heck out"

Yes, I've heard you over there in the U.K.
Sounds pretty fucked up, I know...

But may I tell you...

...people will always find a way to reach their porn.
- always -

Even if you cry out load "whaaaahaaaaa they're gonna ban VPN. Everything is dark! I have to fap on grandpas old used magazines again"

No.

You wont.

Somebody will find a way.
...find a solution.

But first, you should wait and see, what is actually happening for real.
Not what you're heard somewhere, read somewhere or dreamt of at night.

Porn is part of the human nature.
Since the dawn of mankind.

Trust your local perverts, geeks and nerds.
They'll never let you down.

Calm down, relax and fap out out.
You all sound like you really need it.

I don't think that porn is necessarily the issue here, at least it isn't the primary one for me. It seems to me that there's a somewhat coordinated effort to sanitize and sequester the internet. First the payment processors, now the UK. EU und US are likely to follow in the near feature. This is just my guess but porn is just a low hanging fruit to grab, especially under the pretense of protecting children. After all, nobody in their right mind would be against that, right?

 

Anyway, once you get a foot in the door the rest is much easier. The real world can go to hell in a handbasket but the main interest seems to be what people should or shouldn't say on the internet. If it's about protecting children / minors / women I personally would first think about actual exploitation happening to real people. It seems insane to me that with all the shit that's come to light recently (Rotherham, Epstein, Diddy) the focus is instead protecting children from virtual boobs and upsetting social media posts instead of IRL predators. Seems par the course, though - sometimes I have the impression the people in charge are more interested about policing speech instead of dealing with actual crime.

[Grey Cloud]

5 hours ago, Blehbreh said:

I feel as though you may have some kind of mysterious personal biases toward some available information.

Example?

 

8 hours ago, WaterRabbit said:

Your opinion is your opinion

but almost everybody would post a link to the actual video they are referencing.

 

6 hours ago, yukitokuroya said:

Australia has a similar law, and not surprising, by the LABOR party.

The UK law started under the Tories.

[Grey Cloud]

53 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

the focus is instead protecting children from virtual boobs and upsetting social media posts instead of IRL predators

The act doesn't cover only porn though, e.g. physical and psychological harm are a big part of the act but the YouTube numpties seldom mention this.

Epstein and Diddy have, so far, nothing to do with the UK and there is an enquiry and ongoing police operations against the 'Rotherham' type situations.

Edited August 1, 2025 by Grey Cloud

[GrimReaper]

2 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

The act doesn't cover only porn though, e.g. physical and psychological harm are a big part of the act but the YouTube numpties seldom mention this.

Yes, that's why I said it's not only about porn. 'Harm' can have incredibly broad and vague definitions, i.e. stories about protests, crime, corruption, political unrest and such could be considered potentially damaging to the psyche of the readers, especially if said readers are children. It's all about incentives - age restricted videos are available on youtube for instance but creators know the potential reach and thus money of any age restricted content is severely limited and thus is best avoided entirely. You don't need hard censorship to steer the public perception.

 

2 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

Epstein and Diddy have, so far, nothing to do with the UK and there is an enquiry and ongoing police operations against the 'Rotherham' type situations.

Again, like I already said, this doesn't seem to be a single issue for a single country. Payment processors got uppity, steam and itch.io folded immediately. UK passes new age verification law, EU and US are working on the same thing. This is not a left/right or party issue. Tories may have drafted the law, but Labour implemented it. Tories were in charge when Rotherham surfaced but Labour didn't exert any pressure on the Tory government back then and only launched an investigation after being pressured themselves. I mentioned Diddy and Epstein not because of the UK but because laws like these are probably coming next for the EU and US as well. If it would be really about protecting children I'd assume you'd want to deal with that first. No, I think the main reason is sanitizing the internet. Manufacturing consent is easier that way.

 

Edit: If you take a look at the related article about the Rotherham situation on wikipedia, it's listed as a Labour Party scandal because it was a Labour stronghold at the time. Should tell you something that the Tories didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole despite it being easy ammunition to use against the other party. Like I said, not a party issue it seems.

Edited August 1, 2025 by GrimReaper

[Grey Cloud]

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

This is not a left/right or party issue. Tories may have drafted the law, but Labour implemented it. Tories were in charge when Rotherham surfaced but Labour didn't exert any pressure on the Tory government back then and only launched an investigation after being pressured themselves.

Agreed. Nevertheless there are lots of comments here on LL and in the YT vid comments, etc., which label these as purely left-wing/Labour or purely right-wing/Tory.

 

Every actor in the Rotherham scandal (and the others), local MP, local councillors, police, social services, etc., should be investigated and named and shamed.

 

I didn't really follow the Diddy thing but I can see the potential for the Epstein files to go international.

Edited August 1, 2025 by Grey Cloud

[Miauzi]

Vor 3 Stunden sagte Grey Cloud:

Das Gesetz deckt jedoch nicht nur Pornografie ab, körperliche und psychische Schäden sind beispielsweise ein großer Teil des Gesetzes, aber die YouTube-Idioten erwähnen dies selten.

Epstein und Diddy haben bislang nichts mit Großbritannien zu tun und es laufen Ermittlungen und Polizeieinsätze gegen Fälle wie in „Rotherham“.

 

Of course, the Epstein case also has a connection to Great Britain... for at least two very prominent reasons.

 

1) Epstein's partner - Ghislaine Maxwell - is from Great Britain and the daughter of media mogul Robert Maxwell... whose vast media empire collapsed catastrophically in the early 1990s - this was, in fact, the biggest scandal in Great Britain at the time.

Her connections, especially in Great Britain's upper class, gave Epstein a "glamour factor" in the US - without which the commercial success of his "tax avoidance" would have been unthinkable.

And she selected the underage girls for Epstein's sex party!

 

2) The British Royal Family – the King is the official head of state – is also deeply involved in the Epstein case through a very prominent member -> Prince Andrew.

After all, this man is the second son of the now deceased Queen Elizabeth II.

If the British Royal Family feels compelled to officially distance itself from the son of the (then still living) Queen... then the Epstein case is certainly very relevant.

[GrimReaper]

29 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

Agreed. Nevertheless there are lots of comments here on LL and in the YT vid comments, etc., which label these as purely left-wing/Labour or purely right-wing/Tory.

 

Every actor in the Rotherham scandal (and the others), local MP, local councillors, police, social services, etc., should be investigated and named and shamed.

While I do agree that the team sports can be annoying it's way more important that people voice their disagreement with the establishment. I don't think you need to be 100% accurate 100% of the time and arguing over details is what kills momentum and splinters what should be common ground for pretty much everyone into smaller movements that disperse much more easily without getting things done. I personally haven't seen what you describe - rather than making it into a left/right issue people are usually pointing out that this is might be the beginning of a sanitized, controlled internet. 

[Ashal]

This thread was given some leeway against the "no politics" rule because it was very relevant to the site as a whole, but it's clear it's now run its course and shall be locked.

 

LL's final stance on UK laws is that we'll take the necessary steps to comply if and when that becomes necessary. It is pointless to speculate when and how that might come about, because too much is uncertain. I support the concept of better age verification on the internet. And while I support the concept of better age verification on the internet, it's essentially a fool's quest, and these current/planned laws are all untenable.

 

The current identification laws are more damaging than useful; there's a reason most people are opting to ban the relevant country/state instead of complying. They expect solutions to comply with the law to pop up that are simply impractical and unlikely to ever really serve their purpose from a technical standpoint. There is no known effective method of identity verification that is reasonable, secure, cost-effective, & easy to implement for adult sites. This is a problem, and it's likely to remain a problem for a long time despite the laws; it's just honestly an unreasonable and ineffective thing to expect from the majority of sites. Not to mention the very loose definition of porn that many of them are presenting.