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

[belegost]

26 minutes ago, DrunkenCow said:

800 gacha games being removed from Steam

At least one good thing came out of this whole kerfuffle.

[Grey Cloud]

6 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

First: if you want to be a slave or support slavery have at it.

Second: I did not pick apart any of your posts with pointed remarks and questions.

Third: who the hell are you to devalue what I post and basically try to render my opinion as meaningless.

If I had treated you this way I might be inclined to blow it off but I have not nor would I.

Far too many users here who think and act like the opinions they have should supersede all others, I have just as much right to say what I think as you do.

I did not write the definition in the dictionary, I did however use it to mean exactly what it says, hence the need for such a tool, so others cannot twist the meaning or words to fit a different opinion.

If I am not allowed to post what I think and feel then the Moderators can inform me of that, you won't.

None of that addresses my question which you quoted. You have not addressed any of the questions I have asked nor any of the statements I made.  

 

6 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

First: if you want to be a slave or support slavery have at it.

?

 

6 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

Second: I did not pick apart any of your posts with pointed remarks and questions.

Nor did you do so with logic, reason or knowledge of the subject. In fact you didn't go anywhere near my 'pointed remarks and questions'.

 

6 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

Third: who the hell are you to devalue what I post and basically try to render my opinion as meaningless.

 I am a person challenging your posts on a public forum.

 

6 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

Far too many users here who think and act like the opinions they have should supersede all others, I have just as much right to say what I think as you do.

I could argue just as easily that there are far too many users here who think and act like their opinions are not to be challenged.

I am not challenging your right to say what you think; I am challenging what you say.

 

6 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

I did not write the definition in the dictionary, I did however use it to mean exactly what it says, hence the need for such a tool, so others cannot twist the meaning or words to fit a different opinion.

Hence my challenge of it.

 

6 hours ago, Caveman 74 said:

If I am not allowed to post what I think and feel then the Moderators can inform me of that, you won't.

Once more, I am not saying what you are allowed to post. I am challenging what you have posted. In all forms of discussion that I am aware of it is the person making the assertions who bears the burden of proof.

Edited July 26, 2025 by Grey Cloud

[Grey Cloud]

39 minutes ago, DrunkenCow said:

not the actions of a country that still pays taxes so their inbred leader can protect his pedo cousin.

Are you suggesting that UK taxes only exist because of the monarchy? The Royal Family pays taxes BTW.

 

The monarch is the head of state, the PM is the political leader.

 

Neither the monarch nor the PM has 34 felony convictions.

 

If you are thinking of Charles and Andrew then they are brothers not cousins.

[Count Chocula]

9 hours ago, ebbluminous said:

VPN #Solved

No, that is not the solution.

 

#workaround

[Dark Spectre]

21 hours ago, Count Chocula said:

Only if Brits don't know what a VPN is. Of course, laws requiring government approved VPNs or even the outright banning of VPNs might follow eventually.

That wouldn't surprise me, in the slightest.

[Count Chocula]

2 minutes ago, Dark Spectre said:

That wouldn't surprise me, in the slightest.

I bet most politicians have no idea what a "VPN" is. Former U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch had no idea how Facebook makes money. He once asked Mark Zuckerberg during a hearing "How do you make money?" Once they do get a clue, I think serious talk of requiring VPNs to be approved by the government will follow.

[Grey Cloud]

 

This article isn't talking about the act that came in yesterday.

"The hype around the UK’s Online Safety Bill rings bells of familiarity. It bears a family-resemblance to the US Patriot Act which was enforced as an anti-terrorism measure after 9/11. The act allowed the US government to spy on citizens without warrants and without seeking judicial permission. 

Despite being touted as an anti-terror measure, decades later, evidence shows that the Patriot Act damaged democracy and privacy, rather than helped catch any terrorists whatsoever."

https://www.cyberghostvpn.com/privacyhub/online-safety-bill-internet-privacy/ [same site as the link above]

[Splendor Solis]

I don't expect a whole lot from these laws. In the U.S., a lot of States already have similar laws and you can just use a VPN in another state to get around it. It's a trend in the wrong direction though. I'm worried that in the long-run decency laws, anti-"misinformation" laws, and the cybercrime epidemic (which is mostly international) will balkanize the internet.

[Count Chocula]

20 minutes ago, Splendor Solis said:

I don't expect a whole lot from these laws. In the U.S., a lot of States already have similar laws and you can just use a VPN in another state to get around it. It's a trend in the wrong direction though. I'm worried that in the long-run decency laws, anti-"misinformation" laws, and the cybercrime epidemic (which is mostly international) will balkanize the internet.

I think we have established, several times over, that you can use a VPN to get around the "law" issue. But not to get around the "payment processor" issue, which has crept into the discussion. But as I said above, using a VPN is a workaround, not a solution. And, as I also said, if VPN usage becomes prominent enough to make politicians aware of the fact that VPNs can be used to skirt the new laws, we might very well see non-totalitarian nations clamping down on VPNs. Probably not to the degree they are restricted in China and Russia, for example, but perhaps governments passing laws requiring VPN operators to maintain user logs and turn them over on demand.

Edited July 26, 2025 by Count Chocula

[Grey Cloud]

2 minutes ago, Count Chocula said:

for example, but perhaps governments passing laws requiring VPN operators to maintain user logs and turn them over on demand.

Which they have already for bank and phone info.

[aonduine]

LL should try to get ahead of all this and be proactive and not reactive. Everything happening in the UK are the results of their people who were against this measure, being reactive to the situation. This was announced so long ago. The government there told everyone this is how it was gonna be and nobody tried to get ahead of it. Now look at them? Stuck in the mud. Same with Itch. I read other sites might get hit too. The things is, they all saw it coming. They knew it was on it's way and they just stood there. This measure might be coming for LL in the future. I would suggest LL get on top of this before it reaches them. Find a way to exist in even in the UK without subjugating itself to its laws.

 

Yes VPNs are a good step but the general attitude should be one of the incoming asteroid. You know it's on the way and you know when it hits it's gonna be catastrophic. Instead of just gawking and panicking, get busy. Find a way of destroying the asteroid. If that proves unfeasible or has failed, then find ways of mitigating the upcoming damage. If that proves unfeasible or has failed then find a way to get far away from the impact zone as possible. There's still time to make sure LL remains untouched and online without bowing down.

 

Or don't

[Count Chocula]

23 minutes ago, aonduine said:

LL should try to get ahead of all this and be proactive and not reactive. Everything happening in the UK are the results of their people who were against this measure, being reactive to the situation. This was announced so long ago. The government there told everyone this is how it was gonna be and nobody tried to get ahead of it. Now look at them? Stuck in the mud. Same with Itch. I read other sites might get hit too. The things is, they all saw it coming. They knew it was on it's way and they just stood there. This measure might be coming for LL in the future. I would suggest LL get on top of this before it reaches them. Find a way to exist in even in the UK without subjugating itself to its laws.

If the content Loverslab provides falls within the scope of the U.K. law, they will have to either comply with the law or block access to U.K. IPs, just like Nexus,mods said they are going to have to do (but based on my quick and dirty experiment, have not done so yet) and as pornhub has done. What, exactly, would be your suggestion for Loverslab to "get ahead of it?"I don't see Loverslab paying a third-party verifier site like pornhub has done (I suspect pornhub's revenue is greater than Loverslab's). So if the U.K. law applies to Loverslab, I imagine their option is going to be "block U.K. IPs."

 

Or I guess they could ignore the law and hope to never get found out.

Edited July 26, 2025 by Count Chocula

[Splendor Solis]

1 hour ago, Count Chocula said:

I think we have established, several times over, that you can use a VPN to get around the "law" issue. But not to get around the "payment processor" issue, which has crept into the discussion. But as I said above, using a VPN is a workaround, not a solution. And, as I also said, if VPN usage becomes prominent enough to make politicians aware of the fact that VPNs can be used to skirt the new laws, we might very well see non-totalitarian nations clamping down on VPNs. Probably not to the degree they are restricted in China and Russia, for example, but perhaps governments passing laws requiring VPN operators to maintain user logs and turn them over on demand.

How viable would suppressing VPN's even be? Would it even work in an open-internet? What stops someone from El Salvador from selling a VPN to a British guy in exchange for bitcoin? In China, their VPN suppression makes more sense because they block so much of the external internet. But to do it in a more open country, it seems like you'd have to somehow stop access to foreign markets, or make them impossible to use.

 

I'm not familiar with international-internet laws, so I don't know how serious most governments are about enforcing overseas internet-restrictions on their own people and markets. I've been under the impression that American companies acquiesce to these restrictions to avoid losing a potential future market, not out fear of legal consequences.

[Wolfshrike]

4 hours ago, Splendor Solis said:

I don't expect a whole lot from these laws. In the U.S., a lot of States already have similar laws and you can just use a VPN in another state to get around it. It's a trend in the wrong direction though. I'm worried that in the long-run decency laws, anti-"misinformation" laws, and the cybercrime epidemic (which is mostly international) will balkanize the internet.

I don't expect it to be a big deal stateside because as soon as it becomes a teamball issue, it'll get deadlocked, and let's be real, everything in the US turns into teamball eventually. 

[Count Chocula]

3 hours ago, Splendor Solis said:

How viable would suppressing VPN's even be? Would it even work in an open-internet?

How viable? Since I don't live in China or Russia, I can't speak to how effective policing VPNs is in those countries. But I know there are things that can be done. I'm not an internet protocol expert, though. If the U.S. gov't passed a law saying all VPNs used in the U.S. had to be from an approved list, do you really think a whole bunch of people are going to flout that? That's a rhetorical question. Of course not. Some people would work around it, but I am sure most people would follow the law.

[Count Chocula]

48 minutes ago, Wolfshrike said:

I don't expect it to be a big deal stateside because as soon as it becomes a teamball issue, it'll get deadlocked, and let's be real, everything in the US turns into teamball eventually. 

If laws are framed as "protecting the children," no politician is going to be on the side opposite "protecting the children."

[Ashal]

I don't know. Maybe?

And that's my final, honest answer.

 

https://action.aclu.org/petition/mastercard-sex-work-work-end-your-unjust-policy

[Wolfshrike]

8 hours ago, Count Chocula said:

If laws are framed as "protecting the children," no politician is going to be on the side opposite "protecting the children."

 

I mean, there's plenty of politicians here that try to frame their cause du jure as protecting children all the time that get opposed. Gun control, abortion, Trans rights... all of them have one side or the other trying to use the 'protecting the children' line and being opposed regardless. Honestly, I expect this to be little different, or, if anything, bipartisan against any sort of limitations because messing with the porn is a surefire way to start losing support- we've seen that more than once in modern history. 

[834159672]

Devil's Advocate:

A nice parallel to compare to would be movie age restrictions. See the Regal age policy here for example. For NC-17 films, you must be 18 years old or older with a photo ID. Why shouldn't the regulation of adult websites be any different? 

 

Edit: I'd rather not get in trouble with the counterargument.

Edited July 27, 2025 by 834159672

[vagonumero13]

1 hour ago, 834159672 said:

Devil's Advocate:

A nice parallel to compare to would be movie age restrictions. See the Regal age policy here for example. For NC-17 films, you must be 18 years old or older with a photo ID. Why shouldn't the regulation of adult websites be any different? 

 

Edit: I'd rather not get in trouble with the counterargument.

Because in physical world, unless the person viewing your id has a hidden camera on their body, no one is going to store your ID. In Internet, it doesn't matter what the other party says, they can and will store your ID, sell it, do what they want with it, and when the unavoidable data leak comes, your ID and association to the site will be all over the internet for everyone to see.

 

Also, nothing stops an underage person from borrowing the ID of their parents for 10 seconds, doing a photo of it, and then use at whatever place. This doesn't "protect children" (TM), it is just a privacy violation by a totalitarian government.

[Count Chocula]

6 hours ago, Wolfshrike said:

 

I mean, there's plenty of politicians here that try to frame their cause du jure as protecting children all the time that get opposed. Gun control, abortion, Trans rights... all of them have one side or the other trying to use the 'protecting the children' line and being opposed regardless. Honestly, I expect this to be little different, or, if anything, bipartisan against any sort of limitations because messing with the porn is a surefire way to start losing support- we've seen that more than once in modern history. 

I'm not saying it's literally that simple. Nothing is ever that simple. I'm not predicting western governments will start restricting VPNs, I'm saying it's something I think about.

 

I disagree, though, about this being no different from the other efforts you mention. It already is different, as witness the French and U.K. laws. And here is what I see when setting my VPN to a Florida location and visiting pornhub. But I can go to Nexusmods and access The Circle of Lust mod just fine. From the user's perspective, the U.K. and Florida are pretty much the same.

Spoiler

 

Edited July 27, 2025 by Count Chocula

[shrtjsrtj]

1 hour ago, vagonumero13 said:

Because in physical world, unless the person viewing your id has a hidden camera on their body, no one is going to store your ID. In Internet, it doesn't matter what the other party says, they can and will store your ID, sell it, do what they want with it, and when the unavoidable data leak comes, your ID and association to the site will be all over the internet for everyone to see.

 

Also, nothing stops an underage person from borrowing the ID of their parents for 10 seconds, doing a photo of it, and then use at whatever place. This doesn't "protect children" (TM), it is just a privacy violation by a totalitarian government.

Right. This has been an issue ever since the early/mid 90's when people started to get online in significant numbers. 30+ years of doing nothing and then they rush out a solution with zero thought to the security or privacy concerns.

Edited July 27, 2025 by shrtjsrtj

[Agent Tex]

400K people have voted against  The Online Safety Act

 

The UK Gov told all 400,000K of us to go fuck ourselves

 

 

Bye bye porn, bye bye Loverslab

Edited July 28, 2025 by Agent Tex

[Grey Cloud]

17 minutes ago, Agent Tex said:

400K people have voted against  The Online Safety Act

 

The UK Gov told all 400,000K of us to go fuck ourselves

 

 

Bye bye porn, bye bye Loverslab

From a UK population of 70 million:

363,917 signatures

Progress of the petition towards its next target: 363,866 of 100,000 signatures required to be considered for a debate in Parliament

Show on a map the geographical breakdown of signatures by constituency

100,000

Parliament will consider this for a debate

Parliament considers all petitions that get more than 100,000 signatures for a debate

Waiting for 3 days for a debate date

Government responded

This response was given on 28 July 2025

The Government is working with Ofcom to ensure that online in-scope services are subject to robust but proportionate regulation through the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903

[The92Ghost]

I don't think the users should be worried, neither the LL website dev team. I would recommend reaching out to Evrotrust if you need to pass checks for age. If you need to go through the entire trust process.