While there are interesting projects in that list, everything that I see is either only useful in a local setting, like wireless mesh networks and their derivative protocols, or assumes that no one is actively restricting what can be transmitted over the privately owned long haul fiber networks that make up the backbone of the internet. How would someone in Seattle transmit more data than can be sent via a ham radio equivalent signal to someone in New York without the use of those fiber networks?

I believe they updated the FAQ, but it seems to be humming along just fine.

I've read what seems like 30+ articles and explainers about the UK law the last few days - this has some lousy (official) defintions. I think the most recent episode of Power User with Taylor Lorenz might cover some of this enough to get the overall sense.

The topics under scrutiny of the "user-to-user" site is extremely vague beyond obvious porn, but it amounts to if it allows the sharing of links of basic news of any topic, it counts. Because in terms of categorizing "harmful content" for minors, seeing fucking protests happening anywhere, at all is "controversial adult content." But if the links are limited to a very specific topic, say Honda Ridgeline owners, privacy and cyber nerd shit no one cares about) etc., cooking, and other innocuous things, it's a grey zone that doesn't demand compliance. YMMV, but even for a fascist wannabe set of policies can't justify "harmful" material for kids with a Linux forum or a forum for owners of the Honda Ridgeline (WTF?)

I pay for mine in cash, they don't even know my name.

Better would be to reject sites like reddit. Make them suffer instead.

Can't tell if meth addict or rage bot.

Lemmy is probably not complying with UK law already. But if hosted outside the UK you can just ignore them.

Some instances have blocked the UK but you can also just ignore it because wtf are they going to do

Yeah "family friendly" = advertisable.

And that kinda sucks, because that could actually be useful. For instance, you could set up a forum for people above the age of 40 or whatever while still letting everyone post pseudonymously. A third party public service that can blindly attest that a person is over a certain age could be a great and convenient thing. It's difficult to imagine such a thing happening, though.

Sure, but it'll be used by pearl-clutchers to enforce their morality on others.

Right, I'm imagining it as a service set up to be used if wanted/needed with no broad mandate. There are people running NSFW sites and channels that genuinely do not want minors interacting or accessing, and many would integrate this type of verification voluntarily if there was trust that it worked correctly and did not collect and distribute data about individuals. But I agree, that's not what is on offer. So far from the UK it seems like they are letting private businesses figure it out.

Age Verification Is Coming for the Whole Internet

Around the world, more users are being asked the same question: Can we see some ID? That has been a bit of a disaster so far in the U.K., writes John Herrman.

Intelligencer (web.archive.org)

Way Back Machine is your friend. I don't visit sites directly anymore.

You can do that in the US as well, but it will cost more because you wouldn't be agreeing to a fixed term. For example, my ISP charges $25 a month for 200 mb/s if you agree to a one-year term, but it's $40 a month if you do not agree to a one-year term. And there's also the added inconvenience of having to go to one of the ISP's physical stores every month and put cash into their kiosk.

They will ask for your name here when signing up, but nothing prevents you from lying about your name if you're going to be paying in cash. They ask for an e-mail address as well, but you can say you haven't got one, and they'll create one for you using their own e-mail service and assign it to you. You don't actually have to use it, but it is for receiving their bills and notices.

No, Darknet is just a website that's not listed anywhere. Lemmy is listed in many places.

This is the correct answer. Notice that they have no compunction about punishing parents who secure gender-affirming care for their trans kids, but there has been zero discussion of holding parents responsible for their kids' internet usage.

Far-right groups in the US have been crying "Big Brother" about everything for years because their whole plan has been to create a surveillance state where to gather information about dissenters. Every accusation is a confession with these people.

Right, I understand the idea, it's just very common that any capability that is created will be misused.

It’s about control. They can grant you access or revoke it based on your id.

The powers at be hate that they can’t control the narrative as well as they used to so this is their solution.

No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.

They mean most of the internet for most people
Only the vast socially relevant parts of the internet

They're using children as human shields while they attack our human rights.