PPV is what boys do in the bathroom.

It’s double entendre, deriving from certain associations with Thailand. If one is in the know, one can read the meme as implying a rather implausible story. There is a humorous twist, but it would be rather dull if spelled out. This way, one derives satisfaction from decoding the meme, and knowing oneself to belong to the in-group.

100% reliable AI detector. What’s not to love?

Sheesh. Can’t a woman be bored by some old story without everyone jumping to far-fetched conclusions!

It wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious. Thanks for your sacrifice.

BTW, here’s how this “bulletproof” DRM works:

1. There’s a special chip in your computer that decodes the stream. We all pay extra for electronics, the sole purpose of which is to make your property serve someone else.

2. The decoded signal is then sent to the display. To prevent it being recorded, the cable signals that the stream must not be recorded. This is where it gets funny. Messing with CPUs and GPUs is not something that can be done. Cables is a different story. IDK if they cracked down on this yet. Some years ago, when you ordered the cheapest cable from Asia, it simply did not transfer the DRM signal. It’s an unnecessary expense. Of course, even using such a cable may be a criminal offense.

Ich hab mal im Entwurf nachgeschaut, was digitale Gewalt denn rechtlich sein soll.

Zum Beispiel, wenn man eine Polizeikontrolle filmt und die Aufnahme hochlädt (KunstUrhG §33).

Man hat vielleicht mitgekriegt, dass bei Protesten gegen die Abschiebepolizei in den USA viel Filmaufnahmen gemacht wurden. Hier ist sowas rechtlich kritisch, weil wir ja die Grundrechte schützen. Von daher ist es vielleicht ganz gut, dass man schon mal solche Gesetze macht, bevor die AFD an die Macht kommt. Es soll ja bei einer Remigration nicht zu solchen digitalen Gewaltexzessen kommen. Das Internet ist ja nicht der Wilde Westen.

Whether on purpose or accidental lemmy.world admins are a bit secretive about which communities they block, there is no published list anywhere I could find.

It may be illegal to link to illegal content. They could certainly get in trouble over it.

I find funny and silly that people managed to develop bulletproof DRM so you can’t steal a 4k Netflix show in any way

Hmm. Did they?

Anyway, dystopian surveillance is not that hard technologically. It’s just politically and legally difficult and quite expensive.

Ich halte das für eine gezielte Kampagne für den totalen Überwachungsstaat. Von normalen Opferverbänden kommt das nicht. Die wissen zu gut Bescheid, um auf die Propaganda reinzufallen.

Law in some (many?) European countries already requires more intrusive age checks. The EU also has some explicit requirements. There is also push to ban social media for people under a certain age (maybe 16).

The EU has just presented an age verification app. That app would become a required standard through new laws. or even through case law from court judgments.

Lemmy.world tries really hard to follow the law. That means cracking down on illegal content. So yes, we are puritanical here.

At the very bottom is a menu with an entry called “Instances”. Click that to see lists of linked and blocked instances.

Everyone can be an Attestation Provider,

Maybe everyone can apply to become one, but there will be some certification process. Anything else would defeat the purpose. So you have the question of how much that would cost and who pays for that.

I agree that, on a technical level, it should be possible to implement support for the app.

Maybe, but letting a new instance federate doesn’t create a bigger abuse risk than allowing account creation. Going through a compliance checklist takes more effort.

It might split the Fediverse in compliant and non-compliant, where compliant servers don’t talk to the others.

After I first skimmed the specs, I had thought it would require constant check-ins with the attestation provider. Apparently, you need to get the attestation installed only once. I have trouble seeing how that could work out.

So a kid gets a phone from some cool older brother or an unaware grandpa. What stops them using that single phone to verify everyone in school?

Of course, the kids might not bother when you can just use a VPN or some non-compliant, foreign service.

Good questions. I haven’t seen any info about the economics yet. I think that’s up to the member states?

You don’t need age verification if you run it for your family and know everyone’s age.

You could run your own family forum just fine. The problems start when you want to federate. Let me be crass to make the point. Say someone posts child porn and that gets federated to your instance. You think you can just declare that someone else’s problem to avoid legal complications?

The way I expect this would work, is that instances would become responsible for who they federate with. If an instance allows your family instance to federate, they would allow your users to indirectly use their instance. We’ll have to wait what lawmakers or courts do, as you say. But I think, federation would only be by manual approval after some sort of check for compliance, or maybe even a legal contract similar to how it goes in GDPR. Actually, such GDPR contracts might be required anyway, but who cares.

I hadn’t considered if existing legislation might already require implementing an age verification when l posed the question. Now that you bring it up, I fear it does.

The DSA has exceptions for small companies. But I would caution that there is no case law that supports your interpretation that users should be counted on a per-instance basis. Courts are often not very receptive to attempts to avoid rules through such formalities. Bear in mind that the DSA is supposed to protect the “fundamental rights” of Europeans, which may not include running an instance.

Other laws do not have such exceptions. This app seems poised to become the required age verification mechanism, wherever age should be known. Either use the app or show you have something better.

In January, a Berlin court ruled that TikTok was in violation of the GDPR for not doing enough age checking. It’s being appealed. It remains to be seen how much of that case will be applicable to the Fediverse. But there is a good chance, that even without new laws, age-gating will become mandatory through case law.

Good point. European governments keep churning out the digital regulation, but have hardly any qualified people to enforce them. That has protected the Fediverse, so far.

But a straight age-gating requirement would require no particular qualifications to spot. Would you be willing to face a hefty fine just for the privilege of running an instance?

You are talking about the DSA.

There is no reason to believe that future social media bans will have such exceptions. VDL said explicitly that the app means that there are “no more excuses”.

The DSA excludes small platforms from some rules, so as not to overwhelm start-ups with bureaucracy. Clearly, such considerations are to be neutralized in the future.