This website recommends Gab, Truth Social and X under the claim "Unlike Big Tech companies, which often harvest user data for profit, these smaller, privacy-focused platforms tend to resist such practices".
I remember these from their weird Twitter posting, too. I muted them because they sounded like some weird astroturfing for Twitter that kept getting recommended.
> A major expansion of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) has taken effect, legally obliging digital platforms to deploy surveillance-style systems that scan, detect, and block user content before it can be seen.
If this is implemented as it reads, just a note to everyone else, everywhere in the world:
For this policy to work, everything must be scanned. So now, every time you communicate with someone in the UK, your communications are no longer private.
Well, yes, because it is designed to protect UK citizens. As much as GDPR applies "everywhere in the world" when interacting with EU citizens.
Just as much as my communications are scanned when interacting with US citizens with PRISM. I'd argue that is exponentially more dangerous and nefarious given it's apparently illegality and (once) top secrecy.
> The UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) unveiled the changes through a promotional video showing a smartphone scanning AirDropped photos and warning the user that an “unwanted nude” had been detected.
I can imagine in the app/phone settings "allow nudes only from contacts" or a whitelist something? I get on Tumblr all the time unsolicited shit, not necessarily bad looking but no thanks I can take care of myself.
> The UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)
It should be called the Ministry of Truth at this point.
> Unwanted
How do you know if a nude is unwanted? The premise itself makes no sense. The only way this could potentially work is if you had the whole context of the relationship somehow embedded in the messages and then if you deciphered the intent behind the messages. Even then what about sarcasm or double entendre?
> To meet the law’s demands, companies are expected to rely heavily on automated scanning systems, content detection algorithms, and artificial intelligence models trained to evaluate the legality of text, images, and videos in real time.
this means either devices need to evolve to do this locally, or the items need to be sent to external service providers, usually based outside of the UK, to scan them unencrypted
I also assume this means the government here in the UK are okay with all whatsapp messages they send to be sent to an LLM to scan them for legality, outside the UK?
Okay, everyone here is talking about dick pics but let's be clear here the goal is
>A major expansion of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) has taken effect, legally obliging digital platforms to deploy surveillance-style systems that scan, detect, and block user content before it can be seen.
Do we really believe that no government forever is not going to use this to prevent certain "misinformation" from circulating?
And by misinformation we mean things like MPs breaking COVID lock down rules or "problematic" information about the PM being involved in a scandal, or the list is endless.
Let's be clear this isn't at all and never has been about dick pics this is 100% about being able to control what you can see and share.
I don't understand the downvotes that you are getting.
There is a clear intent to muzzle the population that is going on in Europe with this new legislation and then with Chat control. Those who can't see that need to remove the blinders they have on.
First, it's the nudes and then it's something else. Once there is a capability to filter what can be shared between two adults in private message, then can anyone say that any government is not going to come back for more and ask more and more things to be removed or censored?
So wait - would this be something like... you trying to send a dickpic via WhateverMessenger, the content would be scanned first and you would be presented with a message along the lines of "This message cannot be sent as it violates our T&Cs"?
More likely it would just silently not be sent, and potentially a week later you get a visit from the cops. Censors hate drawing attention to their actions, that is why you never see a "this message censored on government request" as sender or recipient.
This is where someone conflates it with anti-spam and acts confused, because showing such a notice for every spam message would make a service unusable. As if spam is equivalent, as if users cannot be given the choice to opt in/out of however much anti-spam and other filtering that they want as recipients, and as if "This was censored" messages cannot be collapsed/shown per category, e.g. "Messages blocked: 12 spam, 4 unwanted sexual content, 5 misinformation/lacking context, 7 hate/harmful content". As a rule, when someone raises an objection that can be resolved with less than 60 seconds of thought, they are not being genuine.
But more importantly, it would make it illegal to provide any kind of messaging software without government approval, which is only given by letting government-designated censorship and surveillance services act as middle-men. And then the law can be more or less strictly applied, depending how much the government dislikes the general sentiment that is spread on your network, regardless of its legality, thus controlling discourse.
I am not speculating here - this is what the UK government has admitted they want:
First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. - https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...
I understand the rage generated here, but what is the alternative?
If a service implements privacy invading 'features' then we have the choice not to use that service. Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL.
What are we to do if not monitor? And how to make that scalable if not to introduce automation?
Simple, you can choose to only use platforms that use the most stringent scanning technologies for you and your family.
You give the UK government (or the equivalent that applies to you) the right to continuously scan everything from pictures to emails to messages and then obviously you give them the right to prosecute you and come after you when one of their AI algorithms mistakenly detects child porn on your device or in your messages just like this guy: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
For the rest of us, we should be free to opt out from being surveilled by machines 24/7.
I don't know what the alternative is, but I don't think I've ever found a situation yet where the solution has been His Majesty's Government being able to exercise more control over what people can see and hear.
Goodbye all small independent forums with no AI budgets. An attacker posts a nude picture, 18m fine from OfCom ("whichever is larger", not proportional to revenue)
If an app can be installed on someones hardware without their intervention launch it into the air and use it for target practice. If a website requires some crypto-crap to verify objects were scanned then upload to smaller platforms and let others link to the objects from the big platform. The big platforms can play whack-a-mole removing links, it's a fun game. The smaller sites can give the crawler alternate images. Better yet just use small semi-private self hosted platforms. Even better yet ensure those platforms are only accessible via .onion domains requiring a browser that is Tor enabled. People can then make sites that proxy/cache objects from Tor onion sites to easier to access sites.
> Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL.
I completely agree with this point.
We also have some tech companies (X) openly hostile to the UK Government. At what point does a sovereign country say "you're harming the people here and refuse to change, you're blocked".
We already have alternatives, this legislation is taking them away. If I want heavily censored discourse, I can go to reddit. If I want the wild west, I can go to 4chan. If I want privacy, I can use signal. And lots of services on different parts of that spectrum, or where different things are allowed.
But the UK government wants to eliminate that choice and decide for me. And most importantly, they don't want to call it censorship, but "safety". To keep women and girls "safe" (but nobody is allowed to opt out, even if they're not a woman or girl, or don't want this "safety")
> too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online
If you don't like interacting with certain types of people online, then make or join a safe space that protects you from the offensive content. Don't impose your specific set of morals on the rest of us.
Nothing any government in my lifetime has done has arrested this feeling of decay, decline and desperation. It's like the occupational political class has a miserable vendetta and must afflict it upon the population. But I'm not actually miserable like you, I don't want to feel like you, we invented liberty in this country, now fuck off the lot of you thank you.
The recipient will be required to fill a form to confirm desire for the dick pic, and the ministry will issue a dispensation allowing the taking and sending of said dick pic.
The uncomfortable truth: I know and have met plenty of women who have invited and welcomed dick pics. As a gay guy, I can tell you that lots of women are actually very interested in dick pics. They don't need a minister protecting them from themselves.
Simply apply for your Penile Photography Receiver loicense at the local government office and fill out a few forms describing the type of penile photos you are open to receiving. Pay the fee, give it a few weeks, and done. Easy peasy.
UK government publicly making a fool of itself is probably not counter to the interests of Elon Musk at all... His political faction have been keen to insult the British government whenever possible. The more absurd their public enemies act, the more reasonable they look in comparison.
They whipped up a mini pandemic of people being subject to an onslaught of unwanted dick pics (not mentioning even once about the "block" feature on every single platform) to justify it
This is the Ministry of Truth building up their toolset
Oh this is a very loaded statement if I've ever seen one. What's your issue with the "demographic of your street" and what does it have to do with scanning your messages?
God save the Queen
The fascist regime
It made you a moron
Potential H-bomb
God save the Queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming
Don't be told what you want to want to
And don't be told what you want to need
There's no future, no future
No future for you
Most of these comments I think are off the mark. For some reason anything to do with EU or the UK legislating to protect citizenry is seen as some Orwellian conspiracy to mind control people. I agree some of the policies feel like always using a hammer - but I strongly suspect it's because the tech industry is clearly not playing ball.
Children being sent dick pics, or AI generated nudes of them being sent around schools, etc. are real problems facing real normal people.
I think people here need to be reminded that the average person doesn't care about technology. They will be happy for their phones to automatically block nude pictures by Government rule if the tech companies do not improve their social safety measures. This is the double edged sword: these same people are not tech savvy enough to lock down their children's phones, they expect it to be safe, they paid money for it to be "safe", and even if you lock a phone down, it doesn't stopped their class mates sending them AI porn of other class mates.
Musk is living proof that a non zero number of these giant tech companies are happy for child porn ("fake" or not) to be posted on their platform. If I was in his shoes, it would be pretty high up on my list to make sure Grok isn't posting pornography. It's not hard to be a good person.
The things you mention are already illegal. The effective proven solution is to enforce existing laws, to punish and deter bad behaviour like any other crime.
This incongruence is why a lot of people don't take the reasoning at face value and see it as only rhetorical justification for increased surveillance, which is widely understood as something the state wants do do anyway.
> Children being sent dick pics, or AI generated nudes of them being sent around schools, etc. are real problems facing real normal people.
These are relatively minor problems. Certainly not something that warrants invasive government intervention.
If parents are that worried about their kids seeing some porn, then they should either not give smartphones to them at all or install some kind of local protection software.
crtasm|1 month ago
https://reclaimthenet.org/free-speech-friendly-and-privacy-f...
kmfrk|1 month ago
https://x.com/ReclaimTheNetHQ
danaris|1 month ago
munksbeer|1 month ago
If this is implemented as it reads, just a note to everyone else, everywhere in the world:
For this policy to work, everything must be scanned. So now, every time you communicate with someone in the UK, your communications are no longer private.
flumpcakes|1 month ago
Just as much as my communications are scanned when interacting with US citizens with PRISM. I'd argue that is exponentially more dangerous and nefarious given it's apparently illegality and (once) top secrecy.
ghusto|1 month ago
"Unwanted"
soco|1 month ago
mosura|1 month ago
rdm_blackhole|1 month ago
It should be called the Ministry of Truth at this point.
> Unwanted
How do you know if a nude is unwanted? The premise itself makes no sense. The only way this could potentially work is if you had the whole context of the relationship somehow embedded in the messages and then if you deciphered the intent behind the messages. Even then what about sarcasm or double entendre?
doublerabbit|1 month ago
Time to move my colocated servers out of the UK.
HeckFeck|1 month ago
pelagicAustral|1 month ago
imdsm|1 month ago
this means either devices need to evolve to do this locally, or the items need to be sent to external service providers, usually based outside of the UK, to scan them unencrypted
I also assume this means the government here in the UK are okay with all whatsapp messages they send to be sent to an LLM to scan them for legality, outside the UK?
enderforth|1 month ago
>A major expansion of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) has taken effect, legally obliging digital platforms to deploy surveillance-style systems that scan, detect, and block user content before it can be seen.
Do we really believe that no government forever is not going to use this to prevent certain "misinformation" from circulating?
And by misinformation we mean things like MPs breaking COVID lock down rules or "problematic" information about the PM being involved in a scandal, or the list is endless.
Let's be clear this isn't at all and never has been about dick pics this is 100% about being able to control what you can see and share.
rdm_blackhole|1 month ago
There is a clear intent to muzzle the population that is going on in Europe with this new legislation and then with Chat control. Those who can't see that need to remove the blinders they have on.
First, it's the nudes and then it's something else. Once there is a capability to filter what can be shared between two adults in private message, then can anyone say that any government is not going to come back for more and ask more and more things to be removed or censored?
captain_coffee|1 month ago
like_any_other|1 month ago
This is where someone conflates it with anti-spam and acts confused, because showing such a notice for every spam message would make a service unusable. As if spam is equivalent, as if users cannot be given the choice to opt in/out of however much anti-spam and other filtering that they want as recipients, and as if "This was censored" messages cannot be collapsed/shown per category, e.g. "Messages blocked: 12 spam, 4 unwanted sexual content, 5 misinformation/lacking context, 7 hate/harmful content". As a rule, when someone raises an objection that can be resolved with less than 60 seconds of thought, they are not being genuine.
But more importantly, it would make it illegal to provide any kind of messaging software without government approval, which is only given by letting government-designated censorship and surveillance services act as middle-men. And then the law can be more or less strictly applied, depending how much the government dislikes the general sentiment that is spread on your network, regardless of its legality, thus controlling discourse.
I am not speculating here - this is what the UK government has admitted they want:
First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. - https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...
imdsm|1 month ago
6LLvveMx2koXfwn|1 month ago
If a service implements privacy invading 'features' then we have the choice not to use that service. Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL.
What are we to do if not monitor? And how to make that scalable if not to introduce automation?
rdm_blackhole|1 month ago
Simple, you can choose to only use platforms that use the most stringent scanning technologies for you and your family.
You give the UK government (or the equivalent that applies to you) the right to continuously scan everything from pictures to emails to messages and then obviously you give them the right to prosecute you and come after you when one of their AI algorithms mistakenly detects child porn on your device or in your messages just like this guy: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
For the rest of us, we should be free to opt out from being surveilled by machines 24/7.
Then everyone is happy.
Edited: typos
enderforth|1 month ago
cft|1 month ago
Bender|1 month ago
If an app can be installed on someones hardware without their intervention launch it into the air and use it for target practice. If a website requires some crypto-crap to verify objects were scanned then upload to smaller platforms and let others link to the objects from the big platform. The big platforms can play whack-a-mole removing links, it's a fun game. The smaller sites can give the crawler alternate images. Better yet just use small semi-private self hosted platforms. Even better yet ensure those platforms are only accessible via .onion domains requiring a browser that is Tor enabled. People can then make sites that proxy/cache objects from Tor onion sites to easier to access sites.
flumpcakes|1 month ago
I completely agree with this point.
We also have some tech companies (X) openly hostile to the UK Government. At what point does a sovereign country say "you're harming the people here and refuse to change, you're blocked".
polski-g|1 month ago
jpfromlondon|1 month ago
Yep, that's life, if something bothers you and it's already a crime then report it.
There is precious little in life that can be undertaken without some risk of something unwanted however small (hah).
like_any_other|1 month ago
We already have alternatives, this legislation is taking them away. If I want heavily censored discourse, I can go to reddit. If I want the wild west, I can go to 4chan. If I want privacy, I can use signal. And lots of services on different parts of that spectrum, or where different things are allowed.
But the UK government wants to eliminate that choice and decide for me. And most importantly, they don't want to call it censorship, but "safety". To keep women and girls "safe" (but nobody is allowed to opt out, even if they're not a woman or girl, or don't want this "safety")
rjdj377dhabsn|1 month ago
If you don't like interacting with certain types of people online, then make or join a safe space that protects you from the offensive content. Don't impose your specific set of morals on the rest of us.
cmxch|1 month ago
HeckFeck|1 month ago
ajsnigrutin|1 month ago
netsharc|1 month ago
Please allow 3-4 weeks to process the request.
hexbin010|1 month ago
iamnothere|1 month ago
Mistletoe|1 month ago
pelagicAustral|1 month ago
Popeyes|1 month ago
mikkupikku|1 month ago
anal_reactor|1 month ago
tuktoyaktuk|1 month ago
[deleted]
hexbin010|1 month ago
They whipped up a mini pandemic of people being subject to an onslaught of unwanted dick pics (not mentioning even once about the "block" feature on every single platform) to justify it
This is the Ministry of Truth building up their toolset
10xDev|1 month ago
[deleted]
ChrisRR|1 month ago
amelius|1 month ago
PunchyHamster|1 month ago
miroljub|1 month ago
mosura|1 month ago
Actual abusers are fine. Talking about it is the problem.
flumpcakes|1 month ago
Children being sent dick pics, or AI generated nudes of them being sent around schools, etc. are real problems facing real normal people.
I think people here need to be reminded that the average person doesn't care about technology. They will be happy for their phones to automatically block nude pictures by Government rule if the tech companies do not improve their social safety measures. This is the double edged sword: these same people are not tech savvy enough to lock down their children's phones, they expect it to be safe, they paid money for it to be "safe", and even if you lock a phone down, it doesn't stopped their class mates sending them AI porn of other class mates.
Musk is living proof that a non zero number of these giant tech companies are happy for child porn ("fake" or not) to be posted on their platform. If I was in his shoes, it would be pretty high up on my list to make sure Grok isn't posting pornography. It's not hard to be a good person.
HPsquared|1 month ago
This incongruence is why a lot of people don't take the reasoning at face value and see it as only rhetorical justification for increased surveillance, which is widely understood as something the state wants do do anyway.
rjdj377dhabsn|1 month ago
These are relatively minor problems. Certainly not something that warrants invasive government intervention.
If parents are that worried about their kids seeing some porn, then they should either not give smartphones to them at all or install some kind of local protection software.
polski-g|1 month ago
So why are you considering xAI the creator when it's the tool that's being interacted with?
The human child pornographer using tools is the one who's creating it, not the tools.