[oneeyedpigeon]

> Bare in mind, this would have been used to stop the Epstein images of the former Prince Andrew from being viewed

(Bear, although your typo is awkwardly relevant...)

Would redacted images, and those that do not identify the victim, actually count?

> Why on earth would it be 10% of their world wide income and not their UK-based income? These politicians really think they have more power than they really do.

I mean, when it comes down to a fine or blocking access altogether, surely they can ask for whatever they want? They could've made it "one bajillion dollars" if they wanted. Actually collecting the fine is a whole other matter.

> Mastodon / BlueSky where they now share that content.

I regularly check Bluesky and occasionally check Mastodon, and I've never seen even 'tame' porn on either. I have absolutely seen porn on X, though.