omg is that the same organization as in https://xkcd.com/1583/

What part of that surprised you?

EFF is a digital rights organization. Copyright was one of the earliest threats to digital rights that people were aware of. In the 2000s, it was generally thought of as the main threat, which is why at the time, political parties called “Pirate Parties” were formed around the world, which were all about digital rights.

So it’s completely expected that EFF would take sides against copyright holders. In fact I agree with them on that.

Certainly the pictures and videos on wikipedia which you chose to consider pornographic rather than neutrally informative have a different set of qualities then what you would find in the extreme sections of porn-serving websites.

Look into the Wikimedia Commons category “pornographic videos” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Not linking to it because I’m not sure I’m allowed to do that here.

There is a middle ground. You can give partial access.

Hence why I wrote specifically about the open Internet. You are right: there are ways to give people access to only a selected part of the Internet. If parents decide to do that, fine; doesn’t have to concern any website operators, or any adults.

Nobody is banning the youth from accessing wikipedia or a library or minecraft.

Wikipedia has pornographic images and videos in it (certainly in its media archive, Wikimedia Commons, and some of them are embedded in articles).

Library: ??? Are we still talking about the Internet?

But also, if the parents decide that it’s part of growing up they can just give their kids access to porn.

Yes. Giving kids access to the open Internet is giving them access to a repository of nearly all human knowledge and endeavors, including (but not limited to) porn. If parents believe their child isn’t yet developmentally ready to be exposed to all human knowledge and endeavors, they shouldn’t be giving that child (unsupervised) access to a worldwide information system whose entire purpose is to provide access to exactly that.

Just saying that there are ways to do it right.

No, there is no way to do “censoring access to information for young people” right. That remains an entirely illegitimate goal no matter which mechanisms you invent for doing it in a privacy preserving manner.

How ironic that you posted this and thus caused people to talk about the technology you want to give no attention to.

Revenue so far: $0

and let us hope it stays that way

I would understand “monosexual”, but only as an antonym of “bisexual”, i.e. attracted only to one gender (without indicating which).

Haven’t heard of anything about this being done on a device level.

Then you simply missed a few news stories:

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/08/starmer-tech-firms-ultimatum-block-explicit-images-children-phones from 3 months ago
• https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2026/09/government-look-to-impose-mandatory-age-verification-on-uk-smartphones.html from today

This is why countries need constitutions that limit what laws governments are allowed to pass. This is approximately the prototype of something governments just shouldn’t be allowed to ever do.

Garages! Hey fellas, garages! Well ooh la di da Mr Frenchman! Don’t spiders just think of them as caves?

Yes. JOSM is pretty much the default editor for serious mappers, by far the one that most effort has gone into to make it powerful.

Stallman hatte Recht.

because these politicians know extremely little about the Internet

I started participating in online communities in the 2000s. The “social media” we had back then was web forums, organized by topics and sorted chronologically. I was young enough at the time that it is now permanently stored in my brain that that is the normal way the Internet should be like, and everything popularized since then (recommendation algorithms, the idea that we should follow people instead of topics, even the idea that websites shouldn’t be specific to certain topics) is a deviation from normalcy.

I know, rationally, that those deviations from normalcy are now the new normal (even the fediverse is “only” an attempt to improve further on that, not a move toward the Internet of the 2000s), but there is still a part of my brain that doesn’t accept this.

But I very strongly suspect that those politicians, in Australia and elsewhere, who are now trying to regulate the Internet, never posted anything to a traditional web forum, or edited a wiki, or anything like that. To them, “social media” became a thing (at all!) in around 2008 to 2010 when they created Twitter and Facebook accounts in order to communicate with their voters. (Reality check: social media has been a thing since, at the latest, the 1980s, when Usenet was invented.)

If they don’t know that the Internet is not Facebook, then it’s unsurprising when they regulate the internet as if it’s all just Facebook, so that all that will be left is Facebook. Sad times we are living in.

I don’t know if that’s true if they don’t publish a list of that. I certainly wouldn’t know how.

Yes. I have seen comments before from obscure instances that didn’t seem to be open to the public. It wouldn’t really make much technical sense to prevent that.

this, and also: what exactly is the question?!

If the Lemmy instance isn’t public anyway, then it seems like its federation list doesn’t have to be public either, so other instance admins would have no way of knowing what such an instance federates with.

apparently you cared enough to write a comment about it

one satirical website summarized it like this: https://inadequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html

Erledigt