/meta/ - meta

General sitewide meta


New Reply[×]
Name
Email
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files50MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


2c9b0df70a1eb134381a5936d070c54e2bc39bd313214b3b90341c3860e751c6.png
[Hide] (194KB, 1192x1602)
1743d6aba7e4375e071d202c54897fe4a4c28ab3740197ef0be6a2618d06a7a7.png
[Hide] (594.5KB, 1254x1267)
2b1160af95fbb3d3894b401966a803b1ccec5acee68731eb4425db1198547233.png
[Hide] (1.2MB, 736x736)
8d399ec0a1c14340d7f029509418070ab081c8eab9ff22f8fa9f39867909edaa.jpg
[Hide] (48.9KB, 680x481)
81b4701de77470bde1631c366fb65087cf441a6bfa9efe1c26b9f9628dd4268a.jpg
[Hide] (207.5KB, 2160x1412)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr7757/text

The KIDS Act, a bill that would establish federal mandatory digital ID checks for every site that isn't baby-tier, passed the House last week with unanimous support. Passing the Senate and being signed into law seems all but inevitable now. Acid is freaking out about it over at 8moe (https://8chan.moe/site/res/5423.html#20956) and apparently Hiroshimoot over at 4Cuck has also said he will have no choice but to gate away the non-blue boards if it passes the Senate (which it almost certainly will).

We're running out of options to just keep running away from this. By the end of the year pretty much every single country that isn't Africa-tier (and thus doesn't have the infrastructure to support internet anyway) will likely have some variation of this bullshit. You can't just VPN around it any more, it's everywhere. The Feds as well as state governments that already have this shit in place like Texas are also leaning more and more on hosting providers to terminate any website that's too risky, they are not afraid to enforce it. Knowing all of this, what's the plan here? Do we just purge anything NSFW to remain on the clearnet or go to Tor and try and dodge the Feds? Keep in mind that once the Dems come back to power they are likely going to use this to persecute badthink speech as well. Britain is already using their version to stifle criticism and dissent against their immigration policies, it will happen here too.
Glownigger_reminder.jpg
[Hide] (52.9KB, 860x813)
1758556427707337.jpg
[Hide] (89.3KB, 643x642)
1f94d3092a96d13c619848b27116131fbf8c280ae8ba9f165f2c127d7e372af3.jpg
[Hide] (69.8KB, 1280x720)
>>1774 (OP) 
Acid's apparent solution for this is a software called ChanAuth (https://8chan.moe/t/res/26981.html) which is supposed to be legally compliant while giving and storing as little information as possible. But it's still at minimum an extra layer of bullshit just to be able to access the website and is a major turn-off for many people including me. I made it clear that I would rather just access the site through Tor/I2P instead.
Forgot to mention that of course while I mentioned Trashchan, this applies to the entire webring, so by all means spread this around, this nuclear bomb on internet freedom is coming and it's coming fast and we cannot be caught unprepared.
Replies: >>1778
Shit's not looking good, and like OP I doubt the uniparty would stop this madness at this point. But I'm not looking to implement any of those invasive age check bullshit.
Now, if someone comes up with a non-invasive way that's not a PITA to implement (like browser sending an is-adult header with every HTTP request, then I can just deny every request with is-adult: 0 in nginx config), I might implement that (there has been some push to move this whole shit into OS level anyway, but none of the tech illiterates managed to ask the question how would this work on a non walled garden platform).
So long story short, unless there's some easy workaround, I'd rather go underground than comply with this ridiculous idea.

But anyway, according to bill, covered platform is:
>(A)that is accessible by the public;
>(B)with respect to which more than one-third of the material made available thereon is sexual material harmful to minors; and
>(C)with respect to which the provider of such platform knowingly makes available the sexual material harmful to minors described in subparagraph (B).
As soon as the ratio of nsfw is under 1/3, no verification needed. So time to create a /slop/ board, then ask the AI to write an 5000 page essay why big gov is good for you and vax is safe and effective and whatnot, and fed whatever nonsense it spits out into /slop/ :D (Even though to do this, I'd probably need to download a non-uncensored model to prevent accidental wrongthink appearing in the output.)

One thing I'd need to think about is moving the servers somewhere else from burgerland. BuyVM has a datacenter in Switzerland, as far as I can see they didn't attempt age verification bullshit yet, and since they're not part of the EU, bullshit usually takes a bit more time until it reaches them, while still being a place where you have infrastructure. Downside is loli seems like a grey area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#Switzerland
We could look into other countries too, but given the trajectory of things, this is a temporary solution at best.

>>1777
What you could do is redirect the user to chanauth with referrer-policy set so they don't get the referrer, and in a hash parameter (after the #) send the url of your site. What's under the # is never sent to the server, but available to javashit on chanauth. So after successful verification, chanauth can send you back to your original site (with the auth code), making the whole thing more convenient while still masking which site asked for the verification code from chanauth. The downside is if chanauth gets compromised, it's trivially easy to inject a script which will collect these query parameters.
Replies: >>1779 >>1780
>>1778
Praying for wisdom for you, Admin. The solution is out there. If you want volunteer writers for /slop/ , I'm sure there are a few long-winded Anons around.  :)
>>1778
>(B)with respect to which more than one-third of the material made available thereon is sexual material harmful to minors
Do you think we are past that point? It might make sense to segment off some of the former PLW boards or something in some manner so they could be handled differently.
Replies: >>1781
>>1780
Actually I don't even know how it's supposed to be calculated. If a website has a page with a single NSFW image, then another page with a 1000 pages long completely SFW text with no images, what percentage of the site is NSFW? And we have also videos to complicate things further.
Right now we have 28 boards, while only 8 of them are marked as SFW. Of course it doesn't mean NSFW boards are pure porn dumps, or that you can't find porn on SFW boards (SFW means more like keep it to a minimum and spoiler). And I'd rather not go through the 74152 files hosted ATM to calculate the percentage...
Replies: >>1783
Blanc_blog.png
[Hide] (358.1KB, 853x316)
>You let Club Penguin die, so now we're going to turn the entire internet into Club Penguin.
The only thing that defines being an adult now in the west is the ability (nay, expectation) to be a perpetual wageslave. You are not allowed to enjoy anything that is not already deemed safe for child consumption, you are not allowed to make your own judgments on anything. Is it any wonder everyone just wants to be a kid forever? And yet even childhood is 90% marked by being forced through an oppressive schooling system designed to mold them mentally into perfect wageslaves taking up the majority of their youth.
A third of our people must regularly take antidepressants to cope with all this, and the parasites in charge just shrug it all off and go "why is everyone miserable? maybe they just need more Netflix slop".
Replies: >>1784
>>1781
If the law is poorly defined, wouldn't it be hard to take any legal action?
Replies: >>1784 >>1785
>>1782
>wants to be a kid forever
Don't even remind me about being a kid

>>1783
If you have a free army of lawyers and a few millions (or more) burgerbucks to go after it, feel free to. I'm not even sure as a non-US citizen I even have a right to do anything about it, but since I lack the prerequisites, it doesn't matter.
And maybe it's defined in some appendix or a completely unrelated law you should just know. These legal texts are not made to be understood by mere mortals.
31874868_p0.png
[Hide] (76.6KB, 300x300)
>>1783
What they've been doing is sending threatening letters to registrar and upstream provider companies to scare them into deplatforming problematic websites and content without a real legal battle and 99% of the time those companies will comply because they don't want to fight a protracted legal battle much less against a state-level actor. It's the Operation Chokepoint strategy and it's how most censorship in the US is carried out since the passage of the Patriot Act. America is really insidious like this. At least China is honest about its tyranny.

https://archive.ph/332DQ
https://archive.ph/T6Slf
Replies: >>1789
>>1774 (OP) 
I have a last hope (or cope) that once any illusion of free speech is finally dead, people will think critically about what their gov actually censors.
I mean, facebook et. al. are still gov proxies, but the average retard thought about it in terms of """private company""". Now there will be no such pretense.
Windia.(Death.Smiles).full.4285947.png
[Hide] (3.6MB, 2533x3493)
i read childs act and thought what how do the child act.. and than i remembered.. i am a retard and it is another day on whatever the fuck this is, either die free terrorist or enjoy the jewish overlords
3c062ffe916918a1e1922e9c4b47a77560fad5a9c2d33eb3f936a6ac67e912b7.jpg
[Hide] (266.8KB, 1686x1408)
Nothing will happen, nothing ever happens. Stop fearmongering.
>>1785
>http://archive.today/2026.07.06-184131/https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/progress-enforcement-of-the-take-it-down-act-gathers-momentum/

>http://archive.today/2026.07.01-195424/https://domainnamewire.com/2026/07/01/texas-gets-porn-site/

What's the issue with the first one?
>>1774 (OP) 
It was not unanimous support.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/29/kids-safety-package-wins-house-approval-00980846
>The vote was 267-117, enough to pass the legislation known as the KIDS Act H.R. 7757 (119), under a fast-track procedure requiring a two-thirds majority.
Replies: >>1791
>>1790
we can see the votes here:
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2026228

>Party 	       Yeas 	Nays 	Present 	Not Voting
>Republican 	162 	32 	       0 	      24
>Democratic 	104 	85 	       0 	      23 
>Independent 	1
>>1774 (OP) 
>Passing the Senate and being signed into law seems all but inevitable now
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr7757/
<This bill has a . . .
<34% chance of being enacted.
<Only about 21% of bills that made it past committee in 2021–2023 were enacted.
<Factors considered:
<↑	The sponsor is the chair of a committee to which the bill has been referred.
<↑	A cosponsor is the ranking member of a committee to which the bill has been referred.
<↓	The bill was referred to House Energy and Commerce.
<↓	The bill was referred to House Judiciary.
<These factors are correlated with either an increased or decreased chance of being enacted.
Does no one ever read things?
Replies: >>1793 >>1794
>>1792
>prognosis: 34%
Ok, cool number, but what matters is what actually happens in senate. Forgive me for not trusting "prognosis".
Though I think its good practice worrying about a bill before it gets written into law, not after. If nothing happens, then we just "wasted" some time on coming up with more ways to resist.
Replies: >>1795
>>1792
I think govtrack just uses some statistics to give you a random number on how likely the bill is to be passed. It says 21% of all bills go through, so it's already thinking it's more likely than usual it passes.
And even if this particular bill doesn't pass, we already have some state level laws in force or in the making, half of the EU already have or in progress of making such laws, Britain and Australia already have these laws. The question is not if we will have a law like this everywhere, but when.
Unless, of course, clown world collapses before that time. Not impossible, but I think they still have at least a couple of years left.
Replies: >>1795
>>1793
>Though I think its good practice worrying about a bill before it gets written into law, not after. If nothing happens, then we just "wasted" some time on coming up with more ways to resist.
What I get tired of is the constant doom-posting from frags who never read shit. There's like three of these bills going through, each of them doing the "same thing" in concept but are entirely different in practice. Like this specific law is the "KIDS Act", but then there's also the KOSA that people are making a fuss about: https://archive.ph/QyZNW
That is actually rather reasonable when you read through it: https://archive.ph/AhEsa

>>1794
>And even if this particular bill doesn't pass, we already have some state level laws in force or in the making
You mean like how Gavin said he wants age verification on the OS level, and people are tell him to stuff it?
>half of the EU already have or in progress of making such laws
The EU is the FUCKING LEADER of these laws, as is their intention as the EU is just a Communist Government by another name.
>The question is not if we will have a law like this everywhere, but when.
Well, as you just said, it exists right now in Britian and Australia. Though I would also like to add West Taiwan and South Korea to that list. But also you're treating this as an inevitability rather a decision people are actively making, and you need to get your shit kicked in for that kind of mindset. If it's inevitable, then why waste the effort fussing over it?
Replies: >>1796
>>1795
>The EU is the FUCKING LEADER of these laws, as is their intention as the EU is just a Communist Government by another name.
No, it's not. Communist countries typically don't have stock markets.
Replies: >>1797
China_brags_2.mp4
[Hide] (2.2MB, 1280x720, 00:48)
Chinafication_of_Europe.mp4
[Hide] (4.8MB, 576x1024, 02:22)
>>1796
>Communist countries typically don't have stock markets
[Raughs in Mandarin
Replies: >>1798
>>1797
CHINA WILL GROW LARGER
[New Reply]
24 replies | 14 files | 17 UIDs
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.7.3