Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Temporary derogation from certain provisions of the ePrivacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse · Vote Results · HowTheyVote.eu
-----
Per quelli che vogliono sapere chi e cosa ha votato in merito alla "chat control"...
N. B. Ricordo inoltre che essere stati assenti è equivalente ad aver votato a favore di chat control 1.0, ovvero la proroga della deroga ePrivacy: le piattaforme possono continuare a scansionare volontariamente i messaggi non-E2E per CSAM fino al 2028 (o fino a nuovo accordo sul 2.0).
A Measured Look at Wisconsin’s VPN Bills: Privacy, Protection, and Political Grandstanding
In recent months, Wisconsin lawmakers introduced two pieces of legislation, Assembly Bill 105 and Senate Bill 130, intended to regulate online content that is considered harmful to minors. At first glance, these proposals appear to address a legitimate public concern. Parents, educators, and policymakers often struggle with the question of how to protect young people on a rapidly shifting internet. The intention behind these bills is to introduce strict age verification requirements for certain websites and to reduce the ability for minors to bypass restrictions through tools such as Virtual Private Networks. This surface level goal is easy to understand. However, as privacy advocates and technical experts began examining the bills, a much larger debate emerged. These proposals do not simply concern the online safety of minors. They raise broader questions about digital privacy, freedom of expression, technological feasibility, and the ways in which political rhetoric can shape public perception.
AB 105 and SB 130 aim to require websites that host content considered harmful to minors to implement some form of age verification. In practice, this usually means submitting a government issued ID, undergoing a biometric scan, or relying on a third party verification service. To prevent users from bypassing these checks, the bills also pressure websites to identify and block access from users who appear to be connecting through a VPN. This means that anyone whose traffic is routed through an encrypted connection could be denied access to websites that fall under the jurisdiction of the law. The justification is simple on paper. If a VPN hides a user’s geographic location and age, then a minor could use one to break through a digital barrier meant to protect them.
The concern arises when the broader implications are considered. VPNs are not niche tools reserved for evading website restrictions. They are widely used in everyday life by remote workers, travelers, journalists, small business owners, and individuals who simply prefer not to broadcast their location to every site they visit. They protect users from data breaches on public WiFi, prevent advertisers from tracking browsing habits, and encrypt communication in ways that shield people from malicious actors. They are also recommended by countless cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations. For many people, a VPN is as essential as antivirus software.
This leads to one of the central criticisms raised by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The attempt to regulate VPN usage for one narrow purpose can create a ripple effect that impacts everyone. For example, if websites begin to fear legal consequences, they may choose to block all VPN traffic outright, regardless of whether the user lives in Wisconsin or qualifies as a minor. This type of over blocking is common when policies hinge on vague definitions or complicated enforcement requirements. In this case, the definition of “material harmful to minors” is broad and its boundaries are difficult to determine with precision. As a result, websites may react by restricting access in ways that affect adults who are behaving completely within the law.
There are also concerns regarding the privacy risks associated with age verification. Requiring users to submit sensitive identifying information can create new vulnerabilities. Hacks, data breaches, and leaks of personal documents are already common problems across the internet. Introducing mandatory ID checks for a wide range of websites risks increasing the amount of sensitive data stored across multiple platforms. Critics argue that while the goal of protecting minors is understandable, the method may unintentionally expose people to greater identity theft risks.
Still, it is important to acknowledge why lawmakers pursue these bills. There is a genuine desire to address the challenges posed by online content accessible to minors. Many families feel overwhelmed by the speed at which technology evolves, and legislators are pressured to provide solutions. Some supporters of the bills believe that strict age verification is the only way to guarantee that minors cannot access inappropriate sites. Others view VPN blocking as a necessary measure to prevent circumvention. These arguments are not without reason. However, they are complicated by the realities of technology and the ethical questions surrounding privacy.
Beyond the technical debate lies another factor that often influences public policy: political messaging. When legislators frame these bills as moral imperatives, the discussion can shift away from the nuanced balancing act between safety and freedom, and toward emotionally charged rhetoric. This type of moral grandstanding can be persuasive, especially when it centers on protecting children. Even critics acknowledge that such framing is powerful. It creates a dynamic where opposing the bill appears synonymous with failing to protect minors, even if the concerns raised are legitimate and grounded in practical reality.
This tactic often relies on what some observers describe as societal confusion around whataboutism. When presented with a moral dilemma, people tend to focus on the immediate emotional appeal rather than the wider consequences. Politicians who employ moral grandstanding sometimes rely on this confusion. They present the issue as a binary choice: either support the bill to protect children, or oppose it and risk appearing morally negligent. In this environment, concerns about privacy, cybersecurity, constitutional rights, or unintended consequences can be dismissed as secondary. This tactic can be manipulative because it pressures individuals to support legislation even if it contradicts their values or personal beliefs about privacy and freedom.
A neutral examination reveals that the intentions behind AB 105 and SB 130 are not inherently malicious, but the execution raises genuine concerns. The desire to shield minors from harmful content is understandable and widely shared. However, the tools chosen to reach that goal carry significant consequences for adults, businesses, and the general public. Over blocking VPNs could disrupt the workflow of remote employees. Mandatory ID verification could expose personal data to new threats. Websites may face costly technical requirements that are difficult to implement accurately. These outcomes are not hypothetical. They are documented consequences of similar laws in other regions of the world.
Ultimately, the question becomes one of balance. Can society protect minors online without weakening privacy rights for everyone else? Critics urge that solutions should be targeted, technologically informed, and respectful of constitutional boundaries. Supporters counter that without strong measures, young people remain vulnerable in an unregulated digital environment. Both viewpoints hold some truth.
What remains essential is the ability to discuss these issues without falling into the trap of moral grandstanding. A healthy democracy depends on public debate that is honest and informed, not shaped by fear or rhetorical manipulation. If lawmakers approach this subject with transparency and respect for both child safety and civil liberties, then a more effective and equitable solution may be possible. If not, the risk is that policy shaped by emotional pressure rather than practical understanding will create more harm than the problems it attempts to solve.
This is how the EU itself is reporting on it in their daily press releases LINK
Note that they are trying to frame it as "just making sure there's no CSAM in the emails!", which we know is not what chat controls are for in the end. Chat control 2.0 is still unresolved, but now that they pushed through 1.0 even though majority voted against it, that weakens 2.0's resistance.
What is the difference between Chat Control 1.0 and Chat Control 2.0? A clear overview of both EU laws, their timelines, and where things st
Meanwhile, enjoy this picture from May of this year where the EPP who was reviving chatcontrol 1.0 is shaking hands with Zucky
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The KIDS Act, ostensibly aimed at protecting children, will raise the risk for journalists, dissidents, and whistleblowers.
Contact your representatives, US folx. Yes, even if you're scared. Yes, even if you think it doesn't matter, even if you think they won't listen. Write an email if you can't make a call. Call after hours and leave a message. Call during office hours if you feel up to it, but do something. Call every day. Email every day. Fucking bother your rep. They work for you, not the other way around.
Your single call is not the point. The point is the aggregate of calls and emails. The point is that even "safe" Republicans don't feel really safe right now. The point is that "safe" Democrats are feeling pressure from the left due to the success of DSA candidates. You think they won't listen, and they'll probably try to make you think they're not, but they do, in the aggregate. The midterms have them running scared right now, and now is the time to shut this shit down.
Yes, again. Sorry it's not over. The people who really, really want to criminalize dissent are going to make us keep fighting this one. Sorry about that, but keep fighting.
If you think Internet age-verification checkpoints are stupid and petty now, just wait to see how you'll feel about it after you read this post.
In 2002, Cartoon Network would transfer from kid's cartoons to Adult Swim rather abruptly, and do you know how they dealt with the content responsibility? They put up a sign on the broadcast that said "This program may contain content that some would find unsuitable [...]" and then played a silly bumper with live-action footage of people and a swimming pool with a voice that says "All kids out of the pool for Adult Swim!"
That was all they resorted to. Parents were generally trusted with their kids that once Adult Swim came on, parenting would step in and guide the kid. There was no invasive ID system or anything like that. The TV did not have a camera on it that you'd have to use to transmit your face to Warner. You didn't have to give your ID to your television. Just because we have the technology to automatically get in the way of content now, it doesn't mean that's a good thing. We didn't need it back then, and we don't need it now.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
DuckDuckGo's Browser to Block YouTube Ads by Default
DuckDuckGo now blocks most video ads, including on YouTube! Try it on desktop or mobile today.
TL;DR:
duckduckgo has joined Brave in blocking ads on YouTube by default
It seems that it’ll be also blocking video ads in general but YouTube is the focus
iOS, Windows, and Mac is on by default, but android is gonna be default later, with users able to turn it on in settings
It’s based filter list from Ublock origin, which is open source
full thing
“The browser is using filters from the uBlock Origin ad blocker to detect and block commercials on YouTube's website. “
DuckDuckGo says that
“DuckDuckGo now blocks most video ads! Use our free browser to get the full YouTube experience, minus the ads.
YouTube Ad Blocking joins our powerful lineup of browsing protections that manage cookie pop-ups, protect you from invasive tracker-based web ads, and more.
YouTube Ad Blocking is already on by default for most iPhone, Windows, and Mac users!
It will be auto-enabled for Android soon, but users can opt in via browser Settings in the meantime.”
It seems that it will include video ADS even beyond YouTube, but YouTube is the main focus here
“This new feature blocks ads that run before and during your videos, letting you watch YouTube without the interruptions.”
They’ve been protecting their users from ADs for a while now
“We block tracker-powered web ads before they can load.
We have Global Privacy Control enabled by default, expressing your opt-out rights by telling websites not to sell or share your personal information.
We can even manage cookie pop-ups behind the scenes, so you don’t have to deal with the distraction.”
They are joining the Brave browser that also turn off ads by default
how to turn on
It’s on by default if your on, default for iOS, Windows, and Mac
For android, it’ll be on by default soon, but you just need to go into settings and than ad blocking
You can do this for all devices to turn it off and and on
“Please note: if you’re on a mobile device, links to YouTube videos may open in the YouTube app by default.
To enjoy DuckDuckGo’s YouTube Ad Blocking, you need to open the YouTube website in the DuckDuckGo browser. It won’t work in the YouTube app.”
how it works
Their using a community driven filter list from Ublock Origin
This is open source and updated regularly
“As with most ad blockers, using our ad blocker can lead to some additional buffering times. But once your video loads, you won't be interrupted with ads.”
The browser is using filters from the uBlock Origin ad blocker to detect and block commercials on YouTube's website. But there is a trade-of
Seems like there is a law that went into effect April 2nd of this year that requires age assurance to prevent young users from downloading inappropriate
It seems that AI estimations or biometric facial age estimation is gonna be used, but also "age verification through digital ID or credit card data. It does not specifically mention matches to government-issued ID documents, but these are allowed."
"So far, the Microsoft and Xbox stores give users a choice between facial age estimation, Singpass or a government ID scan to confirm their age eligibility, according to The Straits Times.
The Apple App Store offers age assurance through credit card data or government IDs. The Samsung Galaxy Store and Huawei AppGallery only accept credit card data. Google Play only uses account activity analysis by default, though in cases of incorrect age estimations, the user can resort to a fall-back, matching selfie biometrics to an ID or submitting credit card data."
Tuesday was the first compliance deadline for Singapore’s new rules requiring app stores use age assurance to prevent people under 18 downlo
There was some talks of a social media ban in 2025, jan of 2026, but nothing yet so far. Might've missed something though
tzv whatsappem přišlo, že přestože ho v dubnu zamítli, chat control 1.0 už je zase na stole.
velmi přehledné info o tom, co to je a proč bychom neměli chtít, aby to prošlo, je tady:
Learn about the EU Chat Control proposal and contact your representatives to protect digital privacy and encryption.
Najdete tam i přehledně, kdo z našich politiků je pro a kdo proti (je docela bizarní, že v tomto se najednou ocitáme na podobné lodi jako lidi z Přísahy, ale hlasy jsou hlasy...). Taky je tam možnost jim rovnou zavolat, nebo napsat mail:
Máte někdo nějaké ukázky mailů, které už jste třeba psali? Bude to oceněno velkým vděkem! (v minulosti i teď šla tahle věc dost mimo mě, takže pokud víte víc než já, hurá do reblogů!)
!!! o celé věci se bude hlasovat zítra (9. 7.), takže pokud máte dneska večer moment, napište prosím mail !!!
Nemám moc kapacitu, ale střílím všeobecný template zde:
Předmět: Prosím, odmítněte Chat Control 1.0
Vážený pane/vážená paní,
píši Vám ohledně zítřejšího hlasování o Chat Control 1.0, který byl již jednou, letos v dubnu, zamítnut.
Apeluji na Vás jako občan České republiky, kterému záleží na svobodné společnosti a digitálním soukromí, abyste hlasoval/a proti návrhu, který by umožnil ve velkém skenovat soukromou komunikaci.
Chápu, že Vaší motivací je bezpečí všech, a primárně dětí. Plošné skenování zpráv ale nás ani děti efektivně neochrání, pouze kompromituje naše soukromí. Naopak může i uškodit - množství komunikace, která bude algoritmicky označena jako závadná, ačkoli závadná není (tzv. false positive), zahltí přísllušné orgány, které tak budou mít méně kapacity se věnovat reálným případům.* Již dnes má policie navíc k dispozici cílené vyšetřování, ke kterému není nutné plošně analyzovat veškerou komunikaci.
Prosím, abyste při zítřejším hlasování stál/a na straně demokratické společnosti, která chrání právo na soukromí všech svých občanů, a ctí presumpci neviny.
Apeluji na Vás, abyste Chat Control 1.0 odmítl/a. Hlas proti neznamená, že Vám nezáleží na občanském bezpečí - znamená, že se stavíte za hledání takového řešení, které odborníky nebude odsouzeno jako zásah do soukromé sféry s nejistým výsledkem.
S pozdravem,
*toto čerpám z templatu emailu, který je na tom webu, pozn. linka R9
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I don't usually talk about stuff like this but I need to spread the word. the EU is trying to fast-track the return of chat control 1.0 (mass scanning of all communications including encrypted messages).
If you live in the EU I am begging you to contact your representatives and tell them not to let this fucking thing through. a vote is gonna happen on July 9th where they will need a majority of 361 MEPs to be able to stop it.
Learn about the EU Chat Control proposal and contact your representatives to protect digital privacy and encryption.
