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
In addition, I made a post while back on what people could say against these online bills - brought up some good points too:
What Could I Say Against These Online Bills
Also let me know if you are okay with me calling you deer as I found in the ask box, thought a little humor would be nice, especially with everything going on - if not, just sent me a DM and I'll stop!
But that is all I have for right now,
How are you hanging in there?
Sincerely,
HumanConditionPoetry
See ya later, my butterfly - do not let the jaws of life gator 😉 🦋!
⭐️🇺🇸ILLINOISANS, PLEASE GET ON THIS! THIS BILL PUTS AGE VERFICATIONS ON SYSTEMS! 🇺🇸⭐️
It's ok calling me deer ! I am a deer, after all :D🦌 ❤️! As for me, I'm ok, just busy working and trying to keep up with all of this age verfication stuff. Thank you for asking. 🫂 How are you?
You heard @humanconditionpoetry , guys! Get to it, this bill is going to the governorers desk, and you still have time to stop it!
⭐️⚔️CONTACT YOUR REPS! SIGN PETITIONS AND PROTEST!⚔️ ⭐️
(Thank you for notifying me of this news @humanconditionpoetry for this news. I try my best to keep up with all of the age verfication going on in various states. :) 💕🙏)
I think KOSA and the bad internet bills is gonna pass.
why? because its pointless because I am getting ignored and left on Voice message no matter how much I call and I can't bring this up to my loved ones because I think they are not gonna listen to me.
what the hell are we gonna do if it dose pass? it might make things worse because when minors are going to be deplatformed, they are just going to move to other sites that are not gonna make them give up something that can't be changed like a password is stolen that your face and government ID. that could get predators to have leverage over those minors that now have a good reason to want to hide what they are doing from their parents.
what is the point in anything? its not like anything is ever gonna get better no matter what. i don't feel bad about dehumanizing our political leaders because that might as well not be human and horrible things should happen to them because they don't care about us, so why care about them?
its pointless, there is nothing anymore. I have a feeling your gonna delete this ask because why listen to me? its not like anyone else dose.
Voicemails do get counted, make sure to list your full name and zip code bc they don't count you if you don't identify yourself. They need to make sure you're actually a constituent. Don't give up preemptively.
Yes it passed the house, call your senators. Call daily or more often.
Andy bunham is now adding curfews to their kosa law. Also will roll out the rest of what keir stalin talked one at a time. Now I am saying and mentioning this, because they are the main source of the issue and domino'd this whole thing that reduces free speech. Now this is the time to again, notify your parents the dangers this shows and how it also affects their use of the internet if they only use it for work. Which they mose probably do and the rest of their time, its tv/mainstream news propaganda. Please share/spread the word like you do already online yet in the way that we have to do so irl. I know its annoying as hell. Yet someone has to wake them up. Remember, mainstream news on tv and paper will NEVER talk about it or if they do it will go like this
News reporter: How do you feel about these new restriction?
Kid: Well Im gonna be bored yet-*cut off*
News reporter: How do you think this will go as a parent?
Parent: Well protecting kids is important b-*cut off*
Along those lines. So please do what you can as much as you all have been online. The reason these laws never get questioned is because we also need to include the people/parents in person, in real life as well. Have them call, email, or irl mail their reps, senators and governors. Have them mention along the lines of "I will not give my support and will not give my vote if you are in favor of any kids act, verification law, and other monitoring esc law that is under the guise of "safety" " during the call, email, or letter. Also guide them to petitions against these laws. The more you help your family and neighbors be technologically aware, the better it is to maintain basic privacy rights as a person. I know it will be tedious as hell, yet every reblog/sharing links among people online. We also have to inform the people in our local area in person as much as we can. Thank you for your time. Stay safe, stay alert, stay free
Earlier today, we reblogged a link to a petition against chat control. Apparently, despite it's noble cause, this petition was launched by anti lgbtgia+ right wingers. So please consider signing this one instead.
Stoppt die Chatkontrolle – Grundrechte gelten auch im Netz!
We are deeply sorry, and promise to be more careful from now on.
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
It will go away after 2028, for its not permanent, but it’s still bad to see
We still need to fight the permanent chat control 2.0
But it’s also good to know that
“What is still NOT being scanned: End-to-end encrypted chats, such as those on WhatsApp, have always been exempt from these scans. Additionally, European providers of messaging and email services have never implemented chat control measures.”
⭐️🇪🇺NOOOOO, THIS IS STILL BAD!!!🇪🇺⭐️
People who live in the EU PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPS, SIGN PETITIONS, AND PROTEST AGAINST THIS ISSUE!!! THIS IS SERIOUS!!!
Your rights are being dismantled by the people in power. This is a HUGE privacy and security risk for ALL people!
(Thank you, @gentleman-velvet , for the news :) 💕🙏! To all the people who live in the EU and other countries going through all of this age verfication, digital ID, etc. bs, please keep fighting!)
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
