It will suck

>>165474
It will be awesome!

Hopefully the European governments will understand interweb belongs to TEH USA and give up on their miserable attempts of exerting control over it

Leave it to heyurizens to think these laws are bad. I am really hoping they make their way to the U.S, especially the new Australian one that bans children from using the social medias. There is no reason to care unless you use these normie programs or don't know how to combat the encroaches of privacy(the only bad part of these laws, but a good trade off since I'm ahead of the governmentz). I'm tired of seeing kids have their nose stuffed against a screen on tiktok and losing all originality and character, I'm hoping these laws go a step further and just ban mobile devices for children. Hopefully this could make the dipshits stop being raised by reddit and actually visit real forums, but probably only a few will do that.

What "internet censorship bills"? There aren't any besides the loli ones which have failed tremendously.

>>165478
>I'm tired of seeing kids have their nose stuffed against a screen on tiktok and losing all originality and character
Are you also aware of how early kids are getting smartphones nowadays? What is wrong with their parents?

The west will make loli illegal while the east welcomes an exodus of westerners to the new islamic communist internet where CP will be legal and state-funded privacy tools will stay ten steps ahead of western surveillance and censorship attempts. The catch will be that attempting to spread western propaganda may result in your hardware getting fried by state-funded malware.

the UK wants to put on-device spy ware that scans a device constantly for nudity so that it can "censor" it with visual filters.

if you think that kind of dynamic visual interpretive censorship will stop at nudity, you are mistaken

>What is wrong with their parents?
an effective parenting solution to shut up their bastard kids so dad can watch tv and enjoy his cold beer in peace.

>>165481
i'm very aware

>>165483
What do they hope to achieve by preventing young people from seeing what naked humans look like?

>What do they hope to achieve by preventing young people from seeing what naked humans look like?
Not that anon, but it's kind of stupid thinking about it when sculptures and classical paintings of naked people are completely allowed for all ages if we abide by that logic.

If they just stopped at social media I think it would be good. It would force kids to actually use good websites and grow up to be less annoying.
It's probably not gonna stop at that though.

>>165511
>It's probably not gonna stop at that though.
I've noticed that with "moralfaggots", they will never ever be satisfied in their "righteous"crusade. If you give them the opportunity to ban websites for children, soon they'll change the definition of "children" to anyone below the age of 21, then anyone below the age of 50. Once they get their way, it becomes very difficult to undo/revert any laws.

If nothing else, "children on SNS" serves as a buffer/distraction against them doing even more stupid things.

There will be no internet anymore.

HEIL KLAUS SCHWAB
HEIL KEIR STARMER
HEIL PETER THIEL
HEIL ELON MUSK
...something to that effect

>>165661
you will be living in a 'dead internet' ( ´ω`)

It's probably going to suck even more. 'They' are already trying to roll out digital IDs but even without it this walled garden is already terrible.

ass

There will be two separate internets. On one you will put in your ID, face scan, and all your information, and be able to access maybe a dozen websites/apps, all owned by perhaps four different companies. On teh other internet will be all teh fun.

>>165791
I don't use any sites that require phone verification, paying, or even my real IP address so I'll stick to the fun internet. Fuck banks, I'll keep cash. Fuck online shopping, I'll go to farmer's markets and flea markets.