{"id":839,"date":"2026-01-27T10:06:39","date_gmt":"2026-01-27T10:06:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.ibvl.in\/index.php\/2026\/01\/27\/weekly-update-488\/"},"modified":"2026-01-27T10:06:39","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T10:06:39","slug":"weekly-update-488","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.ibvl.in\/index.php\/2026\/01\/27\/weekly-update-488\/","title":{"rendered":"Weekly Update 488"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Weekly<\/p>\n

It’s the discussion about the reaction of some people in the UK regarding their impending social media ban for under 16s<\/a> that bugged me most. Most noteably was the hand-waving around “the gov is just trying to siphon up all our IDs” and “this means everyone<\/em> will have to show ID, not just under 16s”. If only there was another precedent somewhere in the world where precisely this model was rolled… oh – wait! \ud83d\udc28 The way the ban (sorry – “delay”) has been done in Australia isn’t perfect, but it also doesn’t have to be. There are still plenty of under 16s with access so socials, but I do not know of a single adult who had had to show any form of ID or do any age verification whatsoever. So, relax, wait until we know more about how thye’re planning to do it (and the UK gov will<\/em> be closely looking at the Aussie precedent), and then lose your minds if it’s done totally differently at the expense of everyone’s<\/em> privacy.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\"Weekly<\/a><\/div>\n
\"Weekly<\/a><\/div>\n
\"Weekly<\/a><\/div>\n
\"Weekly<\/a><\/div>\n