this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
899 points (96.6% liked)

memes

18014 readers
1586 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ashughes@feddit.uk 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My government seems to think otherwise.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I knew imgur was getting bad but that's ridiculous.

Anyway, Here:

The image OP posted

[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Technically that's down to Imgur. Basically the UK government told Imgur to stop selling children's data to advertisers and Imgur was like "No, we're going to keep doing that and you're blocked".

But, OFCOM basically said "Okay sure you can block the UK and that will stop you selling any children's data going forward, but you still sold children's data in the past, so the fine still stands" and now it's kinda in limbo because Imgur doesn't have a UK office so there's nowhere to extract the money from. However, even if Imgur did introduce age assurance (which is increasingly likely given that Imgur is based in California and California is flirting with age assurance requirements too) and therefore would be in compliance with the Online Safety Act, they would still be fined because they failed to protect children's data in the past.