No it's not, maybe for some mainstream websites. Saying the "whole internet" is clickbait hyperbole.
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
546 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
73655 readers
4296 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They mean most of the internet for most people
Only the vast socially relevant parts of the internet
I think we need to organise a massive campaign for people to cancel their entire Isp for at least a month, I'm betting all this would get reversed almost overnight.
Anything but that I fear they win and we all end up on the darknet.
I mean, wouldn't lemmy qualify as darknet because it isn't the top 10 websites? We should be growing the Federation anyways so I'm down for that. At least they won't ban me for making Trump jokes.
No, Darknet is just a website that's not listed anywhere. Lemmy is listed in many places.
If it doesnt show up on page 2 it doesnt exist lol
I think thats more the deep web than the dark web 😄
Soon there won't be pages, just AI summarized slop.
Its already like that on certain websites like google. Do these companies think we are all tech illiterate olds?
Nah the government would love for nobody to have access to the internet lol
The US government created the internet
Not sure about what the norms are where you live, but most people in the US have to sign 1-year agreements for Internet service, and those who don't typically either pay more or would pay before because they're on a cheaper, older rate that is grandfathered in and is no longer offered by the Internet service provider.
I pay for mine in cash, they don't even know my name.
You can do that in the US as well, but it will cost more because you wouldn't be agreeing to a fixed term. For example, my ISP charges $25 a month for 200 mb/s if you agree to a one-year term, but it's $40 a month if you do not agree to a one-year term. And there's also the added inconvenience of having to go to one of the ISP's physical stores every month and put cash into their kiosk.
They will ask for your name here when signing up, but nothing prevents you from lying about your name if you're going to be paying in cash. They ask for an e-mail address as well, but you can say you haven't got one, and they'll create one for you using their own e-mail service and assign it to you. You don't actually have to use it, but it is for receiving their bills and notices.
Uh huh. People are addicted. I'd bet even the people with petabyte home media systems will go into withdrawal within picoseconds after not being able to get more more more more more more
Better would be to reject sites like reddit. Make them suffer instead.
The real goal is to eliminate anonymity from the internet.
It’s about control. They can grant you access or revoke it based on your id.
The powers at be hate that they can’t control the narrative as well as they used to so this is their solution.
this is backwards. why can't publishers mark pages as child-friendly and then browsers and operating systems can have a child-friendly mode that parents (or whoever the authoritarians are) can use. Laws can target people misusing the child-friendly mode.
It's not about actually protecting children. It's about data.
They're using children as human shields while they attack our human rights.
This is the correct answer. Notice that they have no compunction about punishing parents who secure gender-affirming care for their trans kids, but there has been zero discussion of holding parents responsible for their kids' internet usage.
Far-right groups in the US have been crying "Big Brother" about everything for years because their whole plan has been to create a surveillance state where to gather information about dissenters. Every accusation is a confession with these people.
It's fucking ironic that this article is asking me to register just to read it.
Can was please fucking stop needing accounts to exist online? So fucking dumb
Way Back Machine is your friend. I don't visit sites directly anymore.
Remember guys, they cared about the kids and their online safety as soon as Israel started a genocide in Gaza and they lost control of the narrative. But they didn't care at all for the past 20 years when Epstein and his buddies were running rampant.
edit: clarity
Does anyone vaguely remember those internet licenses from that Star Trek DS9 episode when they went back in time but it was the near future from the 80s perspective meaning that it's actually today?
We're going to have internet licenses soon
Get your coat, we’re leaving.
No one needs the internet outside of work. The moment I'm forced to show my ID or get my face scanned, I'm done for good.
No one needs the internet outside of work.
As someone with a disability (and no car), the internet has played a massive role in allowing me to live independently, which in turn has a profoundly positive impact on my mental health. There are a wide variety of circumstances in which the internet has enhanced life experience - let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't know what they are thinking, but i protect my ID data more than i protect my credit card data.
view more: next ›