This comes up surprisingly often, but this comment chain in the recent AMA prompted me to start a general discussion to maybe put this discussion to rest.

The only other place I'm aware that this has been discussed in detail is this pull request from 2023, which the creator ultimately closed.

What I'm ultimately in favour of, and what actually gets requested (one, two, three), is letting mods edit the metadata around a post. Things like the NSFW toggle, or post tags in 1.0.

But I'm throwing this out to the floor. What, if anything, do you think mods should be able to change about a user's content?

The number of children living in poverty across the UK has reached a new record high, according to figures from the Department for Work and Pensions.

Some 4.45 million children were estimated to be in households in relative low income, after housing costs, in the year to March 2024.

This is up from the previous record of 4.33 million in the 12 months to March 2023. It is the highest figure since comparable records for the UK began in 2002-2003.

A household is considered to be in relative poverty if it is below 60 per cent of the median income after housing costs.

Skeet

Today the UK Government has announced plans to open up the Land Registry – which, if delivered, will finally reveal more about who owns land in England and Wales.
[…]
Currently, it costs £7 to view a single land title register, and with 24m land titles registered, it would cost a member of the public £168m to find out who owns all of England and Wales. If the Government’s shift in policy towards the Land Registry is enacted, this should result in search fees dropping to zero – though it would require a Minister to table secondary legislation in Parliament to do so. Search fees comprise just 5.3% of the Land Registry’s income, with the vast majority of their revenues coming from conveyancing costs from people buying homes.

Maps of who owns land in England are even harder to access currently. Since 2017, the Land Registry has published large datasets listing the land and property owned by UK and overseas companies, but hasn’t released accompanying maps. In future, if the datasets were published with unique geographical identifiers for each address, called INSPIRE IDs, it would allow campaigners to map them – thereby revealing, for example, if developers are land banking.

Toot

Archive

Apple is stepping up its fight with the British government over a demand to create a “back door” in its most secure cloud storage systems, by filing a legal complaint that it hopes will overturn the order.

The iPhone maker has made its appeal to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, an independent judicial body that examines complaints against the UK security services, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Silicon Valley company’s legal challenge is believed to be the first time that provisions in the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act allowing UK authorities to break encryption have been tested before the court. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal will consider whether the UK’s notice to Apple was lawful and, if not, could order it to be quashed.

The case could be heard as soon as this month, although it is unclear whether there will be any public disclosure of the hearing. The government is likely to argue the case should be restricted on national security grounds.

Kofi

Measures proposed in the review, commissioned by the previous government and led by Conservative peer Baroness Gabby Bertin, are understood to include making it illegal to possess or publish pornography showing women being choked during sex.

After her appointment by Rishi Sunak's government, Baroness Bertin made it clear she would not be approaching the topic from a prudish or disapproving position.

She will make 32 recommendations on what should be done about the "high-harm sector" of legal online pornography.

The review, due to be published later, is expected to argue that porn videos considered too harmful for any certificate in the offline world should be banned online.

Non-fatal strangulation is already an offence if someone does not consent but its depiction online is not illegal.

The review suggests pornography websites have normalised such behaviour in the real world, with violent and degrading material rife on mainstream platforms amid a "total absence of government scrutiny".