| General > General Technical Chat |
| UK internet censoring |
| << < (5/28) > >> |
| vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on July 08, 2023, 10:37:24 pm ---"Who guards the guardians?" is an age old question, for good reason. As an engineer I'm predisposed to look for cause and effect - which leads me towards conspiracy theories. However, over a long lifetime, I've been ever mindful that the "cockup theory of history" is usually correct, and the "conspiracy theory of history" should only be considered where there is strong evidence. In this case you have a very difficult problem plus a bunch of untrained people that neither understand the technology nor understand how things fail - and they are making the laws. That means the cockup theory of history is sufficient to explain half-baked proposed laws like this. --- End quote --- Conspiracy theories only have to go a few steps past the original notion to become ridiculously complex concoctions relying upon the impossible collusion of every-increasing numbers of conspirators to try to cover their own inconsistencies. The cockup theory covers the inconsistencies well, by comparison. |
| vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: AndyBeez on July 08, 2023, 11:28:27 pm ---And the political class wonder why they have to live behind bullet proof glass? --- End quote --- Anthony Albanese, Peter Dutton, & Scott Morrison wander around in public in shirtsleeves without anyone ever taking a shot at them. Even such people as Don Trump, Joe Biden, & Boris Johnson appear in public with no "Bullet proof glass". One thing I've always regarded as weird, in fact, is how prominent Politicians & other public figures, such as the Pope & King Charles, when they fly somewhere, exit the aircraft using old fashioned stairs, so they are out "in the breeze", whereas the rest of us enter & exit via tubes, not seeing the light of day till we emerge from "processing". Surely, the "waving to the adoring crowd" thing is obsolete these days, (as there are none "airside") & the security aspect of being out of sight of possible snipers should be a "biggie" for using the tubes. |
| voltsandjolts:
--- Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 11:32:33 pm --- --- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 12:45:55 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 08:17:01 am ---The road is still not a place for children to play unattended, there are other places for that. Uncontrolled access to the internet is something which should be continued, but at the same time specific places for children are made available. --- End quote --- Well, we agree there needs to be seperate internet areas for children, but you prefer choice while I prefer enforcement. --- End quote --- But you keep arguing for the lowest common denominator approach which is not applied to (any?) other situation other than perhaps smoking in enclosed spaces. --- End quote --- You mean an approach which impacts everyone to protect or benefit a particular group. But that is what we do in society, and in the end it benefits us all. We all contribute taxes, in part to fund the upbringing and education of children, amoungst other things. So, thanks for your contribution, even if it's resented. --- Quote --- --- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 12:45:55 pm ---As I see it, enforcement would have a much greater chance of protecting more children. Perhaps some sort of legal framework that required parents to route childrens internet access through commercial internet filters that you mentioned previously. There would need to be software tools (mobile, desktop apps), pricing options and funding (via government child support payments) to give this a chance of working. Many parents are concerned about kids internet access but the technically illerate parents don't understand the options currently available, or baulk at the costs. Regulation forces them (at least a good percentage of them) to take action. --- End quote --- Right, so say that instead of the provocative/sensational extreme of must be applied to everyone at all times because some vulnerable group might be at risk. Oh wait, the UK is already moving on that for schools: https://saferinternet.org.uk/guide-and-resource/teachers-and-school-staff/appropriate-filtering-and-monitoring/appropriate-filtering and has been providing guidance for parents on that for a long time. If a parent chooses to let their kids loose unsupervised and unattended on the internet, they need to accept thats basically the same as letting them freely roam the city (including roads, and "adult" encounters). The reaction is not OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN* *because I'm a lazy parent and cant be bothered to care for my child --- End quote --- There is always a balance to be made between over-reguation and under-regulation, which the political system rarely gets just right. The 'saferinternet' site you mentioned is clearly not having enough impact and more needs to be done, for the benefit of children now, and society in the long term. The voluntary approach you and I prefer has failed (perhaps due to poor parenting), and your upset because the next level of protection may impact you in some way. You could be more sanguine about it, and accept that if such regulation comes to Australia it might benefit your kids or grandchildren. Or if you don't have kids, then your society. |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 09:22:55 am --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 11:32:33 pm --- --- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 12:45:55 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 08:17:01 am ---The road is still not a place for children to play unattended, there are other places for that. Uncontrolled access to the internet is something which should be continued, but at the same time specific places for children are made available. --- End quote --- Well, we agree there needs to be seperate internet areas for children, but you prefer choice while I prefer enforcement. --- End quote --- But you keep arguing for the lowest common denominator approach which is not applied to (any?) other situation other than perhaps smoking in enclosed spaces. --- End quote --- You mean an approach which impacts everyone to protect or benefit a particular group. But that is what we do in society, and in the end it benefits us all. We all contribute taxes, in part to fund the upbringing and education of children, amoungst other things. So, thanks for your contribution, even if it's resented. --- End quote --- Funding services for those who choose to use them is radically different from introducing restrictions on all. --- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 09:22:55 am --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 11:32:33 pm --- --- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 12:45:55 pm ---As I see it, enforcement would have a much greater chance of protecting more children. Perhaps some sort of legal framework that required parents to route childrens internet access through commercial internet filters that you mentioned previously. There would need to be software tools (mobile, desktop apps), pricing options and funding (via government child support payments) to give this a chance of working. Many parents are concerned about kids internet access but the technically illerate parents don't understand the options currently available, or baulk at the costs. Regulation forces them (at least a good percentage of them) to take action. --- End quote --- Right, so say that instead of the provocative/sensational extreme of must be applied to everyone at all times because some vulnerable group might be at risk. Oh wait, the UK is already moving on that for schools: https://saferinternet.org.uk/guide-and-resource/teachers-and-school-staff/appropriate-filtering-and-monitoring/appropriate-filtering and has been providing guidance for parents on that for a long time. If a parent chooses to let their kids loose unsupervised and unattended on the internet, they need to accept thats basically the same as letting them freely roam the city (including roads, and "adult" encounters). The reaction is not OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN* *because I'm a lazy parent and cant be bothered to care for my child --- End quote --- There is always a balance to be made between over-reguation and under-regulation, which the political system rarely gets just right. The 'saferinternet' site you mentioned is clearly not having enough impact and more needs to be done, for the benefit of children now, and society in the long term. The voluntary approach you and I prefer has failed (perhaps due to poor parenting), and you're upset because the next level of protection may impact you in some way. You could be more sanguine about it, and accept that if such regulation comes to Australia it might benefit your kids or grandchildren. Or if you don't have kids, then your society. --- End quote --- But there is the rub, you equate universal moderation/control with a net win for society based on... nothing? Emotive nonsense. The people supporting such draconian oversight/moderation are either: a) bad parents (as they are letting their children into an unmoderated space without supervision) or b) trying to hide their true motivations by using the THINK OF THE CHILDREN rubbish. Most laws make economic sense and safety laws are usually backed by risk assessment and $$$ values, funny how all that is missing here. There is no problem for adults, with many resources and solutions already existing for those who want their children to access the internet within a safe boundary why are they pushing that onto everyone else? Might as well start banning books that might cause damage if they end up in the hands of children. |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 09:57:29 am ---Might as well start banning books that might cause damage if they end up in the hands of children. --- End quote --- Books have to be actively chosen by the reader (or teacher). With (un)social media the platform chooses what the reader sees based on opaque criteria designed to hook the reader into passively consuming more of the platform's product. That's a significant difference. Having said that, this whole argument is very similar to the old debates about pornography, and how to define a distinction between that and "art". |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |