| General > General Technical Chat |
| UK internet censoring |
| << < (7/28) > >> |
| Ed.Kloonk:
--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 12:42:49 pm ---Based on the fact we have a fairly functional society --- End quote --- Dude! |
| Zero999:
I believe this thread relates to a piece of legislation known as the online harms bill. It's not specifically about protecting children, but targetting harmful content. This can be anything from misinformation, to blogs relating to suicide. The problem is, what's harmful, is open to interpretation and more often than not, we don't know what is misinformation, when we don't know the truth. Handing the power to decide what is harmful and fact from fiction to a central body, especially the government, is dangerous because it will make said organisation very powerful. Heck, the authorities in this country have been guilty of spreading misinformation and dangerous content, especially over the last two years. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on July 09, 2023, 09:15:22 pm ---I believe this thread relates to a piece of legislation known as the online harms bill. It's not specifically about protecting children, but targetting harmful content. This can be anything from misinformation, to blogs relating to suicide. The problem is, what's harmful, is open to interpretation and more often than not, we don't know what is misinformation, when we don't know the truth. Handing the power to decide what is harmful and fact from fiction to a central body, especially the government, is dangerous because it will make said organisation very powerful. Heck, the authorities in this country have been guilty of spreading misinformation and dangerous content, especially over the last two years. --- End quote --- The government is normally the bad guy. If it doesn't appear to be in some area today, give it some time, and see how it works out. Nobody who can escape the consequences of their actions stays a good guy for long, and those in government are almost totally immune. |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on July 09, 2023, 11:15:15 am --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 11:04:50 am --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on July 09, 2023, 10:10:25 am --- --- 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. --- End quote --- Social media is like newspapers of old, they contain a vast array of topics and content, not all suitable for children. --- End quote --- I reiterate my point about active choices vs passive consumption of whatever somebody is paying to push. --- End quote --- Going online, active choice, going to specific website, active choice, you cannot claim people are being forced to use platforms or sites which push unwanted content to them... because you are pointing to sites that are peoples choice to use. --- Quote from: tggzzz on July 09, 2023, 11:15:15 am --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 11:04:50 am ---Wikipedia being a different example of broad content pitched at all sorts of audiences, descending from encyclopaedias (which came in children's versions). If parents dont like their children having access to the broader content, then those children can be restricted/blocked/diverted away from that platform/site rather than adding barriers for everyone. --- End quote --- How, exactly? I suspect you don't have children, because if you did you would realise how inventively devious they can be. (I encouraged that in my daughter, and it has paid off :)) --- End quote --- Did you lock your children behind an electrified razor wire fence to stop them wandering the city (and then gave the keys to the government)? unlikely. Some schools have fences and lock kids inside, other have no fences and have students learn and understand the consequences of leaving of their own will. There are people who will choose one of those for their children but why should their preference be forced on everyone else? and then onto adults too? |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 12:42:49 pm --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 09:57:29 am ---you equate universal moderation/control with a net win for society based on... nothing? Emotive nonsense. --- End quote --- Based on the fact we have a fairly functional society which uses the law ("Universal moderation/control" as you call it) to restrict the actions of all for the benefit of all. Perhaps some form of internet restriction is one more law than you can stand. But my suggestion above would not impact anyone other than parents and their children. Put a legal requirement in place for parents to provide only filtered internet access for their children. At least it would get parents talking about it, even if it was completey unenforcable. --- End quote --- Just because you can point to other good things about laws does not make all laws good. How dumb do you think we are? What are the actual benefits of forcibly blocking content that would be legal to view in a book? can those benefits be quantified? what are the costs? The proposed law is not only affecting children and parents, and only now do you make the reveal that is what you want to support (after many misleading posts trying to take such more extreme positions). Seems like you're here to add confusion and noise to the issue and keep banging on about THINK OF THE CHILDREN... who are not in any immediate and serious threat to their being/safety. Any psychological trauma from children coming across inappropriate content is entirely from the parents letting them access it (now that the schools are required to provide better controlled internet access). |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |