General > General Technical Chat
UK internet censoring
Nominal Animal:
I think there is one key thing here to consider: We cannot make the world a safe space.
To make the world a safe space, we'd have to put away a large fraction of the human population, because we are inherently unsafe.
No, I don't mean specific people are unsafe all the time, but that most people are unsafe some fraction of the time; for example, when drunk, on drugs, when in the grips of teenage angst and uncertainty, mental disorders, angry and frustrated at the lack of control over their lives, and so on.
The truly evil people are just the carrot on top, and not the meat of the issue at all.
Besides, accidents happen.
It's like with many mental problems like depression: we cannot remove the problem, we can only help the person to become strong and resilient enough to overcome the problem. To many, the two feel the exact same thing, but the nature of the help needed is completely different.
In situations where actual physical violence or altercations are not involved, I think it is healthier to help make individuals stronger and more resilient, than to try and make their surroundings safe. Children are a difficult point (I mean, there are many valid arguments to take into account), but I believe parents should have both the power and the responsibility of the upbringing of their children. I do not believe governments trying to control all humans so that particular models of child upbringing will be safe, is at all tenable. If not for any other reason, because prohibition laws not supported by a large majority of the population always fail.
tggzzz:
--- Quote from: coppice on July 09, 2023, 09:23:23 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
We can kick out the government. We can't kick out the corporations.
That alone means the corporations are more insidiously dangerous in the long term.
Add that the corporations are the ones creating products specifically designed to amplify Tom Dick and Harriets nonsensical and paranoid ramblings.
Overall the unaccountable and untouchable corporations are, in the long term, more dangerous than any Western government.
Mind you, recent UK governments have been eroding that difference - but the current mob will largely disappear in 2024.
twospoons:
If you never let your kids climb a tree they will never appreciate the consequences of combining body-weight, dead branches and hard ground.
The end result of taking away all risks for kids is a generation of snowflakes who would take a sick-day for a hangnail.
I've never restricted my kids access to risky things, but I have made damn sure they understood the potential consequences. There's no point trying to fence off the dangerous bits of the internet - that just makes it all the more enticing, and a determined kid absolutely will find a way around the barrier. Instead, teach them to make the smart choice.
Education beats restriction every time.
james_s:
--- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 07, 2023, 08:02:09 pm ---In my view, young children are viewing armful content online and it is causing damage. Societal damage. More worrying is that I see so clear path to a better, safer internet for younger folks. Age verification will probably be of limited benefit to the younger generation and a PITA to the rest of us. But we gotta do something. Firewalled internet (China style) for different age groups under 16? Under 10's limited to fifty websites? Fuck knows.
--- End quote ---
How about parents do their job and parent? If they want to shield their kids from certain websites then install a firewall in their home, or just do things the old fashioned way and supervise their children. We got our hands on dirty magazines now and then when we were kids and it doesn't seem to have done any lasting harm.
I just hope this doesn't become another fiasco like those goddamned cookie notifications that I constantly have to deal with thanks to some European law that doesn't even apply to me.
NiHaoMike:
This reminds me of how at the high school I went to, one of the biology books in the library has pictures of male and female private parts. (That's photographs, in addition to cross section drawings which are standard for such books.) I just kept it to myself and continued reading. In fairness, there are truly lots of books in any good sized library and it would be impractical to check each one for such "bad" pictures and words.
Looking back, it would have been fun to anonymously mention that such a book exists in the school library, then see how long it takes for it to be found. (That was before social media was a thing.) At the least, the librarian would be confused why there's suddenly a lot of students interested in books.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version