| General > General Technical Chat |
| UK internet censoring |
| << < (11/28) > >> |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: themadhippy on July 10, 2023, 01:54:44 pm ---If its about protecting the children aint it about time we banned the bbc --- End quote --- I'm not in favour of banning things. However, the licence fee needs to be replaced by something similar with a more appropriate name, like the "BBC fee", that you don't need to pay to use other people's services. Then adjust the fee to the value they provide. Five pounds a year seem reasonable? The BBC's audiences are falling faster than the number of licence payers. Where's the incentive for the BBC to perform when they can get away with that? |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: Someone on July 10, 2023, 11:36:14 am ---Ok so there is an increase in inappropriate personal interactions between children and other people, so why not argue for things which will address that? --- End quote --- Good to see you (finally) conceding the bleeding obvious. Now you have to think, and recognise that voltsandjolts is arguing for some specific things "which will address that". --- Quote ---Like you know, supervision and having parents in the loop/vetting contacts? --- End quote --- Because it has proven to be insufficient. Supervision is not only desirable, but also necessary for many other purposes - but insufficient in these cases. --- Quote ---Censoring static content and limiting access to information is not doing anything to address that. --- End quote --- Static-vs-dynamic content is an irrelevant red herring. We all agree that limiting access to information has significant problems. The question is where to strike the balance in the grey areas. You appear to not be interested in discussing balance, but prefer to see things in black and white. |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 12:27:05 am --- --- 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. --- End quote --- On what information do we elect our government on? In the past it was the press, radio and TV, but now it's increasingly online. If we allow the government to censor the Internet, then it will interfere with democracy. Also note there's very little difference between the Labour and Conservative parties, especially since Brexit. I very much doubt things would be any different now, if Labour had been in power for the last 5 years. This country has been in decline for the last decade and nothing will change as long as we have Labour or the Conservatives in power. --- Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 10, 2023, 10:56:35 am --- --- Quote from: Someone on July 10, 2023, 10:24:06 am ---The questions posted to you are clear and plain, yet you just jump around with more vague emotional blither rather than respond to their content. --- End quote --- Perhaps you could list and enumerate your questions for me. If you are referring to evidence that children are being harmed by online content, it's only a cursory search away. Here's one report by the UK's leading children’s charity the NSPCC https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/online-safety/parliamentary-briefing---draft-online-safety-bill---sept-2021.pdf You may not care to read it, so allow me to provide a short excerpt: --- Quote ---This has never been more important and the figures below highlight how the scale and complexity of online harms continues to increase: – There was a record-high 70% increase in offences related to Sexual Communication with a Child recorded between April 2020 and March 2021. Almost half of the offences used Facebook owned apps, including Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger. – The Internet Watch Foundation saw a 77% increase in reports of ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse material in 2020. – NSPCC helplines saw a 60% increase in the number of contacts concerning online child sexual abuse, compared to the period before the pandemic. – Private messaging is now a primary vector for online abuse: from March 2019-2020 one in six children (17%) aged 10 to 15 years had spoken with someone they had never met before (equivalent to 682,000 children). Where children are contacted by someone they don’t know in person, in 74% of instances this takes place through private messaging. --- End quote --- --- End quote --- Government policy has largely been responsible for the increase in online harm to children over the pandemic. Closing schools, children's clubs, cutting home visits by social workers have all created the ideal conditions for children to spend more time online, where they can be preyed on by nonces. If the government really cared about children, they would have adopted similar policies to Sweden, who kept everything going as normal, especially for children. |
| Bryn:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on July 10, 2023, 05:09:54 pm ---This country has been in decline for the last decade and nothing will change as long as we have Labour or the Conservatives in power. --- End quote --- If Labour do come to power, they pledge to toughen up the shoddy bill, and make it closer to its original form before the Tories mucked it up for their own gain. Speaking of internet censorship in the UK, anybody remember Theresa May's plan to lock down our internet North Korea-style, just to "combat" extremism? Thank god that didn't happen and she got a right good scolding for it. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: Bryn on July 10, 2023, 05:27:23 pm --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on July 10, 2023, 05:09:54 pm ---This country has been in decline for the last decade and nothing will change as long as we have Labour or the Conservatives in power. --- End quote --- If Labour do come to power, they pledge to toughen up the shoddy bill, and make it closer to its original form before the Tories mucked it up for their own gain. Speaking of internet censorship in the UK, anybody remember Theresa May's plan to lock down our internet North Korea-style, just to "combat" extremism? Thank god that didn't happen and she got a right good scolding for it. --- End quote --- Nothing pricks the ears of an authoritarian more than a plausible justification for things they like. Whichever party they in, its only the control freaks who will be motivated enough to get their pet ideas into any oppressive legislation. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |