Author Topic: UK internet censoring  (Read 12220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #50 on: July 10, 2023, 02:31:15 pm »
If its about protecting the children aint it about time we banned the bbc
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?
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #51 on: July 10, 2023, 04:06:49 pm »
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?

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?

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.

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.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #52 on: July 10, 2023, 05:09:54 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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

Offline Bryn

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Country: gb
    • mindsConnected
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2023, 05:27:23 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.
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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2023, 05:34:08 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.
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.
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2023, 05:39:19 pm »
Installing a firewall simply doesn't work. Evidence: China's great wall, and the general impracticality of filtering "good" from "bad".

The "cookie fiasco" isn't bad: it viscerally shows you how you are being traded across many companies. That, plus "no javascript" plugins make people realise why there are farcebook and twatter logos on many web pages. That's basic survival information for, say, those unfortunate to be based in countries where religious zealots attempt to control how you use bits of your body.

Well what do you suppose this internet censoring will do that a firewall won't? People will get around any kind of limitations put in place if they really want to.

Regarding the cookies, speak for yourself. I don't like cookies much but those notifications are SO obnoxious, they make my blood boil because they are EVERYWHERE, the cure is FAR worse than the disease! I would seriously like to strangle the person that thought requiring those was a good idea, and at the very least I wish they would only be shown to users in the bone headed nation(s) that inflicted them on the world. Thankfully recent versions of Brave contain a built in blocker for them.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2023, 05:42:20 pm »
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.

There's nothing wrong with photos of reproductive organs in a biology book, every mammal has those bits and there is nothing obscene or pornographic about them, it's just biology.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2023, 05:44:26 pm »
I agree with you on that. If enough parents did this, new laws wouldn't be needed. Why are they not doing it? Technical incompetance, cost, or just don't care. I do know parents who only allow net access in a shared room of their house (corridor or living room), to have some oversight, but were unaware of commercial filtered internet options.

It doesn't matter why, that is up to the individual parents. It isn't your, my or the government's responsibility to do the parent's job for them, it's something the individual parents need to figure out how to do themselves. That's just part of what being a parent is.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Offline themadhippy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3266
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2023, 05:45:59 pm »
It don't matter who you vote for,the government still gets in.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2023, 05:50:25 pm »
This thread makes this come to mind  :-DD
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #60 on: July 10, 2023, 06:11:11 pm »
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*

Quote
Discrimination – Promotes the unjust or prejudicial treatment of people with protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010
Oh dear, anything which mentions the equality act makes me cringe. It's a terrible piece of legislation. The problem is, the protected characteristic religion, conflicts with sexual orientation and gender identity. Parts of the Quran and Bible are considered to be homophobic by many people, yet they can't be blocked, as it would discriminate against religions.

I agree with you on that. If enough parents did this, new laws wouldn't be needed. Why are they not doing it? Technical incompetance, cost, or just don't care. I do know parents who only allow net access in a shared room of their house (corridor or living room), to have some oversight, but were unaware of commercial filtered internet options.

It doesn't matter why, that is up to the individual parents. It isn't your, my or the government's responsibility to do the parent's job for them, it's something the individual parents need to figure out how to do themselves. That's just part of what being a parent is.
The only law I would be in favour of is Internet service providers and mobile phone companies being made to ask whether anyone under the age of 18 will be using their service and if so, providing parental controls to the person who pays for it by default. As I said it's not supposed to be about protecting children though, but everyone, which I call BS on. It's just a power grab by the state.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, james_s

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #61 on: July 10, 2023, 06:37:33 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.
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.

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.

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.

...and vice versa.

Quote
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.

I predicted that frightening consequence of the brexit vote. I'm not clear whether I explicitly made the prediction shortly before or after the vote - either way "shortly" was hours or days, not weeks.

The consequence is that people will turn to anybody that proclaims "it isn't your fault and I have the answer to your problems". That's what happened in the Weimar Republic, and didn't that work well.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2023, 06:40:02 pm »
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.

Ah. Someone viewing the world through blinkers supplied by conspiracy theorists.

Plonk.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2023, 06:45:14 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.
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.
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.

True.

I predicted that frightening consequence of the brexit vote. I'm not clear whether I explicitly made the prediction shortly before or after the vote - either way "shortly" was hours or days, not weeks.

The consequence is that people will turn to anybody that proclaims "it isn't your fault and I have the answer to your problems". That's what happened in the Weimar Republic, and didn't that work well.
Brexit is not to blame for the majority oe our current problems. True, it hasn't been good, but it's responsible for less than 10% of the mess we're currently in.
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.

Ah. Someone viewing the world through blinkers supplied by conspiracy theorists.

Plonk.
You appear to be trolling now: no rebuttal, just insults.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2023, 06:46:06 pm »
Installing a firewall simply doesn't work. Evidence: China's great wall, and the general impracticality of filtering "good" from "bad".

The "cookie fiasco" isn't bad: it viscerally shows you how you are being traded across many companies. That, plus "no javascript" plugins make people realise why there are farcebook and twatter logos on many web pages. That's basic survival information for, say, those unfortunate to be based in countries where religious zealots attempt to control how you use bits of your body.

Well what do you suppose this internet censoring will do that a firewall won't? People will get around any kind of limitations put in place if they really want to.

That's a strawman argument. I have never given any indication I think the problem can be solved.

In fact I have indicated the opposite - it is like the undecideable art-vs-pornography problem - and hence technology cannot solve the unsolvable problem.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5156
  • Country: au
    • send complaints here
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2023, 10:18:55 pm »
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?
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".
I never came out in disagreement with having safe spaces for children, and have tried to take a centred/balanced position against the extremist(s) here. voltsandjolts is starting from some reasonable position/point and extrapolating/stretching it out to insanity, without coherent explanations, a consistent and clear position, or anything more than emotion. More importantly the "problem" is not being addressed by their proposed "solution", unless you redefine problem to be some nebulous THINK OF THE CHILDREN that no-one else can question or ask for specifics of. Troll arguments are troll arguments, and deserve to be pointed out for the smoke and mirrors they are.

Censoring static content and limiting access to information is not doing anything to address that.
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.
I keep pushing back with constructive questions, if broad censorship is the answer then what is the question/problem that it is trying to solve? Blocking/censoring/restricting static content (one of the things the bill proposes) is nothing to do with the given example of possible harms from unsupervised/uncontrolled personal communications. Such harms equally exist outside the internet if children are given phones without supervision/controls over who they communicate with. Try and put forward a coherent argument for why broad internet controls are necessary beyond THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Perhaps age controls for person to person communications could be argued for, but that doesn't mean it has to come with all the other stuff being proposed. This is a classic political move of grouping together a whole bunch of things which are poorly connected and divisive, so that anyone raising objections to specific parts is shut down by the opposition saying "how can you stand in the way of the obvious benefits of the bill" which I have not done. Limiting access online to material which children can view in books is one example of the problems this law is proposing. The simpler one I'll keep coming back to:
if children are the group which are being harmed, why should the entire internet (most of which is not under the jurisdiction of the UK) change the way it operates? that will have costs and implications beyond the people it is trying to protect. A very simple alternative would be to restrict what children can reach from their point of access, mandate children have "safe" connections to the internet that flow through appropriate controls. Why is that so unpalatable to you or others?

And no, children bypassing controls is not a counter argument to that, as no matter where the control is implemented children will try to find ways around it. I'd argue a child "safe" choke point for access would be far more reliable and effective than relying on every website to individually co-operate.

Then you get to subtleties like "children" are not a homogenous group, treating them all the same does not work in legislation. Example being child car seat laws which required anyone under the age XX to be in a child seat and/or rear seat of a car, regardless of how large they were.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2023, 10:32:54 pm by Someone »
 
The following users thanked this post: james_s, magic

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #66 on: July 10, 2023, 11:12:54 pm »
That's a strawman argument. I have never given any indication I think the problem can be solved.

In fact I have indicated the opposite - it is like the undecideable art-vs-pornography problem - and hence technology cannot solve the unsolvable problem.

It wasn't intended to be. If the problem can't be solved then why are we wasting time discussing it? Certainly we should not be implementing solutions to an unsolvable problem. If the problem can be partially solved then any potential partial solutions need to be weighed carefully against the cost. Ultimately I think it still comes down to parenting, part of the job of a parent is to shield their kids from harmful things up until the point that they are old enough to be taught how to make decisions on their own and protect themselves. A good parent gives their children gradually increasing amounts of autonomy and trust.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7454
  • Country: pl
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #67 on: July 10, 2023, 11:23:18 pm »
People who directly ingested post-WW2 allied victory propaganda have their brains irreversibly damaged and I consider it better use of my time to wait for their expiration than attempting to argue any sort of political matters with them. YMMV.

This unfortunately includes many politicians alive today, and plenty of voters in many places too.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2023, 11:26:02 pm by magic »
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9323
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #68 on: July 10, 2023, 11:25:33 pm »
My daughter found one of those in a local bookshop when she was slightly "too young", i.e. about 7. I tried and failed to deflect her by pointing out other books on her traditional favourite subjects, to no avail.
The book I read didn't present it in a sexual way, the pictures were labeled so that a medical student can identify the different parts.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2023, 11:53:47 pm »
That's a strawman argument. I have never given any indication I think the problem can be solved.

In fact I have indicated the opposite - it is like the undecideable art-vs-pornography problem - and hence technology cannot solve the unsolvable problem.

It wasn't intended to be. If the problem can't be solved then why are we wasting time discussing it?

Well, it was, whether or not you intended it to be.

It isn't difficult to think of several reasons why it is worth discussing an insoluble problem. How about the simplest: to guide naive people into realising that it is insoluble, why it is insoluble, and what needs to be sorted out before it is worth asking whether it has been solved.

Quote
Certainly we should not be implementing solutions to an unsolvable problem. If the problem can be partially solved then any potential partial solutions need to be weighed carefully against the cost. Ultimately I think it still comes down to parenting, part of the job of a parent is to shield their kids from harmful things up until the point that they are old enough to be taught how to make decisions on their own and protect themselves. A good parent gives their children gradually increasing amounts of autonomy and trust.

That's one and only one viewpoint. It may be one of several suitable strategies for some children, but it would fail for others.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2023, 11:56:39 pm »
My daughter found one of those in a local bookshop when she was slightly "too young", i.e. about 7. I tried and failed to deflect her by pointing out other books on her traditional favourite subjects, to no avail.
The book I read didn't present it in a sexual way, the pictures were labeled so that a medical student can identify the different parts.

The book my daughter discovered (and I bought) was solely sexual.

Example: one diagram was a cross-section through a copulating couple.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9323
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2023, 01:57:40 pm »
I find it odd that we must protect children from the very thing that created them. Meanwhile, it's OK to show violence in cartoons and even let children play with toy guns.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #72 on: July 11, 2023, 02:01:56 pm »
 :palm:
iratus parum formica
 

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7454
  • Country: pl
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2023, 04:02:22 pm »
It's always been the normal development path to learn violence before reproduction.

You may wonder what the reasons might be, but simply not understanding the reasons is no reason to blindly turn everything backwards.

So-called "progressive" populations are undergoing extinction right before our eyes.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #74 on: July 11, 2023, 09:04:50 pm »
My daughter found one of those in a local bookshop when she was slightly "too young", i.e. about 7. I tried and failed to deflect her by pointing out other books on her traditional favourite subjects, to no avail.
The book I read didn't present it in a sexual way, the pictures were labeled so that a medical student can identify the different parts.

The book my daughter discovered (and I bought) was solely sexual.

Example: one diagram was a cross-section through a copulating couple.

Frankly that sounds like a parenting failure to me. The child is 7, the fact that you tried and failed to redirect her doesn't make much sense to me, you are the parent, you are the law, all you have to do is say "no, that's not appropriate for you at this age" and that should be that, case closed, there is no negotiating.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf