171–180 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I clearly didn't mean that (and I think you know that btw). I said "found out about it via social media". I then did my own research to find the original post by the person that had their home raided. I have been duped before by social media and I like to find the actual source (if possible). So I am not "spreading rumours".
So the original post was independently verifyable when you found it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...jailed for inciting rioting. That would land you in jail in the UK no matter what forum you said it in. No we have no right to incite people to riot in the UK. That is something I'm rather proud of.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blog and news website comment sections are explicitly exempted from the Act. > A universal duty to moderate will accelerate the disappearance of hobbyist websites and further entrench corporate social media. I think that's a bad thing. I also mourn the loss of the lawless Internet, but it's spilling out into the real world, and that's where I happen to live. We have to make compromises. When the English people decide…
Do you think harmful behavior from anywhere online other than large platforms is spilling out into the real world in a way that the Online Safety Act will prevent? If so, can you offer examples?
I have no idea.
If you're thinking of how to protect the fediverse, my solution (which I intend to use if I am kicked off mainstream social media because of this or other regulations in the UK) is to run my own server, only allowing people I know personally to have accounts on that server, and federating with other servers. Federation may be a grey area in this law - it'll be interesting to see how that plays out, if it ever goes to court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone else will make a joke about police officers investigating tweets. That practice - which was put to an end a couple of years ago This claim is 100% false. We’ve seen multiple people jailed for tweets this year alone. > I have much greater faith in my government to protect my freedom of speech You don’t have free speech. The U.K. has no such general right. That’s why people are in jail for tweets.
...jailed for inciting rioting. That would land you in jail in the UK no matter what forum you said it in. No we have no right to incite people to riot in the UK. That is something I'm rather proud of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there any way that we can overwhelm them? Yes: leave the UK. I and a lot of high earners are thinking about leaving the UK because it's simply a punishing country where you have high taxes like others in Europe but nothing to show for them. It's also by far the most authoritarian western country, as exemplified by measures like this one. The way to overwhelm them is to sink the UK by having most of the people it…
The country doesn't need high earners per se, it needs people that contribute effectively. There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much. It all makes much more sense once you realise that governments spend before they tax and so what really matters is real resources.
No, not at all.
There may be a few (0.01%) rich people that don't contribute much, but high __earners__ are paying extremely high amounts of taxes with nothing in return.
The "parasites", as you call them, are low-income workers that get the extreme majority of benefits while essentially contributing nothing.
Take a look at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-.... The bottom 50% only contribute 9.5% of total income taxes while the top 10% of earners contributes a whopping 60% of then.
The middle-class is being drained. The downfall of the UK will be inevitable once the top 10% realizes that they're better of in literally any other country.
The UK is building their own digital gulag. Most social media companies are not going to institute these authoritarian measures for one small nation that wants to regulate the world. You are going to see yourselves cut off.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think harmful behavior from anywhere online other than large platforms is spilling out into the real world in a way that the Online Safety Act will prevent? If so, can you offer examples?
> Do you think harmful behavior from anywhere online other than large platforms is spilling out into the real world in a way that the Online Safety Act will prevent? I have no idea. If you're thinking of how to protect the fediverse, my solution (which I intend to use if I am kicked off mainstream social media because of this or other regulations in the UK) is to run my own server, only allowing people I know persona…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage. I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_) And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_) etc. It's illuminating that your…
But when I go and buy booze, I just show my ID and that's it, it isn't stored in a database with what I bought and then leaked on the internet.
It’s not a given that digital record must lead to compromise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Do you have a citation for that? People may have said words to that effect in addition to inciting rioting, but no one has been send to jail for saying that.
However there are still some concerning cases - a girl was punished for posting song lyrics:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage. I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_) And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_) etc. It's illuminating that your…
If I choose to buy alcohol or cigarettes and I look over 25 in the UK I do not have to show any ID. If I do need to show ID, it doesn't get tracked by the government. It is only seen by the whoever is serving me at the checkout. I don't honestly believe that you don't understand how this is different. > It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its…
If .gov == bad guy then you’re screwed whether or not you leave a digital trail on social media because you’re already leaving one anyway (unless you’re a marginal outlier that isn’t worth considering for this “problem”). If that’s your threat model then you’re either super-important or I worry you’ve been sold a scary story by social media algorithms.
On the other hand, the idea that this is an impossible tech problem to solve is also disingenuous. My point is that it could be solved. And quickly and easily too. If the incentive model were there. And whilst I’ve not given the solution a huge amount of thought (I’m not actually that interested in solving it) I’m certain that an authenticated assertion could be made that wasn’t directly attributable to an individual - i.e., a mechanism could be developed that would solve for both problems.
Which brings us back to the fundamental point here: the people who would need to implement the solution have no incentive model in place to motivate them to do so.