81–90 of 400 posts
> the main thing that we've done is we've commissioned additional research on this because I've not been happy with the evidence. Ah, yes, the existing research doesn't agree with our biases, so let's fund new "research" that does.
Quite often, people in power don’t want to hear the truth, they want to hear their own words/views parroted back to them.
There are few things more exciting, in relationship to attempting to restrict access to (data) communications, than a government which thinks geeks won't find ways around such. Now sit back, relax, and let's wait for the next generation of encrypted channels solution development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not possible to prevent a person (of any age) from reaching a specific website if they are determined enough. Full stop. right, and that reveals the absurdity of this "age gate", doesn't it? because I am sure giving every UK national their very own unicorn would also poll very well but that doesn't mean that's what a functional democracy should be prioritizing just because a majority of the public supports bec…
It’s not possible to prevent these same children from getting alcohol or drugs either but we certainly don’t permit it.
lets give everyone an incentive to report companies that allow or encourage children to use these websites. the children, the parents, bystanders, the employees and contractors of these websites, everyone should get paid from the fines these social media companies would need to pay out for every infraction. I think GBP 10k per incidence is actually pretty cheap considering the alternative is life in prison for the CEO and the board starting with cash incentives all the way to prison terms for the CEO and the board
what if instead of this age gate or whatever government is doing, what if we simply said these big companies need to self police and if a child can reach their service they have to pay the child like lets say GBP 10k per instance? remove all "reasonable step" shield to hide behind. for example, a shopkeeper can't say they took "reasonable steps" if they sell alcohol to a child so why should a website be any different…
The end result will be the same. If you face a 10k liability for serving the wrong customer, you end up needing to ID your customers. If the government isn't going to provide that service you end up with private companies verifying identity and the data security issues that entails. If you want to shift the responsibility of protecting children away from parents, then you end up in a situation where third parties nee…
California's Digital Age Assurance Act
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that it's coordinated in all "Western" countries show it's a real conspiracy, not just a theory.
Oh yes like Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey. If it is happening worldwide, it is less likely to be a coordinated scheme and more likely coming to the same conclusions based on current research. Edit because I'm getting limited: This isn't exactly something old that has been going on for decades in its current form and the usage has increased especially since the lockdowns. Nations have also been copying each other for…
But sure, all governments suddenly woke up at the exact same time, give or take a few months, and realized that social media should be banned for kids.
what if instead of this age gate or whatever government is doing, what if we simply said these big companies need to self police and if a child can reach their service they have to pay the child like lets say GBP 10k per instance? remove all "reasonable step" shield to hide behind. for example, a shopkeeper can't say they took "reasonable steps" if they sell alcohol to a child so why should a website be any different…
Or perhaps we should expect parents to take some responsibility for their kids' screen use?
Every corporate I know of, uses VPNs. Especially when workers connect from home. Is the UK government really interested in going up against the majority of their business partners...?
Now, seeing many European governments tirelessly push for these new measures to protect the children, I'm pretty sure that the children are finally going to be safe online.
Funny how quickly "won't someone think of the children" turns into mandatory government ID for private services, banning necessary and secure (and encrypted) communications systems, and locking children out of access to the de facto communication systems of the modern era. This is a privacy nightmare on all fronts and a horrible limit on freedom of speech. These kids will be learning how to drive a car, yet unable to…