341–350 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about a technical capability to encapsulate packets, it's about whether people use it to bypass censorship or not.
If the capability is used... How do you tell how people are using it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never about the technical capability of the tool. This is a mistake technologists keep making. It's about what the average person thinks it does or uses it to do.
Ban VPNs, an industry of SOCKS5 proxies will boom. Ban those, put the SOCKS5 proxy behind an SSH port-forward, and so on and so forth. Suddenly calling a Kubernetes API puts you in a secret service list somewhere.
In Russia, they claimed that new measures to block websites are necessary to protect the children online. Of course, they immediately used these new capabilities to block opposition websites and sources critical of the government. 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.
A leaked strategy document from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, outlined their "Kill Musk's Twitter" to diminish the platform through advertiser pressure and regulatory action
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I inferred this from the attempt at looking at the positive outcomes of that.
Then I should assume that your "inference" ignores common sense, because nowhere in my comments was I praising some governments, either Russian or European, for their action. I merely pointed out that now, probably , some people from Europe may try to apply Russian experience at circumventing censorship, bans and "network blockades". That's a good thing in the context of this whole situation, because you don't have t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By all means. For example the vast majority of the UK residents is against the ongoing support and complicity of the UK in the genocide of Palestinians, to which the government orchestrated the whole operation to turn the protest into act of terrorism (!). Etc.
Got any numbers/sources for that specific claim?
Polls from Opinium, YouGov, even earlier ipsos, showing that UK general public does not support the genocide, but immediate ceasefire, stopping sale of arms to Israel, back ICC, et.
You'd struggle to find anything that would show that UK public support aiding and abetting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You expect the average parent to outwit Meta and TikTok and their teams of psychologists scheming to get their kids attention? The social media companies could have done the socially responsible thing a decade ago and avoided all this.
I expect them to give a shit, yeah. Just like they should care about what they read or watch, or who they hang out with. Don't let your kids have an internet-connected phone, or keep it locked down so they don't have parasitic apps preying on their pre-frontal immaturity until they're old enough to handle it. All of this needs to be done intentionally, of course, or it will feel like the kids are being punished. But…
Again, Meta and TikTok and their ilk could have avoided all of this by just being socially responsible organizations, instead of sociopathic.
In Russia, they claimed that new measures to block websites are necessary to protect the children online. Of course, they immediately used these new capabilities to block opposition websites and sources critical of the government. 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.
It is really disheartening to see the sentiment around privacy erode like this. Fifteen or even ten years ago this would have been unanimously and vehemently opposed, but now it is somehow up for debate?
- totally benign film set in the UK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The onus is you to show it makes children safer - you’re the one advocating these privacy-harming rules.
If you insist on that approach, then for the sake of argument, you could pretend the discussion is about Australia which already has a similar law. You could argue the benefit to children in repealing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've somehow managed to breed several generations who's only criteria for "computing" is "it just works". All consumption, little-to-no understanding of how stuff works. As long as it does what it does, and it's "free", that's all that matters.
More like the dumb people keep breeding and the magic rocks keep showing pretty colors
Not every country that exists is like that. People aren’t inherently “dumb”. Uneducated, sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“But I don’t want to be a responsible parent, I want to destroy the unrestricted internet.”
Just like we destroyed unrestricted tobacco stores