551–560 of 735 posts
WhatsApp, Telegram and everyone else should pull out of EU in protest of Chat Control. Then EU will be forced to make its own chat app, UX will be terrible, and citizens will finally feel enough pain to contact their representatives ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content. Committing crimes remotely from another country was never a loophole to escape the laws of that country. When a country requests extradition they’re not claiming jurisdiction over another country. They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosec…
>They’re saying that a crime was committed in their country by the person and they’re asking the foreign country for cooperation in prosecuting that person. Seems like a loophole for arbitrary criminal accusations of a people living abroad who are not affiliated with the country making the accusations. With this kind of logic, adult website operators should be extradited to some middle-eastern country for violating t…
Middle Eastern countries are not able to convince e.g. the US or any of the European Countries to extradite their citizens (or sometimes legal residents) for violating the moral codes of let's say Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
Because these countries know that (and becaue of diplomatic consequences) the law and/or government there doesn't even try it. But if the CEO of a porn site travels there he can and most likely will be held accountable. Tha
If it's a crime in both jurisdiction prosecution is certainly a possibility and happens regularily (or both countries cooperate to convict people without extradition)
Ultimately the United States have a lot more diplomatic sway over the world than some random country and that's why they can and do ask for a lot more.
If you ever need an example of everday US soft power that it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are children on the internet? Why are the parents not being fined for being irresponsible? Give the kids a loaded gun, its the same as giving them access to the internet. The internet is not a place for children to begin with. Why try to bend the internet to conform? It will destroy the internet as it is as well as all it's freedoms. Oh and it probably won't stop/protect them, as thousands of new sites come & go…
Saying the internet is not a place for children is like saying the street is not for children. Full of drug dealers, cars and danger! Yet learning how to cross the street is an essential skill in life. They are also filled with flowers, pathways to playgrounds and much more. And that's why children are not forbidden on the streets. My point being: let's educate instead of regulate. "Regulating the children" is silly…
I don't think these laws are being made with the will of the people. There's been no groundswell of opinion, no technically minded authority pushing expert opinion. The same people lobbying for the online safety act were pushing age verification tools. The government is exceptionally unpopular, even by the standards of already deeply unpopular governments in recent years. I despair of the situation in the UK. How hav…
The British people always take any new limitations with the classic stiff upper lip. We could very easily become Russia (without the military and natural resources), because the population has the same say nothing, do nothing mentality.
There's also always been a bit of authoritarianism in the British populace. Just look at how enthusiastic people are about banning things that annoy them. During coronavirus lockdowns, the people living around me constantly reported me to the police for going out for runs (which we were perfectly allowed to do).
We have a national crab in bucket mentality, which doesn't help any country. Intelligence, fitness and success are all things that British people love pulling down. Many people here care more about ripping everybody down than building them up. They live completely mediocre lives and are perfectly fine with the government nannying them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definition of 'Revenue in the UK' is a bit debatable though isn't it? I sell a advertising package from my US HQ based self serve advertising portal to a British company who use the service to advertise to customers in the UK. Ok - kinda UK revenue. How about 'To advertise to customers in the US' well it's getting highly debatable. What about I sell advertising packages to a US company from my US HQ but someone in th…
> What about I sell advertising packages to a US company from my US HQ but someone in the UK views and advert on my site and therefore generates me 0.001¢ - debatable. Not entirely sure what is debatable about this situation. You quite unambiguously derived revenue from a UK citizen here, although not much. If you didn’t want that revenue, then don’t display ads in the UK. If that makes serving traffic to the UK unec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, just ban children from the internet, same as gun ownership for 12yo's. Fine/imprison parents. This is a parenting problem, not a technical/business problem. Remove the supply of children and things will get better. A business cannot make laws or override laws with ToS and invent their own moral compasses - rather it is the sole responsibility of the parent on what their child gets exposed to (whether politics, po…
> Or, just ban children from the internet, same as gun ownership for 12yo's. Fine/imprison parents. It's an interesting idea. I presume that the there would be similar laws to selling guns. So there would need to be the national ID card and checks when selling any internet-enabled device. TVs, phones, cameras etc. I as, a parent would probably need a phone safe, into which I could place my phone when I wasn't using i…
Phones can have passcodes, fingerprint readers, facial recognition (for parents face) to keep kids off them.
Devices can have multiple user accounts, each with different purposes and applications. On my linux laptop, I have two accounts, one for work & one for personal, with distinct applications and configuration.
If all else fail, each manufacturer can product a simple device that can only chat & call with parents in case of emergencies. Can be a simple smart watch or pager like design, or just a dumb phone.
We are at the point where children should not even be exposed to the news (which is primarily incendiary politics these days) unless it is a major event. Smart TV's has so much garbage on them, why should they be allowed to even watch what they want on it?
Either way, ALL of these requires the parents to actually be parents. We can create the perfect technological solution but if the parents expose the child to porn/drugs/social media etc etc and fry their brains, it is a parental problem and not a tech problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks from another chart like 21% of revenue is recurring, so $10 million annually for Europe. Convert that to GBP and you get about £7.5 million. Figure that the UK accounts for about 15% of the European economy and assume it contributes to Wikipedia at about an equal share. That's about £1.125 million in estimated annual recurring contributions from the UK. You said 10-100/mo, so let's assume £55/mo or £660/year…
I assumed Britain would not be Europe but “other”
There's an opportunity for a service like CloudFlare here give people a simple toggle that manages geoblocks on legal liability factors. It's way too much for every organisation to individually track every country's laws day by day in case just by being accessible there you incur a liability. And it sounds like the UK would have just self-selected out of the list of "safe" countries. If something like this was in wid…
Or, just ban children from the internet, same as gun ownership for 12yo's. Fine/imprison parents. This is a parenting problem, not a technical/business problem. Remove the supply of children and things will get better. A business cannot make laws or override laws with ToS and invent their own moral compasses - rather it is the sole responsibility of the parent on what their child gets exposed to (whether politics, po…
wait... wut? Gun ownership for 12yo's? wtf :D
Though the idea of "internet only for adults" is not that bad IMHO. Yes, internet is (well, at least was advertised as) infinite-resource-of-knowledge but we know how it turned out - IMHO minority of underage use it to spend hours reading wikipedia and instead spend hours glued to crap like tiktok (though crap like that should be banned altogether as well :D)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something that I think normal, decent people don't appreciate enough: you can join an organization without believing a word of what it stands for. It's perfectly possible to just pretend. It doesn't take a ton of resources or a big coordinated conspiracy to join and betray an organization, it just takes a bit of self-confidence, or chutzpah. One person I believe knows this, is Keir Starmer. It's very hard to explain…
What one might contribute to malice can normally be attributed to ignorance. I think the political class in the UK is just completely bifurcated from the public (not as much as the Tories were, but more than I though Labour would be), such that every decision senior Labour leaders are making is lauded in progressively smaller circles they keep and they're oblivious to the reality of the situation. They just don't fee…
It's not an unreasonable assumption either. Nick Clegg did seemingly get rewarded for tanking the lib Dems. The ones lower in the party hierarchy will also have seen plenty of examples of pyrrhic loyalty being rewarded.
What modern parties effectively teach - UK Labour is just one of many examples, not even the only example in the UK - is that the supreme political virtue is loyalty to decisions taken in rooms you weren't invited to. That, they think, will eventually get them invited to those rooms.
The sad thing is that whether the rooms actually exist or not, the result is much the same.
"Don't obey in advance" is Tim Snyder's first rule against tyranny. While that is a great moral rule to follow in tyrannies, all organizations want people to obey beforehand, whether tyrannies or not. It's called showing initiative, doing what's needed without having to be told explicitly, and no organisation can function without it.
But in organizations with opaque power structures, where it's expected that decisions are taken unaccountably ("Noen har snakket sammen", loosely, "There has been discussion", used to be an ironic phrase in the Norwegian Labour Party), people may easily slip into obeying in advance a tyrant who doesn't even exist. They're trying to please the responsible people who are surely in charge somewhere nebulously above them in the hierarchy, but those people don't exist, it's bullshitters like Starmer all the way to the top.
Snyder's had his first rule, but I have a first rule too, which I keep repeating, and that is that powerful people believe in all the stupid things regular people believe in. They just act differently on the beliefs. A common person who thinks covid was an ethnically targeted bioweapon rants about it online and gets banned from Reddit. A powerful person who believes it, thinks "it's important that we too get such a weapon, and don't trust experts who say it can't be done, they probably just have scruples". A common person who thinks a Jewish cabal rules the world maybe pesters his relatives with it all day. A powerful person who believes it - well, he's more likely to do something like what Starmer has been doing the last decade. You don't try to fight Bilderberg, obviously, you try to get invited to it. Once you do, (like e.g Jens Stoltenberg was) you probably get disappointed and try to figure out who the real competent ones behind them too are, and how to join them - but you're not terribly disappointed, because on the way up you've been rewarded by all the others who thought they'd be rewarded for supporting someone like you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks from another chart like 21% of revenue is recurring, so $10 million annually for Europe. Convert that to GBP and you get about £7.5 million. Figure that the UK accounts for about 15% of the European economy and assume it contributes to Wikipedia at about an equal share. That's about £1.125 million in estimated annual recurring contributions from the UK. You said 10-100/mo, so let's assume £55/mo or £660/year…
I assumed Britain would not be Europe but “other”