621–630 of 776 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a term for this: a moral panic. Believe it or not, sometimes the best answer is to do nothing until the crowd moves on to the next panic, as with the “Satanic Panic” in the 1980s. Turns out D&D was not actually a gateway to Satan worship.
If D&D didn't lead you to Satan, you were playing it wrong. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No "just" scared to open my mouth or defend myself or family with the little to none legal weaponary Bitch please. Firstly the _victim_ was foreign not the attacker. second, you are well within your rights to use reasonable force. Sometimes that involves chasing an attacker down the street with a cricket bat and beating the shit out of someone. > foreign attackers imported against our will which are excluded from s…
>Bitch please I could literally be arrested for what I said, can you claim the same in the US? >chasing an attacker down the street with a cricket bat and beating the shit out of someone. Someone literally got arrested for buying a baseball bat couple days ago... >thats not way to talk about the scottish Somehow they aren't included in the law exclusion or are part of the group doing disproportionate amounts of stabb…
for what you said? no. for what you write? very unlikley.
>Someone literally got arrested for buying a baseball bat couple days ago...
I see you follow Tommy robinson. Right so the point here is, if that person is wrongly arrested (which looks likely) they are in line for a tidy sum. However if they have a court order from not buying (an aluminium) baseball bat then they wont.
The crucial point here is, arresting is just that, unless they have committed a crime nothing else happens. apart from the embarrassment. Its not like they would have been shot, or kneeled on until you stop breathing.
> Somehow they aren't included in the law exclusion or are part of the group doing disproportionate amounts of stabbings (or rape), curious.
The fuck they aren't https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/26/section/4 Explicitly has a carveout for wearing skirts without undies and a big fucking knife in their socks.
Wait are you confusing sikhs with the bradford grooimg gang? dude they are different religions, Race and live in different places. Harry's case is really unusual. but whats not unusual is that everyone involved got jail time, even the offender's mum, cause if you lie to cover up for your son, you're gonna get jail time.
> part of the group doing disproportionate amounts of stabbings
I mean the scots have problems we know this, but a lot of it stems from drug use. Oh you mean sikhs again. Right. Look its really not like it says on twitter. Its sunny today, and I strolled though south london to work, I wasn't stabbed once for being "white". I can wear any national costume and carry a knife or sword. or for work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the same can happen in the US. In general, no country has successfully constructed a magical force field that prevents its police officers from ever arresting people for stupid reasons. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/31/tennessee-ma...
Charges (rightfully) dropped and not prosecuted because of the first amendment, which does not exist in the UK or the EU. "Hate" Speech laws are a blanked go to jail card. Anything interpreted as "grossly offensive" by anybody will result in arrests AND prosecutions.
The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. If there is a problem with children not being sufficiently protected, that is the level at which to solve it. Give families tools and information to do so.
> The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. They can only do so much, within the boundaries of their home. It takes a village to raise a child. The policies, thus, should be made village-wide.
...is one form of parenting. Maybe some people would prefer other forms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. They can only do so much, within the boundaries of their home. It takes a village to raise a child. The policies, thus, should be made village-wide.
>It takes a village to raise a child. ...is one form of parenting. Maybe some people would prefer other forms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the same can happen in the US. In general, no country has successfully constructed a magical force field that prevents its police officers from ever arresting people for stupid reasons. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/31/tennessee-ma...
Charges (rightfully) dropped and not prosecuted because of the first amendment, which does not exist in the UK or the EU. "Hate" Speech laws are a blanked go to jail card. Anything interpreted as "grossly offensive" by anybody will result in arrests AND prosecutions.
You're confusing communications act with hate speech, which are different. Also the EU is civil code, which does law _very differently_
Also can you point to someone who has been jailed for hate speech? as in it was the only charge, rather than an aggravating factor? (Ie tommy robininson hasn't been convicted for it, ever. and you'd think he'd be the one given that he's organising marches saying lets kill brown people. )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While what you say seem intuitive, it is missing one point. Those locations probably are not recording exactly who is coming and going and what they are saying/doing. That is where this become more than just gate keeping and becomes full on tracking.
You are saying something quite different to the comment I responded to: > The right people to protect children are those responsible for them - their parents and guardians. My position is that there is a social responsibility to protect children which extends to the community at large, not just their immediate guardians.
100% agree with this. Community responsibility is the literal opposite of what is being proposed.
Like it or not, there is a large constituency who wants to “protect the children”. By demonizing them and failing to engage with the worries over social media and pornography We have brought it on ourselves. Is it to be wondered at that many people are angry when tech companies have polluted the commons with their effluvium?
> By demonizing them and failing to engage with the worries over social media and pornography We have brought it on ourselves. There is a really good way to do this that solves most concerns: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu... The only real downside to this is that a 0kp cannot be reliably tied to an identity of the person using the device and thus tickets could be proxied/shared around w…
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/253671.253726
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1981/1981-h/1981-h.htm
That essay seemed unrealistic and dystopic when it was originally written. Now it seems like the typical T&C of every e-reader. If facial recognition was anything other than a PhD type project at that time, that would have prevented the main plot of the essay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no such thing as children’s devices. Everyone uses the same smartphones. Optional on device restrictions don’t matter as long as your peer group is on the platform, kids will not stop using it. People are not asking for biometric scanning, but I believe the vast majority would be OK with some sort of ID based authentication system. Now there are ways we can do that in a decentralized way where neither of the…
Are you saying parents would choose not to block it, or children would get around it? Like you say people want to block it, but currently it's very hard while allowing access to Google and other resources, or it's easy to get around. Why does this require server verification? For example, all devices could require your ZKP ID attestation to be usable unfiltered. Then the relevant apps/sites would be equally inaccessi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I dunno if you can legislate “better parental control ux”, If we must have something, I’m in favor of the OS-level flag where a parent can set the device as belonging to a minor and the apps and browser can receive the flag. Lock it behind the most basic parental controls that can be protected and remotely monitored. There are some loopholes with kids downloading apps that allow custom web requests without the flag…
Several of the laws TFA complains about are literally what you just asked for. Like the California and Illinois laws. They are literally that.
Please read my full comment before jumping to respond.