Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have dark money in the UK too and linked to the same orgs it just arrives via different channels.
You cannot make anonymous donations in my country so we know who the Israeli and American agents are.
The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
741–750 of 753 posts
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#742UK person here, and someone who has been lobbied and lobbied the government on tech regulations. firstly the amount of money that the "UK lobby" are pushing is a drop of sand in the ocean.[1] secondly, and most importantly, the USA has no (federally robust) legal protection for citizens to guard against data collection and aggregation. So whist this is being presented as a war on anonymity lead by the dirty British,…
> If you want to dox someone, you just need to pay the right broker.
The data is going to leak so quickly, the first dump will only contain a fresh empty database.
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#743Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said "Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you" - that's clearly not always true. Now it's OFTEN true, and in politics it's almost always used in bad faith. But that's still not everything, and your simple rule eliminates the well intentioned discussions, and that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. Now if they are clearly acting in bad faith, then absolutely it's not worth treating that as…
> You said "Anyone who brings up kids is trying to manipulate you" - that's clearly not always true. Then let's sharpen the statement. "Anyone who brings up kids is either trying to manipulate you or is a useful idiot for the manipulators." > But you shouldn't let them erase your ability to have honest discussions. Tell that to them, not me. I've found that I'm perfectly capable of having honest discussions about pre…
"Anyone who brings up kids is either trying to manipulate you or is a useful idiot for the manipulators."
So say a school administrator has a meeting to discuss the pro's and con's of AI in their school - in good faith, honestly wanting to explore the issues. Then they're automatically bad because they're talking about kids?
I don't buy it. I get what you're saying about it being a political 3rd rail, but that doesn't mean anyone who mentions kids is automatically a bad actor. What a cynical and thought-preventing thing to say.
I think you're someone who says things that are so devoid of nuance that I would say you're not worth having a conversation with.
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#744Earlier quoted context omitted.
> loss of agency That's exactly what this is. They want to build an internet where it is structurally impossible for children to be harmed in any way. This requires the destruction of the very concept of agency. You can't just do things. You need government approval.
No they don't? Laws can't really make anything "structurally impossible" unless they criminalize a lot more - such as hosting a website without full government review (this is illegal in China). These laws are quite clearly targeted at the harm that is happening today and not at locking down the entire internet. You do have to take enforcement into account when evaluating these laws. Some HNers interpret this as you…
> Laws can't really make anything "structurally impossible"
Require age verification. Kids lie and claim they are 18.
Require better age verification, implemented at the operating system level so that only the parent's administrator account can override it. Kids install a live Linux operating system on a USB drive and boot it, and now they have full access to the web.
Require computers to be cryptographically locked down so that only approved child-protecting operating systems may ever run. For the sake of the kids.
Computing freedom has now been destroyed. It is now structurally impossible for you to be free. It's not your computer anymore, it's the government's, and you better believe they are going to do a lot more than just prevent kids from accessing harmful content.
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of us survived the internet when it was an even wilder west, IRC chats with strangers trying to learn perl, not putting your name and social security number into random websites. Being aware of predators. It's a very specific kind of power-hungry move fast and break things tech that refuses to accept responsibility of the fallout. Anonymity, the right to move privately and be private online is much bigger than…
It was a noncommercial wild west. You were up against some troll trying to get a reaction by linking you to goatse, not some trillion dollar international corporation with a literal army of addiction experts A/B testing how to maximize engagement.
> A/B testing
Unethical human experimentation, by the way.
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#746Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need basic screening and filtering. Based on whose values and criteria? Yours? Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
I am sick and tired of the argument that porn shouldn't be kept from kids because what if someone thinks it's healthy for kids to watch porn (and for all I know it might be, since I haven't sent the scientific evidence). If some parent thinks that's healthy they can just enter the child's age as 18.
That wasn't the argument.
Here are the specific examples listed in the comment I responded to:
> QAnon
> Alex Jones
> Andrew Tate
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#747Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also have a proposal for lawmakers. It's simpler, and it will address the digital parenting problem from the root, and also solve a bunch of other societal problems in the process: use antitrust to force hardware vendors to ship their smartphones without an operating system. End the mobile OS cartel and let there be competition. This digital parenting problem would have been solved long ago if hardware wasn't locke…
Your proposal doesn't even attempt to solve the problem these laws solve. If I'm a parent, how do I prevent my kid from telling some website that they are an adult? AB 1043 solves this by letting me set this on their OS account, which all other services will query.
AB 1043 doesn't solve anything. It just delegates parental responsibility to the tech companies - you're giving them your child's age and letting them decide what's good for the kid.
> If I'm a parent, how do I prevent my kid from telling some website that they are an adult?
You don't need to because all content filters and permissions can be implemented on the client-side at the OS and app level. Rather than every service taking your child's age and deciding what to filter, you decide what to filter based on your child's level of maturity. You'll have total control over what runs on the hardware. Think: user accounts and permissions, local firewalls and traffic inspection, executable permissions, app installation locks, stripped down browsers and apps, small local neural networks, bootloader locking with custom password, etc. The market will follow the gradient of user value and spawn a bunch of OSes with different feature sets, probably better than what I can come up with, and you pick the OS with features that suit your needs.
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#748Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're also using hindsight to frame this conflict, something entirely unfair to the people involved at the time. Millions upon millions of people around the world protested the Vietnam War, including millions of people in the US. On one day alone, an estimated 2+ million Americans participated in anti-war protests. Over 500,000 men were officially categorized as draft dodgers, more than 200,000 charged with violat…
How is any of this a response to my claim: "The opposing party in the Vietnam war was far worse than the US on a moral level, before, during and after the war. And it wasn't a small difference. We're talking about democracy and democratically selecting laws here? Well: the large majority of the population in Vietnam, including in the North, wanted the US to defeat the Vietcong and the Soviets." None of anything you g…
You know, you had a bunch of statements in a row, in what appeared to be someone trying to make a point.
And then you said "USA! USA! USA!" ... what in the actual fuck are you trying to achieve with that?
"Was USA behavior very inconvenient" - inconvenient? Inconvenient for the people of El Salvador to have roaming contras, funded and trained in the USA terrorizing the countryside and killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly innocent civilians. You sure do have a way with words. But by all means, "USA!".
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#749Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sick and tired of the argument that porn shouldn't be kept from kids because what if someone thinks it's healthy for kids to watch porn (and for all I know it might be, since I haven't sent the scientific evidence). If some parent thinks that's healthy they can just enter the child's age as 18.
That wasn't the argument. Here are the specific examples listed in the comment I responded to: > QAnon > Alex Jones > Andrew Tate
Clearly your argument applies to sexual content as well. Unless you’re willing to state right here that you’re ok with restricting that information?
Re: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
While children are often married off to old men in the US and Afghanistan in more civilised countries the state tend to intervene.
> children are often married off to old men in the US How often are children married off to old men in the US?
More than zero. How often is it acceptable for a 12 year old girl to be married off to an adult?