871–880 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tbf it took from 1939 until about 5 years ago for people to forget that fascism is a bad idea.
Let me tell you as a german: that's not what fascism looks like. Get your TDS under control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the conservatives have largely withered on the vine becoming merely another center left party. Excuse me, WHAT?! I can't imagine what else you could write to signal so clearly that nobody should take anything you write seriously. Even Labour barely comes across as center-left anymore. The Tories have never been. I would hope that the LibDems and the Greens would strongly oppose this use of the OSA, but I haven't se…
Sounds like you're Old Left? The left's positions have changed since 1900 you know. Labour is fully committed to mass immigration and "diversity", refuses to reduce welfare by even a penny despite imminent financial crisis, has implemented big tax rises, has soaked the rich so much they're all leaving, and this article is about it enforcing heavy handed regulation of information distribution. All that sounds very lef…
But if you want left-right, "helping the poor and disenfranchised" is left, "helping the rich and powerful" is right, and while details have moved around, that core never changed. I don't see conservatives anywhere do much for the poor, and they still love disenfranchising people. It's more that formerly left-wing parties, including Labour, have moved to the right since the neoliberalism of the 1990s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>parents You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids. Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet. The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic. If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into ques…
Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.
This is a dangerous semantic drift that ignores how teenagers are in the process of developing into adults, and so need the parent supervision of them to be slowly relaxed. (Especially since, if handled poorly, they tend to rebel, and cause much more damage.)
And, as a reminder, not all erotic or erotic-adjacent (or other "adult topics") works are porn,
and depending on the jurisdiction the age of consent is often less than 18
(16 in UK, though I am sure there are important details hidden behind this single number),
though I do understand that there might be new, unique challenges here in the Internet era, with laws that might not have caught up yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how we should have stopped the cookie banners
Its easy to solve cookie banners, its not the laws fault websites are fucking incompetent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minors are still humans who deserve rights. They should not be considered property of parents, regardless of fear mongering about grooming. Teenagers should have the right to access information without their parents knowing, as their parents can be just as, if not more dangerous to their health and well being as a hypothetical groomer. Many teens face real abuse from their parents over their sexuality. They should no…
Minors can have unfettered access to the web once grown up and yes the parents should be able to decide when that is to some point (that point being the 18th birthday). There is really no reason kids need to be able to "explore their sexuality" any earlier than that.
Sexuality is part of the human condition that doesn't start on one's 18th birthday just because over-protective parents want complete control of their child.
It's weird that parents believe they need to control every facet of their child's life, down to being able to learn about why they feel the way they do. It's a form of abuse and coercion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies think both at a micro and macro scale. They chase individuals but they are also very interested in seeing the entire landscape be more interested in whatever they are selling. If porn peddlers were only targeting "that creepy uncle", and not thinking beyond that, the porn industry would not have been as big as it is today. The financial insentive is very real, and so is the desire to keep porn accessible to…
The dichotomy you're implying is "that creepy uncle" on one hand and a large proportion of the population on the other, but it's the latter in both cases. The people between the ages of 14 and 80 are nearly the same number of people as the ones between 18 and 80, and the people between 14 and 17 don't have money to pay you during those years anyway. Targeting them has a lower return than targeting people who are of a…
Specific to targeting teenagers, porn users are mostly under 30, so your statement about 14-18 being around the same as 18-80 is irrelevant. About not being able to pay at 14-17, sure, let's go with that, but they start paying after that. We are talking a few years here. Companies do have incentives to create customers just a few years down the line.
Let me ask a few rhetorical questions. How do you think social media became popular? How did tiktok, snapchat, facebook, instagram become popular? Even yikyak became popular because they targeted teens. Why has so much advertising been targeted to teenagers for decades now? Hell, how did onlyfans become popular? All these companies have massive incentives to target teenagers.
So your stance of these porn companies not targeting teenagers is just being willfully obtuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economic liberalism isn't really relevant to the question of social authoritarianism. While an enterprising individual in guangzhou can sell whatever he wants to the world without much state involvement, he can't really go around discussing Tibetan sovereignty for example.
My current theory is that one leads to the other but we’ll see how that works out for our friend in Guangzhou. My point is centralization doesn’t work, so maybe social authoritarianism has deleterious cultural effects that will show up generations from now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that the UK having an unwritten constitution means that revolution cannot happen? Of course putting aside the fact we did have a revolution in the 1600s, and the almost constant revolution happening in Ireland until the 1930s. A fluid constitution is no use when the government is intransigent, and very little can protect a democracy from half the voters voting for a coup. A written constitution only…
The revolution in the 1600s was reversed - as far as I know the UK is the only country in the world to have reversed a revolution. If you want more healthcare security you're more likely to get that in an uncodified system like the UK. Yes your healthcare rights can be reversed but better that, than never happening at all like in the US. A codified system also hands vast power to lawyers. The US is a lawyer's paradis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its easy to solve cookie banners, its not the laws fault websites are fucking incompetent.
But it is the law's fault. Instead of working with some body like IETF and browser contributors to come up with a standard, they just butchered the verbiage and expected the website admins to comply in the most unergonomic fashion imaginable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because the bedrock principle on which modern government is based is… drum roll Lie whenever it’s convenient because the public are children anyway and won’t or can’t understand. Through this lens many things make more sense. They’re comfortable with lying because there are zero repercussions for lying.
They are not only children, but also goldfish who forget everything after 5 minutes