881–887 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not only children, but also goldfish who forget everything after 5 minutes
tbf it took from 1939 until about 5 years ago for people to forget that fascism is a bad idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is just being intentionally obtuse. Just looking at simple probabilistic thinking, a porn company is more likely to get more customers if they target teenagers, make porn more normalized, obviously make porn legal, etc. If they have these incentives, then these companies would do them. They are not exactly headed by moralists or ethically inclined people.. Specific to targeting teenagers, porn users are mostly u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweden has more parties than two and it's the lesser evil here as well - in what world would a party perfectly align to every single thing you like?
It is far, far more likely that you can get most of your opinions represented in a parliament with 8 parties than one with 2 or 3. In Sweden, in the past 50 years, people with ”new” or fringe opinions have successfully started parties, and won seats in either the national or EU parliament, on these issues: - Christianity - Environmentalism - Racism/populism - Internet freedom/privacy - Feminism - Racism/populism, aga…
Admittedly there is a bureaucratic logjam in the UK that hampers any progress but I don't see that going with fptp, I'd anticipate it getting much, much worse under prop-rep.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ofcom is a government-approved industry regulator, strictly speaking. It is what in the UK gets called a Quango. A quasi-non-government-organisation. It is not a government body. It is not under direct ministerial control. It gets some funds from government (but mostly through fees levied on industry): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8eec40f0b... But it operates within industry as the industry's re…
Quasi-autonomous, to be completely accurate. They consult regularly with the industry and ministers but the Office of Communications Act established Ofcom to be independent of both Government and industry. They're accountable to Parliament.
It's the political version of someone pointing to a computer tower and saying "this CPU can hold all of your music" and then you (a computer technician) interject "actually the hard drive can hold all of your music".
> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…
Back then people were kinda just complaining about the centralization of Wikipedia. The bar keeps getting lower.
Is everything going to be encrypted behind a VPN protocol in the future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. As an repetition of and an aside to all those pointing out that there is a constitution, what may find gaining some momentum after this are calls for a Bill of Rights , something England used to have[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
The Bill of Rights was never repealed, so there’s no “used to” about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bill of Rights was never repealed, so there’s no “used to” about it.
That's a sophist's argument. There's a reason it's qualified as the 1689 Bill of Rights, because it doesn't exist as a bill of rights any more. Parts of it were subsumed by other laws, parts of it repealed - where is your right to bear arms?
This part of it could hardly have been retained unaltered.