91–100 of 817 posts
Some people see this as comedic, but government bureaucrats and politicians have always had a sucking desire for control over our lives. They will keep pushing until all of us are in strait jackets living in a nightmare. We must resist and do everything we can to shrink government power and grow our personal rights and freedoms.
Some people see this as comedic, but government bureaucrats and politicians have always had a sucking desire for control over our lives. They will keep pushing until all of us are in strait jackets living in a nightmare. We must resist and do everything we can to shrink government power and grow our personal rights and freedoms.
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some would argue the point is to be intrusive... The most cost effective and simplest solution to kids watching porn would be regulation around on-device filters. Why the UK didn't do this and instead tried to regulate the entire internet should be questioned – is this really about the children watching porn? When purchasing an internet-enabled device the UK could regulate that large retailers must ask if the device…
> then they could ship with filters enabled All mobile network connections already come with content filters enabled in the UK, adult or not, and has to be explicitly disabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And whi…
What about domestic entities running undercover propaganda campaigns - as we have seen e.g. with Cambridge Analytica? Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns rather than making sure that only "good" and "sovereign" propaganda campaigns are allowed?
Step 1 is reduce your attack surface :) As a second point, democracies are propaganda campaigns - it's a feature, not a bug.
I believe that national cultural and societal norms play a key part in self-regulation. I think it's too much to ask for those balancing forces to work as effectively without first turning down the firehose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.
No, more like the Parisian tobacconist had the audacity to sell tobacco to some Brits without asking Ofcom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get of…
This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abusive online relationships. An attention-suck that I can't handle as an adult, with the corresponding lack of development of other life skills that I consider essential to a successful and fulfilled life. I say "I consider", because skills self-evidently essential to a good life (emotional regulation, focus and attention span, ability to read other people's emotional states, effective communication, physical skills…
in terms of speech development, TV was found to be a massive benefit in increasing vocabulary - how are you so sure the internet (nebulously defined as that is) is detrimental to communication abilities, arent they on there talking to their friends?. And if we are talking about the internet in general and not just twitter/tiktok, then its largely NOT doomscrolling and ragebait. Hackernews (heck, every single news org…
By who, and for who? My kids (ages 5+7) watch significantly less TV than their peers (as well as currently almost zero internet access), and are frequently complimented on their command of vocabulary and ability to express themselves.
>And if we are talking about the internet in general and not just twitter/tiktok, then its largely NOT doomscrolling and ragebait.
By amount of time that people spend on the internet, it is mostly doomscrolling and ragebait. If only we could take that part of it away.
In one of the more enlightened things Elon has done in the last few years, he fought back, and he won.
Interestingly, here in AU, there was a storm of media outrage at the time, saying all kinds of nasty things about Musk, making all kinds of assertions about how he was super arrogant and wrong to insist on upholding american's freedom of speech, with no attempt to justify why. It was almost like we were just expected to assume that AU law applies everywhere on earth.
Here's a fun sample of a totally unbiased article from the time: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-20/elon-musk-reacts-to-e...
Strangely, when the court order wasn't upheld because AU laws don't actually apply outside our country, and the gubmint that was so outraged and "ready to take him on" lost badly on every point, there was no huge storm of media coverage about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.
Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.
This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you can’t safely visit anywhere in the far East because you made a subversive comment about China. Although I’m sure the same people will hypocritically wail and gnash their teeth about the laws made by those people, when of course our extraterritorial laws are just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about domestic entities running undercover propaganda campaigns - as we have seen e.g. with Cambridge Analytica? Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns rather than making sure that only "good" and "sovereign" propaganda campaigns are allowed?
> Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns Step 1 is reduce your attack surface :) As a second point, democracies are propaganda campaigns - it's a feature, not a bug. I believe that national cultural and societal norms play a key part in self-regulation. I think it's too much to ask for those balancing forces to work as effectively without firs…
By closing up we defend us from some threats, but open gates wide for others. Foreign actors compete against much stronger domestic media machines and as you mentioned have to operate in foreign cultural environments. Gaining true influence also always involves financial flows, not just propaganda campaigns, so it is sure possible to mitigate these threats without closing information flow.
Consider the opposite threat of democracies being undermined from within. If some internal "threat actor" gets control of the executive branch and of the media and also can prevent information flow from the outside, very little can be done against it.
I think it is critical to keep in mind this second possibility even when the first threat seems more urgent.