People might go online and find out that it’s not normal to have your country burn down every few months. They mights start getting angry at the people in power.
Just kidding, this is probably about protecting corporate profits from the evils of BitTorrent or some shit.
Instead of guessing, you could just… Google it. It’s about making harmful content unavailable to minors. I’m all for Internet freedom, but something makes me uncomfortable about protesting against protecting children from porn. It’s probably something to do with me seeing porn when I was young and it fucking me up for a long time.
All bills targeting your freedom are labelled “child porn” or “terrorism”.
After terrorists attack in France, state of emergency was declared, special powers to restrainesuspicious powers at home. We MUST protect people frometerrorists, right? If you’re against that, which side are you on? Very first usage of the power: restrain non-violent eco-activists to their home so that they don’t disturb the COP.
That pattern repeats over and over. They’re counting on you being sensitive to “child porn”, I bet you the initial list will include “eco-terrorists” sites (label used on anyone attending a climate protest they tried to prevent), political activists sites (you try to be anonymous on Internet? That’s SO suspicious!).
I’m sorry for what happened to you, but ri seriously doubt this bill is really intended to prevent that.
It’s not the government’s job to parent someone’s children… Parents should take the time to learn about how computers and the internet work at a sufficient level so they can both teach their children how to act and what to expect on the internet, and to control what their child sees on the internet. The former is a backup in case the latter does not work.
Totally, most people with young kids now grew up with the internet. It’s not a great unknown to them what’s out there for their kids to find and they should take their own measures to block that. It’s not the 90s anymore.
I guess most peoples concern is that it means storage of their information somewhere in a database to allow the access. You may have got IDed buying physical porn back in the day, but the bloke in shop wasn’t taking a scan of your ID and putting you on a list of people who’d brought some grot.
While the idea of protecting children is admirable, at what point does it become a state issue rather than a parental one. There’s ways to control and limit what a connected device can view and those tools should be used before we go for the nuclear option. As a millenial with boomer parents, and the wild west nature of the internet in the 90s I can understand the situation meant my parents couldn’t really be expected to understand it all. If you’re a gen X/millenial with kids now, you should understand tech enough to sort this out yourself.
People might go online and find out that it’s not normal to have your country burn down every few months. They mights start getting angry at the people in power.
Just kidding, this is probably about protecting corporate profits from the evils of BitTorrent or some shit.
Instead of guessing, you could just… Google it. It’s about making harmful content unavailable to minors. I’m all for Internet freedom, but something makes me uncomfortable about protesting against protecting children from porn. It’s probably something to do with me seeing porn when I was young and it fucking me up for a long time.
All bills targeting your freedom are labelled “child porn” or “terrorism”.
After terrorists attack in France, state of emergency was declared, special powers to restrainesuspicious powers at home. We MUST protect people frometerrorists, right? If you’re against that, which side are you on? Very first usage of the power: restrain non-violent eco-activists to their home so that they don’t disturb the COP.
That pattern repeats over and over. They’re counting on you being sensitive to “child porn”, I bet you the initial list will include “eco-terrorists” sites (label used on anyone attending a climate protest they tried to prevent), political activists sites (you try to be anonymous on Internet? That’s SO suspicious!).
I’m sorry for what happened to you, but ri seriously doubt this bill is really intended to prevent that.
It’s not the government’s job to parent someone’s children… Parents should take the time to learn about how computers and the internet work at a sufficient level so they can both teach their children how to act and what to expect on the internet, and to control what their child sees on the internet. The former is a backup in case the latter does not work.
Totally, most people with young kids now grew up with the internet. It’s not a great unknown to them what’s out there for their kids to find and they should take their own measures to block that. It’s not the 90s anymore.
I guess most peoples concern is that it means storage of their information somewhere in a database to allow the access. You may have got IDed buying physical porn back in the day, but the bloke in shop wasn’t taking a scan of your ID and putting you on a list of people who’d brought some grot.
While the idea of protecting children is admirable, at what point does it become a state issue rather than a parental one. There’s ways to control and limit what a connected device can view and those tools should be used before we go for the nuclear option. As a millenial with boomer parents, and the wild west nature of the internet in the 90s I can understand the situation meant my parents couldn’t really be expected to understand it all. If you’re a gen X/millenial with kids now, you should understand tech enough to sort this out yourself.
Simpsons did it
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/phSxxVJCZsc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.