3 ms·
> Whilst we sympathise with the government’s desire to show action in this space and to do something about children’s safety (everyone’s safety really), we cann
by HeckFeck 5y ago
> Whilst we sympathise with the government’s desire to show action in this space and to do something about children’s safety (everyone’s safety really), we cannot possibly agree with the methods.
Respectfully, stop sympathising with authoritarians who want to take away your freedom. They are not good people. Good people aren't nosey. Good people don't deprive others of liberty. Neither do they class a whole group (Internet users and entrepreneurs) as responsible for the actions of a minority. Guilt by association and collective punishment are antithetical to any lover of freedom and life.
Their reasons of 'child safety' and 'online harms' (whatever on earth that means) are simply pretexts. They don't give a shit about children's safety. This bill will do nothing, nothing to improve the safety of children. The perpetrators will simply go after children in other ways. They won't change.
If you, Mr. MP, care about children then ask why are they drawn to bad online content? What's going wrong with families and upbringing? Start with questions that might actually address the problem rather than implicate everyone who uses the Internet!
The trajectory is to increase their power and control over your life. Again, they are NOT good people. They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They love dominating you. It's understandable why some imagine the government as simply well-meaning but misguided, for it makes our helpless subjection easier to accept. But we won't stop getting the boot from the state until we start calling their actions out as morally reprehensible.
- pharmakom 5y agoIndeed. We know exactly how much the UK conservatives care about child safety by their decisions around funding for child protection, schooling, health and so on. The child protection argument is a smoke screen.
- BLKNSLVR 5y agoEx-fucking-actly right. Various legislation around internet-related activities cleaning to be to "protect children" only shifts government resources and funding away from the departments that actually do something real and tangible to protect children. Child protection where I'm from only has the resources to attend to reports in which the child is in immediate, life-threatening danger. If a politician is talking about protecting children and it doesn't include increased funding for the actual child protection agencies and education of the bottom end of society, then they're actually working against protecting children. It's gross politics and should be called out.
- tekknik 5y agoIf I could give you 1000 upvotes, no 1000000, I would. This is a comment that should be spread far and wide.
- imtringued 5y agoYeah, this is clearly a case where the harm far exceeds the damage being prevented and this isn't even considering second order effects. If everyone starts circumventing government controls then real criminals will have an easier time to hide in the crowd, it's entirely plausible for this to cause more abuse of children. Where are all the UK politicians that actually care about their people?