3 ms·

[flagged]

by 988747 4y ago

[flagged]

midenginedcoupe 4y ago
>The bill will force companies to remove any content promoting self-harm, depicting sexual violence or facilitating suicide. >The amendment [...] would allow Ofcom to prosecute individual executives if they were proved to have connived with or consented to breaking the elements of the bill designed to protect children’s safety. Judges would be allowed to impose prison sentences of up to two years. Yep, this is exactly like Nazi Germany. The similarities are spooky. I mean, which bit exactly do you think is Nazi-like - is it holding execs personally accountable for them personally breaking the law?
- dokem 4y ago
  The government really does not give a shit about protecting children. Especially in the UK where they did not intervene in the systematic rape of hundreds of children for some strange reason. All happening right under their nose. Parents protect children, not faceless governments. When something is sold as protecting children really the government just wants to treat you like a child and take something away. The irony is that they will still allow very relevant and damning promotion of self-harm which does facilitate in suicide with an impressive 40% success rate. It truly is evil like we have not seen in almost 100 years.
  - midenginedcoupe 4y ago
    This is offensive wibble. "The government" absolutely does care about protecting children, evidenced by the hard work done by children's services teams up and down the country. The government is only faceless if you don't want to look - the childcare professionals working endless hours with troubled children and families absolutely do have faces, and they're some of the kindest and selfless people you could hope to meet. No man/child/family is an island, and so this idea of parents being the protection not the government is not just wrong, it's dangerous. There are countless terrible cases up and down the country where it's the parents doing the abusing. Or even the more benign cases where the parents are struggling through circumstance or mental health and appreciate the help. What then if the government can't/shouldn't help? And I presume you're referencing what happened in Rochdale, which is rightly a horrific scandal and should never have happened. But it doens't mean the government doesn't care. It means some of the people working for it are incompetent/corrupt/evil. This bill is terrible for all sorts of reasons, but holding execs personally accountable when they break the law isn't one of them.

[flagged]

by 988747 4y ago

[flagged]

>The bill will force companies to remove any content promoting self-harm, depicting sexual violence or facilitating suicide. >The amendment [...] would allow Ofcom to prosecute individual executives if they were proved to have connived with or consented to breaking the elements of the bill designed to protect children’s safety. Judges would be allowed to impose prison sentences of up to two years. Yep, this is exactly like Nazi Germany. The similarities are spooky. I mean, which bit exactly do you think is Nazi-like - is it holding execs personally accountable for them personally breaking the law?

dokem 4y ago
The government really does not give a shit about protecting children. Especially in the UK where they did not intervene in the systematic rape of hundreds of children for some strange reason. All happening right under their nose. Parents protect children, not faceless governments. When something is sold as protecting children really the government just wants to treat you like a child and take something away. The irony is that they will still allow very relevant and damning promotion of self-harm which does facilitate in suicide with an impressive 40% success rate. It truly is evil like we have not seen in almost 100 years.
- midenginedcoupe 4y ago
  This is offensive wibble. "The government" absolutely does care about protecting children, evidenced by the hard work done by children's services teams up and down the country. The government is only faceless if you don't want to look - the childcare professionals working endless hours with troubled children and families absolutely do have faces, and they're some of the kindest and selfless people you could hope to meet. No man/child/family is an island, and so this idea of parents being the protection not the government is not just wrong, it's dangerous. There are countless terrible cases up and down the country where it's the parents doing the abusing. Or even the more benign cases where the parents are struggling through circumstance or mental health and appreciate the help. What then if the government can't/shouldn't help? And I presume you're referencing what happened in Rochdale, which is rightly a horrific scandal and should never have happened. But it doens't mean the government doesn't care. It means some of the people working for it are incompetent/corrupt/evil. This bill is terrible for all sorts of reasons, but holding execs personally accountable when they break the law isn't one of them.