4 ms·

My daughter’s high school, like plenty of schools in the UK, US and EU, is full of 13 year old boys who think Andrew Tate (YouTube advocate of wife beating curr

by willyt 4y ago

My daughter’s high school, like plenty of schools in the UK, US and EU, is full of 13 year old boys who think Andrew Tate (YouTube advocate of wife beating currently on trial for rape and sex trafficking) is innocent and a cool dude to boot. Parents mostly have no idea who he is and no time to really find out what their kids are looking at on the internet and not enough technical knowledge to restrict it. TBH if the law said that the default ISP config pointed you to a DNS that blocked the shite that is piped into the heads of children who are too young and stupid to step back and reason about or question what they are shown, I would be happy with that as long as the law says you have inviolable right to change the config to allow the mind filth in if you want it.

nforgerit 4y ago
The example you're giving is not prohibited by generally applied client-side scanning, since it happens in the realm of public Social Media. It's improbable politicians will block YT, Insta, Fb, Twitter since they're using it themselves to reach out. That said, your example can be properly tackled by installing more social workers in different contexts, schools in this case. But neo-liberalism made politicians save money esp. in social contexts. Now that dogmatic approach is falling on our feet, frankly to no surprise.
- lazide 4y ago
  Social workers won’t do Jack here - only parenting involvement. Which is even less popular.
  - ronsor 4y ago
    The more necessary a thing is, the less popular it is.
ronsor 4y ago
Tate is YouTube's problem, not the ISP or DNS's problem. Most of the stuff you're talking about mostly exists on social media sites, so unless you're proposing DNS-blocking Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and all the others by default, there's little benefit to defaulting to DNS censorship.
- willyt 4y ago
  Yes you’re right of course but YouTube is not doing anything about it. Where is the middle ground between great firewall of china and an unlimited stream of content that anyone anywhere can target at kids that is available because it fits someone else’s definition of free speech for this to be available?

by willyt 4y ago

nforgerit 4y ago

The example you're giving is not prohibited by generally applied client-side scanning, since it happens in the realm of public Social Media. It's improbable politicians will block YT, Insta, Fb, Twitter since they're using it themselves to reach out. That said, your example can be properly tackled by installing more social workers in different contexts, schools in this case. But neo-liberalism made politicians save money esp. in social contexts. Now that dogmatic approach is falling on our feet, frankly to no surprise.

lazide 4y ago
Social workers won’t do Jack here - only parenting involvement. Which is even less popular.
- ronsor 4y ago
  The more necessary a thing is, the less popular it is.

ronsor 4y ago

Tate is YouTube's problem, not the ISP or DNS's problem. Most of the stuff you're talking about mostly exists on social media sites, so unless you're proposing DNS-blocking Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and all the others by default, there's little benefit to defaulting to DNS censorship.

willyt 4y ago
Yes you’re right of course but YouTube is not doing anything about it. Where is the middle ground between great firewall of china and an unlimited stream of content that anyone anywhere can target at kids that is available because it fits someone else’s definition of free speech for this to be available?