6 ms·

Through most of history government always has the power, but the question is whether it has the legitimacy. In this case it has the legitimacy, but lacks the p

Through most of history government always has the power, but the question is whether it has the legitimacy. In this case it has the legitimacy, but lacks the power. This is an unusual turn. We need online safety for kids. The aims of this bill should obtain widespread support from everyone. But instead of carefully researching and implementing difficult ideas, framing it properly and obtaining permission from the people - a remit to empower us to embrace online safety on our own terms - it's taken a strictly 20th Century "Mother knows best, think of the children" approach and made this a battle with Big Tech. It is laughably "Yes, Prime-Minister" in its clumsiness. We have anachronistic throwbacks in charge.

whatshisface 3y ago
I already have a remit to embrace online safety on my own terms - I can install a local filtering system if I choose to.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Of curse, but it's not terribly easy for the average person to put sophisticated filters into multiple content pipelines on every child's device (imagine having 4 or 5 kids of different ages and needs). So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed. In many ways that would take a much bigger stick to Big Tech, It also transitions the definition of "online harms" to those defined by the guardian/parent rather than problematically allowing the State to define harms and control the selectors. What that says to me is that the government are dishonest about the real aims of the bill. And further, as a consequence, it crushes my belief that the government even truly care out child safety except as a vehicle to greater tyranny.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > on every child's device Devices only in public areas in the house. Dumbphones for emergencies.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    > So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed. What you're proposing would likely enable the creation of some fairly invasive stalkerware. Don't forget that 1) just because a feature says it's for use by a parent on their child's device doesn't mean that it can only be used in that context, nor that 2) not all parents have their children's best interests in mind.
thereddaikon 3y ago
People might be more receptive if the UK government had shown any real intention of going after pedos before this. But the number of scandals and coverups indicate they dont. And this is little more than an excuse to make it easier to spy on their subjects.
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - generationP 3y ago
    The UK has a recent history of sweeping child abuse under the rug when it involves minorities or famous personalities. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan... for two examples.
    - vinay427 3y ago
      It also has a recent history of racial discrimination targeting minorities as a result of false accusations of child abuse, so it's worth making sure there isn't an overcorrection particularly in a society where people sometimes still attribute random individuals together based on perceived ethnic origin. See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/how-eleanor-williamss-lies-about-grooming-and-abuse-unravelled https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/how-eleanor-... for one example.
    - ChrisKnott 3y ago
      You've sleight-of-handed out "government" for "the UK" and linked two stories which don't really involve the UK government. Furthermore if you read your own links, you will see that the "recent history" of the Rotherham offending is that there is an enormous police investigation costing tens of millions of pounds and a large number of people have been convicted, and the "recent history" of the fallout from Jimmy Saville is that another extremely well-funded enquiry was conducted (IICSA). The general idea that the UK is particularly accomodating to paedophiles, or that an unusual number of powerful people in the UK are paedophiles, is not supported by evidence. This meme mainly comes from a serial liar, Carl Beech, who's lies were credulously reported by people who should have known better.
Jigsy 3y ago
Online safety for kids begins at home. The problem is most parents are just too lazy.
- anonymous_sorry 3y ago
  Or too busy? In plenty of families both parents have to work hard to make ends meet. Not helped by the fact that children are growing up in a completely different environment to the one their parents remember. Familiarizing myself with TikTok or whatever the kids are into these days would fill me with dread. And the way platforms work means my experience of them would differ dramatically from a child's anyway.
  - hackncheese 3y ago
    Wish I could upvote this harder lol. Parents really dont have enough time/energy to do this better than people who are trained in software/legislation. Especially if they have more than 2 kids/are single parents
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      So you trust the competence and the ethics of the government?
      - hackncheese 3y ago
        Id say i trust the competence of government in this arena more than that of parents on average. If someone is working on policy day in and day out for tech related things, they will have a better lay of the land than the average parent. However, you bring up a good point about ethics. A parent will definitely be far more acting in the best interest of their child compared to the government. An interesting quandry, good point
        scarface_74 3y ago
        The other test is what can the “other” party do with any power you give the government. I define “other” as the party with viewpoints you are opposed to.
jackjeff 3y ago
We need road safety. But no genius in gouvernement has created a law that’s says it’s illegal to sell cars that CAN have accident. Generally the government goes after bad drivers instead of car companies. I really don’t understand why Big Tech should magically stop every crime on earth: child abuse, racism, harassment, etc… I think the supreme Zuck is a dick, but pulling out of the UK market was the right move.

whatshisface 3y ago

I already have a remit to embrace online safety on my own terms - I can install a local filtering system if I choose to.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Of curse, but it's not terribly easy for the average person to put sophisticated filters into multiple content pipelines on every child's device (imagine having 4 or 5 kids of different ages and needs). So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed. In many ways that would take a much bigger stick to Big Tech, It also transitions the definition of "online harms" to those defined by the guardian/parent rather than problematically allowing the State to define harms and control the selectors. What that says to me is that the government are dishonest about the real aims of the bill. And further, as a consequence, it crushes my belief that the government even truly care out child safety except as a vehicle to greater tyranny.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > on every child's device Devices only in public areas in the house. Dumbphones for emergencies.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  > So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital estate, under the control of the user (parent) and completely rejecting the MITM and endpoint compromise via back-doors that the government naively proposed. What you're proposing would likely enable the creation of some fairly invasive stalkerware. Don't forget that 1) just because a feature says it's for use by a parent on their child's device doesn't mean that it can only be used in that context, nor that 2) not all parents have their children's best interests in mind.

thereddaikon 3y ago

People might be more receptive if the UK government had shown any real intention of going after pedos before this. But the number of scandals and coverups indicate they dont. And this is little more than an excuse to make it easier to spy on their subjects.

ChrisKnott 3y ago
[flagged]
- generationP 3y ago
  The UK has a recent history of sweeping child abuse under the rug when it involves minorities or famous personalities. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan... for two examples.
  - vinay427 3y ago
    It also has a recent history of racial discrimination targeting minorities as a result of false accusations of child abuse, so it's worth making sure there isn't an overcorrection particularly in a society where people sometimes still attribute random individuals together based on perceived ethnic origin. See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/how-eleanor-williamss-lies-about-grooming-and-abuse-unravelled https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/how-eleanor-... for one example.
  - ChrisKnott 3y ago
    You've sleight-of-handed out "government" for "the UK" and linked two stories which don't really involve the UK government. Furthermore if you read your own links, you will see that the "recent history" of the Rotherham offending is that there is an enormous police investigation costing tens of millions of pounds and a large number of people have been convicted, and the "recent history" of the fallout from Jimmy Saville is that another extremely well-funded enquiry was conducted (IICSA). The general idea that the UK is particularly accomodating to paedophiles, or that an unusual number of powerful people in the UK are paedophiles, is not supported by evidence. This meme mainly comes from a serial liar, Carl Beech, who's lies were credulously reported by people who should have known better.

Jigsy 3y ago

Online safety for kids begins at home. The problem is most parents are just too lazy.

anonymous_sorry 3y ago
Or too busy? In plenty of families both parents have to work hard to make ends meet. Not helped by the fact that children are growing up in a completely different environment to the one their parents remember. Familiarizing myself with TikTok or whatever the kids are into these days would fill me with dread. And the way platforms work means my experience of them would differ dramatically from a child's anyway.
- hackncheese 3y ago
  Wish I could upvote this harder lol. Parents really dont have enough time/energy to do this better than people who are trained in software/legislation. Especially if they have more than 2 kids/are single parents
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    So you trust the competence and the ethics of the government?
    - hackncheese 3y ago
      Id say i trust the competence of government in this arena more than that of parents on average. If someone is working on policy day in and day out for tech related things, they will have a better lay of the land than the average parent. However, you bring up a good point about ethics. A parent will definitely be far more acting in the best interest of their child compared to the government. An interesting quandry, good point
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        The other test is what can the “other” party do with any power you give the government. I define “other” as the party with viewpoints you are opposed to.

jackjeff 3y ago

We need road safety. But no genius in gouvernement has created a law that’s says it’s illegal to sell cars that CAN have accident. Generally the government goes after bad drivers instead of car companies. I really don’t understand why Big Tech should magically stop every crime on earth: child abuse, racism, harassment, etc… I think the supreme Zuck is a dick, but pulling out of the UK market was the right move.