4 ms·

Relevant, ORG warns of threat to privacy and free speech as Online Safety Bill is passed - https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/org-warns-of-threat-t

• Nasrudith 3y ago
  It seems that a lot of people idiotically think that what is best for the children is for them to live in a dystopia.
  • runeofdoom 3y ago
    I expect that the overlap between "honestly care for childrens' quality of life" and "understands the ramifictions of this bill to any significant extent" is near zero. (Though there are doubtless many people who have inaccurately convinced themselves they are members of both classes.)
    • throwaway4PP 3y ago
      yes, but undoubtedly the UK's security services know that the best way to pass something unpopular is to recast it as helping children women the vulnerable much like the content of the 2010 CIA memo that wikileaks released[1] stating that the best way to increase public support for US military actions in Afghanistan is to emphasize the oppression of women [1]https://wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_report_into_shoring_up_Afghan_war_support_in_Western_Europe,_11_Mar_2010 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_report_into_shoring_up_Afghan...
      • trackflak 3y ago
        It's annoying being one of the seemingly few people who sees through these techniques. I seldom voice support for a position because it does 'one thing' and WE NEED TO DO THE ONE THING NOW!!! Instead, as best as I can, I try to see the net effect on everything this proposition touches. Even forget spending hours stewing over facts and data, there is just an instinct inside me that picks up that it is a ruse, a fallacy, a cynical ploy. While that sounds like tooting my own horn, and I admit I've been taken in by some tricks before, it just isn't easy to stand by and watch. And even if you argue and make the case for online freedom, someone else just needs to come along and go, 'AH!, but what about the children!' and the masses are swayed.
  • gorwell 3y ago
    "For the children" is how they sell removal of freedoms and justification for putting the general population under surveillance. The managers know what's best for all of us!
  • ahefner 3y ago
    "Think of the children", except the population increasingly doesn't have any. It's nice then to imagine that approach would stop working at some point in the future, but probably not.
  • makingstuffs 3y ago
    Looks like we all better start learning newspeak
  • orra 3y ago
    It's such a transparent lie. Most families in the UK with three children are in poverty. The UK punishes the child for existing, by denying it social security.
    • matthewfelgate 3y ago
      Just factually incorrect.
      • autoexec 3y ago
        which part?
        • orra 3y ago
          I was slightly mistaken in that it's 42% [1], not 50%+. But that's still a derisory figure. The cruelty of the UK towards children is absolutely real. The two child limit, and associated rape clause, is punitive. If we look at UK families with three or more children, two million of those kids are in poverty [1]. Scrapping the limit would cost a token amount, and lift 270 000 [2] children out of poverty. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-for-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-av... table 4_5db [2] https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61220/the-twochild-benefit-cap https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61220/the-twochil...
          • matthewfelgate 3y ago
            £1.3bn a year a year is not a token amount.