5 ms·

It was never about "protecting the children", that's just the glazing they wrap internet censorship in so citizens would swallow it. Case in point, the same UK

It was never about "protecting the children", that's just the glazing they wrap internet censorship in so citizens would swallow it. Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed, are now suddenly the ones pushing for Internet ID to "protect the children". If they cared so much about the children, why didn't they go after the grooming gangs immediately, instead of trying to hide it. What they want is internet censorship, to take away the internet freedom of assembly, the ability to control and ban any criticism from the public targeting politicians and the elite the same way they do to mainstream media. No more people taking about political scandals, corruption, illegal immigration, sex scandals, Epstein list, Ukraine, Gaza, law enforcement abuse, mass shootings, etc, they don't give a damn about the kids.

stego-tech 1y ago
I’m aware, but I go right back to the substance of the original conceit instead of letting myself get dragged into the details; that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children, and it is the sole responsibility of parents to protect their children in adults-only spaces like the internet.
- crinkly 1y ago
  Eh use their own hammer against them. Calling someone a pedophile is libel in the UK. Sue them!
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    Maybe in the UK it is, but not necessarily in other jurisdictions. Besides - and you gotta trust me on this - down that way lies madness, and it’s honestly part of their intent (see: Streisand Effect) by libeling or slandering you. Healthy, adult-only spaces online have been leading a “no minors” crusade for decades. We bar minors from our spaces, and promptly eject them when discovered. That said, we’re also far more familiar with any politician or puritan with the reality that kids will find a way into adults-only spaces if they really want to be there, and likely succeed because their parents are wholly absent or utterly incompetent at managing their kid’s online presence and access. This always goes back to the parents. Every single time.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  > that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. People keep saying this but I've never seen it happen IRL. Probably because previous generation of people who are now parents, grew up with uncensored internet and turned out largely all right, or at least the issues they have (economy, jobs, housing) aren't due to a lack of internet censorship to "protect" them. >You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield.
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    > That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield. Here’s the uncomfortable truth to that point: we already know this, but we’re the exception to the norm. Listening to non-technical folks, they genuinely believe the internet is entirely hardcore smut that’s destroying kids and that we’re actively soliciting minors with sexual content. That’s not remotely true, but more people believe that narrative than the technically correct argument that this is all just a mass surveillance ploy by the government to weed out and persecute “undesirables” by wielding sex as a weapon. So now picture how we sound making the technically correct argument to the masses who believe the narrative: we sound batshit insane, and they won’t listen to us. Instead if we take the side of faulting absentee parents for failing to police their kids online, then that usually results in their defensive rebuttal of “we both work full-time, and I don’t have the time or skill to do this!” That’s what we want to hear. That argument can be reasoned with, because they’re correct in their justification, even if the act they’re justifying is wrong. Once they admit that, we can take their side in more constructive ways, like: * Yeah, tech companies do make it too easy for kids to go online and wade into adult spaces. Big Tech and Social Media companies should do more to curate a child-only space that’s entirely curated rather than throwing them onto the open internet by default * Yes, the fact everything requires kids to be online in front of a screen is bad, and we should be mandating kids have healthier relationships with technology by limiting their access or promoting better understanding of its functions * Yeah, a society where both parents have to work full-time to survive does hinder child development and prohibits parents from nurturing their growth in desired ways. We should build a society where one parent can stay home full-time and be the caregiver and mentor children need to thrive * Yeah, these devices are deliberately complicated to prevent easy moderation by parents of their children, and it’s by design. We should create regulations that make it easier for parents to secure their children’s devices, not make it easier for kids to get online See? Once we pivot the argument back to, “You’re right in your feelings but wrong in your attack vector, let’s work together on this”, we’ll get more support and allies in building a better solution for everyone.
scott_w 1y ago
> Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed Please don’t spread lies to make your point. The current Prime Minister was the DPP who oversaw the prosecution of the Rochdale scandal and worked on changing reporting and investigation. Listen to Andrew Norfolk’s interview with the News Agents if you’d like a citation.
- pixxel 1y ago
  [dead]

stego-tech 1y ago

I’m aware, but I go right back to the substance of the original conceit instead of letting myself get dragged into the details; that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children, and it is the sole responsibility of parents to protect their children in adults-only spaces like the internet.

crinkly 1y ago
Eh use their own hammer against them. Calling someone a pedophile is libel in the UK. Sue them!
- stego-tech 1y ago
  Maybe in the UK it is, but not necessarily in other jurisdictions. Besides - and you gotta trust me on this - down that way lies madness, and it’s honestly part of their intent (see: Streisand Effect) by libeling or slandering you. Healthy, adult-only spaces online have been leading a “no minors” crusade for decades. We bar minors from our spaces, and promptly eject them when discovered. That said, we’re also far more familiar with any politician or puritan with the reality that kids will find a way into adults-only spaces if they really want to be there, and likely succeed because their parents are wholly absent or utterly incompetent at managing their kid’s online presence and access. This always goes back to the parents. Every single time.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
> that’s how you get these ghouls accusing you of being a pedophile or claiming you want to show children pornography in the classroom. People keep saying this but I've never seen it happen IRL. Probably because previous generation of people who are now parents, grew up with uncensored internet and turned out largely all right, or at least the issues they have (economy, jobs, housing) aren't due to a lack of internet censorship to "protect" them. >You gotta attack the root argument: this space was never intended for children That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  > That only distract people from the government trying to censor free speech on the internet using kids as a human shield. Here’s the uncomfortable truth to that point: we already know this, but we’re the exception to the norm. Listening to non-technical folks, they genuinely believe the internet is entirely hardcore smut that’s destroying kids and that we’re actively soliciting minors with sexual content. That’s not remotely true, but more people believe that narrative than the technically correct argument that this is all just a mass surveillance ploy by the government to weed out and persecute “undesirables” by wielding sex as a weapon. So now picture how we sound making the technically correct argument to the masses who believe the narrative: we sound batshit insane, and they won’t listen to us. Instead if we take the side of faulting absentee parents for failing to police their kids online, then that usually results in their defensive rebuttal of “we both work full-time, and I don’t have the time or skill to do this!” That’s what we want to hear. That argument can be reasoned with, because they’re correct in their justification, even if the act they’re justifying is wrong. Once they admit that, we can take their side in more constructive ways, like: * Yeah, tech companies do make it too easy for kids to go online and wade into adult spaces. Big Tech and Social Media companies should do more to curate a child-only space that’s entirely curated rather than throwing them onto the open internet by default * Yes, the fact everything requires kids to be online in front of a screen is bad, and we should be mandating kids have healthier relationships with technology by limiting their access or promoting better understanding of its functions * Yeah, a society where both parents have to work full-time to survive does hinder child development and prohibits parents from nurturing their growth in desired ways. We should build a society where one parent can stay home full-time and be the caregiver and mentor children need to thrive * Yeah, these devices are deliberately complicated to prevent easy moderation by parents of their children, and it’s by design. We should create regulations that make it easier for parents to secure their children’s devices, not make it easier for kids to get online See? Once we pivot the argument back to, “You’re right in your feelings but wrong in your attack vector, let’s work together on this”, we’ll get more support and allies in building a better solution for everyone.

scott_w 1y ago

> Case in point, the same UK politicians who try to burry the Muslim grooming gangs story where kids got harmed Please don’t spread lies to make your point. The current Prime Minister was the DPP who oversaw the prosecution of the Rochdale scandal and worked on changing reporting and investigation. Listen to Andrew Norfolk’s interview with the News Agents if you’d like a citation.

pixxel 1y ago
[dead]