3 ms·

Just in case anybody is under any false impressions: there is no grass roots movement pushing for this. this isnt "democracy run amok" or the Labour party pande

by pydry 1y ago

Just in case anybody is under any false impressions: there is no grass roots movement pushing for this. this isnt "democracy run amok" or the Labour party pandering a little too much. Labour arent interested in protecting children from pedophiles any more than they were interested in ensuring that Prince Andrew received justice for abusing a minor. Deanonymizing internet users IS the point. The attack on civil liberties is the only point.

cft 1y ago
[flagged]
- TechDebtDevin 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - cft 1y ago
    [flagged]
afavour 1y ago
I think that's an exaggeration. To take an article at random (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24v4dl5r16o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24v4dl5r16o): > Chris Sherwood, chief executive of children's charity the NSPCC, said Friday's new rules mean services "can no longer evade their duty for protecting children". > For Prof Elena Martellozzo, professor of child sexual exploitation and abuse research at the University of Edinburgh, the rules send a message to the tech industry that "child safety and child protection are not optional". > The Molly Rose Foundation, a charity founded by the family of Molly Russell - who took her own life at the age of 14 after seeing harmful content online - has said stronger legislation is needed to better protect children. > Derek Ray-Hill, interim head of the Internet Watch Foundation, meanwhile welcomed the new rules for sites allowing porn but said "there is still more to be done". I think there absolutely is pressure on the government for things like this. Certainly not mass pressure in all segments of the population but neither is the government acting alone.
- raverbashing 1y ago
  If there were still real journalists around it would be good to know where all the money for these associations is coming from
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    You don't need journalists to know where the NSPCC's money comes from, you can look it up.
  - afavour 1y ago
    On the converse, I think any accusation that charities (like the NSPCC in particular!) are fronts for some nefarious group looking to crush civil liberty needs even the slightest bit of evidence before it can be taken credibly.
    - YurgenJurgensen 1y ago
      When the OSA’s supporters accuse their critics of supporting serial rapists without evidence, accusing them of pretty much anything else without evidence seems like fair game.
  - pydry 1y ago
    I know somebody who was interviewed for an agenda pushing article like this for the BBC. He said a lot of very sensible stuff which they didnt quote and then plucked a phrase that implied he agreed with the agenda (something similar to "stronger legislation to protect children is needed" where he would have meant some OTHER legislation). I wouldnt be surprised if half of the people quoted here had the same thing done to them. Also many might not be as grassroots as they imply as you said. I am sure that the NSPCC's opinions on matters like these are more about what the board thinks than, say, the average mother of an abused child. Anyway, it's enough to confuse the average (perhaps dim) person into thinking there is a grass roots movement when it's the government doing all the pushing.
exasperaited 1y ago
> any more than they were interested in ensuring that Prince Andrew received justice for abusing a minor Prince Andrew didn't break any laws in the UK, though, did he? Virginia Giuffre was 17 (over the age of consent) when she was photographed here with Andrew. The USA didn't charge him and seek extradition so what was the UK to do?
Aurornis 1y ago
> Just in case anybody is under any false impressions: there is no grass roots movement pushing for this. I’ve actually been surprised at how many Hacker News comments have been in support of the UK’s regulations. There were a lot of “What’s the big deal? We already check IDs for liquor. Why can’t we do it for porn?” comments on all of the previous threads. The slippery slope was brought up a lot but dismissed. I think a lot of people believed there was an easy solution that wouldn’t inconvenience them or creep into other areas of their lives.

by pydry 1y ago

cft 1y ago

[flagged]

TechDebtDevin 1y ago
[flagged]
- cft 1y ago
  [flagged]

afavour 1y ago

I think that's an exaggeration. To take an article at random (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24v4dl5r16o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24v4dl5r16o): > Chris Sherwood, chief executive of children's charity the NSPCC, said Friday's new rules mean services "can no longer evade their duty for protecting children". > For Prof Elena Martellozzo, professor of child sexual exploitation and abuse research at the University of Edinburgh, the rules send a message to the tech industry that "child safety and child protection are not optional". > The Molly Rose Foundation, a charity founded by the family of Molly Russell - who took her own life at the age of 14 after seeing harmful content online - has said stronger legislation is needed to better protect children. > Derek Ray-Hill, interim head of the Internet Watch Foundation, meanwhile welcomed the new rules for sites allowing porn but said "there is still more to be done". I think there absolutely is pressure on the government for things like this. Certainly not mass pressure in all segments of the population but neither is the government acting alone.

raverbashing 1y ago
If there were still real journalists around it would be good to know where all the money for these associations is coming from
- exasperaited 1y ago
  You don't need journalists to know where the NSPCC's money comes from, you can look it up.
- afavour 1y ago
  On the converse, I think any accusation that charities (like the NSPCC in particular!) are fronts for some nefarious group looking to crush civil liberty needs even the slightest bit of evidence before it can be taken credibly.
  - YurgenJurgensen 1y ago
    When the OSA’s supporters accuse their critics of supporting serial rapists without evidence, accusing them of pretty much anything else without evidence seems like fair game.
- pydry 1y ago
  I know somebody who was interviewed for an agenda pushing article like this for the BBC. He said a lot of very sensible stuff which they didnt quote and then plucked a phrase that implied he agreed with the agenda (something similar to "stronger legislation to protect children is needed" where he would have meant some OTHER legislation). I wouldnt be surprised if half of the people quoted here had the same thing done to them. Also many might not be as grassroots as they imply as you said. I am sure that the NSPCC's opinions on matters like these are more about what the board thinks than, say, the average mother of an abused child. Anyway, it's enough to confuse the average (perhaps dim) person into thinking there is a grass roots movement when it's the government doing all the pushing.

exasperaited 1y ago

> any more than they were interested in ensuring that Prince Andrew received justice for abusing a minor Prince Andrew didn't break any laws in the UK, though, did he? Virginia Giuffre was 17 (over the age of consent) when she was photographed here with Andrew. The USA didn't charge him and seek extradition so what was the UK to do?

Aurornis 1y ago

> Just in case anybody is under any false impressions: there is no grass roots movement pushing for this. I’ve actually been surprised at how many Hacker News comments have been in support of the UK’s regulations. There were a lot of “What’s the big deal? We already check IDs for liquor. Why can’t we do it for porn?” comments on all of the previous threads. The slippery slope was brought up a lot but dismissed. I think a lot of people believed there was an easy solution that wouldn’t inconvenience them or creep into other areas of their lives.