And also VPNs are tools to open doors in the minefield of legislations that they need to create to improve the incoming of some business, not of the people that voted for them.
This assumes that all parties involved have already a perfect understanding of the incentive alignment structure of those representated and involved.
Even with the uncharitable interpretation that "the government" is against you, it assumes that the government will operate on the "level 1" and would outright accept the premise that they aren't interested in privacy. Regardless they might have to concede on key points due to optics and other variables they have to manage for long-term success operating on the "level 2" as described in SLtI.
This comment is psychotic. It could be that they're doing something you don't like, while still meaning what they say, and being mistaken about it.
I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments and the type of people who make them. It's a sign of mental illness or personality disorder, and I don't trust anyone who has got either of those.
Yeah except that Ofcom(the UK communications regulator) already said that the main goal of the Online Safety Act isn't about protecting children, it's about "controlling online discourse". They dropped that pretense literally one day after the act got passed.
>>I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments
This is a fairly difficult problem. I think the internet should be for adults only, like many other things. But we've fucked up by giving children internet access and it's going to be hard to undo it. I think rather than fighting these measures we need to work on alternatives because keeping children off the internet is a good idea, we just need to implement it in a good way.
What about just banning phones for children? Could we ever make that work? It would be like cigarette bans except we now have 5 year olds addicted to tobacco and addict parents who don't want to make them go cold turkey.
Public libraries and schools can be used for genuine research purposes, but not addictive shit. And implemented ad blockers at the network level.
Sexualization of teens is a thing. I personally blame social media together with showbusiness. But kids had access to the internet at the same time.
And the internet was slightly different than it's now. It had much more sharp edges that we learned how to live with.
But it also was much less predatory. World's smartest psychologists and programmers didn't work 80 hour weeks for small fortunes to make it as much addictive as possible.. if it was only that. It's also as triggering and depressing as possible, because distressed and depressed people are engaging more and can't stop.
What I mean to say is that you can't really draw an equal sign between internet we grew up with and the one we give (or choose to limit) to our children.
I don't mean we should block them, just that it's not the same.
I've heard people on HN make the argument that a blanket ban is better because their kids won't feel it's unfair that only their family implements strict internet blocks
> Also - outside the HN bubble this stuff isn’t even unpopular.
This stuff wasn't unpopular on HN until it actually happened. Almost every submission on HN about social media had people calling for similar regulations or even outright bans. It was not until they actually started asking for IDs when HNers realized what they really wanted to achieve with these laws.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/blogs/social-media-minim...
Could you explain what is the theory behind that?
Does Mozilla not understand that this is the exact reason why the UK wants to forbid them?
Age verification is just mass surveillance under a fake name.
Even with the uncharitable interpretation that "the government" is against you, it assumes that the government will operate on the "level 1" and would outright accept the premise that they aren't interested in privacy. Regardless they might have to concede on key points due to optics and other variables they have to manage for long-term success operating on the "level 2" as described in SLtI.
I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments and the type of people who make them. It's a sign of mental illness or personality disorder, and I don't trust anyone who has got either of those.
>>I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments
Weird thing to brag about, but sure.
Could you, my wonderful Western friends, do that again?
I mean, all of it is even on video and largely on YouTube.
What about just banning phones for children? Could we ever make that work? It would be like cigarette bans except we now have 5 year olds addicted to tobacco and addict parents who don't want to make them go cold turkey.
Public libraries and schools can be used for genuine research purposes, but not addictive shit. And implemented ad blockers at the network level.
Sexualization of teens is a thing. I personally blame social media together with showbusiness. But kids had access to the internet at the same time.
And the internet was slightly different than it's now. It had much more sharp edges that we learned how to live with.
But it also was much less predatory. World's smartest psychologists and programmers didn't work 80 hour weeks for small fortunes to make it as much addictive as possible.. if it was only that. It's also as triggering and depressing as possible, because distressed and depressed people are engaging more and can't stop.
What I mean to say is that you can't really draw an equal sign between internet we grew up with and the one we give (or choose to limit) to our children.
I don't mean we should block them, just that it's not the same.
How much the problems today are due to, rather than coincidental with, the internet, is a much more difficult thing to discern.
Historically they were fairly smart at doing it subtly but the mask slipped during Covid and they never really put it back on.
Also - outside the HN bubble this stuff isn’t even unpopular. Normies supported covid lockdowns and they don’t want their kids watching porn either.
The people yearn to be ruled and nannied
This stuff wasn't unpopular on HN until it actually happened. Almost every submission on HN about social media had people calling for similar regulations or even outright bans. It was not until they actually started asking for IDs when HNers realized what they really wanted to achieve with these laws.