| |
| ▲ | gmanley 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's twofold, these are laws that are delving more and more into regulating the personal lives of its citizens and as a side effect forcing the de-anonymization of the internet. This in a way that makes it easier for the government to track your internet usage and if we're talking OS level verification, maybe even more than just internet usage. If you really want to go after abusive capitalists, then go straight to the source. Regulate the things that are making this ban look like a good idea. We've already had reports of the UK's Online Safety Act resulting in a convenient uptick in defamation lawsuits. Certainly not because the government can now easily track who posted a tweet that ruffled the feathers of someone important. So yeah, at the cynical end, I question the motivation of these laws and at the charitable end, I worry about the direction these laws are moving and their impact. | |
| ▲ | bitwize 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Actually no. The position I'm mocking is that we can somehow implement enforceable age restrictions on digital platforms without a verification mechanism that extends to the client level, even to the hardware. I think we need to suck it up and accept that the free-wheeling 90s are over, and using computers, the internet, and technology in general will become a much more regulated activity in the very near future, which is going to suck for people who make touching computers their entire personality, but greater society has decided that protection from certain severe social harms is worth the price paid. | | |
| ▲ | idle_zealot 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | This isn't a real dichotomy. There's not a lever positioned between safety and freedom that people can collectively choose to shift one way or another. The best way to enhance safety is to directly ban the harmful behavior, not install cameras everywhere to make sure that only the right people fall victim to it. A panopticon is both less free and less safe than the world we have now, and a world where Meta and Google are ground into silicon dust is safer and more free. | | |
| ▲ | Sankozi 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Privacy and freedom are not the same thing. You can have lots of freedom with low level of privacy, but it's impossible to high privacy and high freedom at the same time. | |
| ▲ | greenleafone7 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, but the government wants social media as long as it's their propaganda being pushed in there. That's why they love TVs. Now that no one uses TVs any longer exactly because we know it's just government mandated propaganda they have an issue. |
|
| |
| ▲ | greenleafone7 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|