• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

LutonSpurs said:
Or all because we see an exploited child as just that. An exploited child. Regardless of their skin tone.
Click to expand...

If only kids could grow up without any deliberate mind bending thoughts being pushed into their heads.

No religious or political or cultural exposure until they are of age.

suits me how about you?
 
johnola said:
If only kids could grow up without any deliberate mind bending thoughts being pushed into their heads.

No religious or political or cultural exposure until they are of age.

suits me how about you?
Click to expand...

Wth are you on about. She was groomed. And she should return to the UK and face a court for her crimes.
 
Good point on the government's new online safety bill: this will attempt to prevent 16 and 17 year olds from connecting to and accessing certain news and media outlets. Labour's own preamble is that these age groups are easily influenced and therefore their access to certain information sources must be restricted - with the other hand they're giving this cohort the vote. Make it make sense.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Good point on the government's new online safety bill: this will attempt to prevent 16 and 17 year olds from connecting to and accessing certain news and media outlets. Labour's own preamble is that these age groups are easily influenced and therefore their access to certain information sources must be restricted - with the other hand they're giving this cohort the vote. Make it make sense.
Click to expand...

16-17 year olds all understand proxy servers and VPNs, so it's likely only limiting older people's access to those outlets.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Good point on the government's new online safety bill: this will attempt to prevent 16 and 17 year olds from connecting to and accessing certain news and media outlets. Labour's own preamble is that these age groups are easily influenced and therefore their access to certain information sources must be restricted - with the other hand they're giving this cohort the vote. Make it make sense.
Click to expand...
Well here in Australia Facebook. X, Reddit, YouTube, Snapchat & tiktok are not going to be available to kids under 16 that makes sense to me. Banning 16 & 17 year Olds seems odd

www.abc.net.au

How will the teen social media ban work? Here's what we know

Australia is months away from implementing its world-first social media ban for teens. But questions still remain around how the restrictions will work.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
kb 1984 said:
Well here in Australia Facebook. X, Reddit, YouTube, Snapchat & tiktok are not going to be available to kids under 16 that makes sense to me. Banning 16 & 17 year Olds seems odd

www.abc.net.au

How will the teen social media ban work? Here's what we know

Australia is months away from implementing its world-first social media ban for teens. But questions still remain around how the restrictions will work.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
It is not "banning", the Online Safety Act introduces a duty on online content providers to prevent "misinformation" and "disinformation" and that duty is extended when that information may be accessed by children (i.e. under 18s). The definition of what constitutes "misinformation" and "disinformation" however is the key concern - ultimately the act is enforced on behalf of the government meaning any sitting government now has far reaching powers to control the information British citizens are subjected to and block information it does not like and that is creating some of the concern whether well intentioned or otherwise.....
 
johnola said:
Your insinuation of racism sunshine. Don’t act all innocent.

If I was racist I will vote reform.

Am I racist?
Click to expand...

This only happened in your brain. Maybe you are just getting defensive pal. And I've no idea if you are racist. I've never thought of you as one.
 
johnola said:
If only kids could grow up without any deliberate mind bending thoughts being pushed into their heads.

No religious or political or cultural exposure until they are of age.

suits me how about you?
Click to expand...
There is a significant difference between being groomed and being influenced (aka being sold to, or marketed to). It's disingenuous to conflate the two.

I agree with you for the most part on this point of principal (that probably about as conservative as I get) - ironically, we've legislated quite well on that (restrictions on where tobacco and alcohol can be advertised, and timing re; fast food. Hell, we even have the watershed for broadcast content), but we are in the social media age now, so that ship has well and truly sailed - the focus now has to be on critical thinking and understanding signs of danger and grooming etc.
Content restriction is no longer feasible.
 
monkeybarry said:
There is a significant difference between being groomed and being influenced (aka being sold to, or marketed to). It's disingenuous to conflate the two.

I agree with you for the most part on this point of principal (that probably about as conservative as I get) - ironically, we've legislated quite well on that (restrictions on where tobacco and alcohol can be advertised, and timing re; fast food. Hell, we even have the watershed for broadcast content), but we are in the social media age now, so that ship has well and truly sailed - the focus now has to be on critical thinking and understanding signs of danger and grooming etc.
Content restriction is no longer feasible.
Click to expand...
Content restriction has been happening for years. There are algorithms in every search engine and website that try to figure out what you like and give you more of the same. When I was doing open source intelligence investigations I'd ideally have a blank (new) device. Barring that the preparation work involves wiping the device as near as darn possible before starting. If you don't do this, the content you are returned by the search engine is restricted - it returns what it thinks you most want to see based on your history.

Its partly why political debate hss become so fractured. Both sides of a debate are only presented information online that broadly supports their point of view and people can no longer comprehend "the alternative" because "how can they hold that view in the face of all this evidence?"
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Content restriction has been happening for years. There are algorithms in every search engine and website that try to figure out what you like and give you more of the same. When I was doing open source intelligence investigations I'd ideally have a blank (new) device. Barring that the preparation work involves wiping the device as near as darn possible before starting. If you don't do this, the content you are returned by the search engine is restricted - it returns what it thinks you most want to see based on your history.

Its partly why political debate hss become so fractured. Both sides of a debate are only presented information online that broadly supports their point of view and people can no longer comprehend "the alternative" because "how can they hold that view in the face of all this evidence?"
Click to expand...
In the context of what I was talking about that is targeted content (ie marketed), not content restriction.
I clearly detailed the kind of restriction I was referring to.
 
monkeybarry said:
In the context of what I was talking about that is targeted content (ie marketed), not content restriction.
I clearly detailed the kind of restriction I was referring to.
Click to expand...
Targeted content/content restriction....what's the difference? The fact is that you are restricted in terms of the content you will see based on what the likes of Google think they know about you and the impact of this is that we are no longer challenged in our views but our views are reinforced by content that agrees with our initial sensibilities.
 
Government have to find £41.2 billion in tax revenue or spending cuts in the autumn budget to meet their spending rules according to the NIES. They also state that rises in major taxation (i.e. income tax, VAT) would assist in boosting market confidence and reduce UK bond yields, which are currently at historical highs, and have been pushed higher than they were following the Truss mini budget, following the govt climb down on benefit reforms. The govt risk getting into a vicious cycle of borrowing costs rising and continuous additional tax rises or spending cuts being required just to meet rising interest payments on debt as market confidence in UK government economic competence evaporates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back