No one should support anyone pushing this, it's not about the kids but locking down the internet and surrendering their citizens to silicon valley's palantir type companies to make secret social scores on everything you do or say or look at, based on their half baked metrics.
The Green Party in the UK recently won a by-election in a fairly small constituency called Gorton and Denton, to the shock of both Labour and Reform.
If Reform had won, I guarantee the UK's response to Trump declaring war on Iran would have been significantly more in line with what Trump expected: i.e. let's get the bombing party started.
Voting does matter. Why do you think so many bad actors are always trying to undermine it?
Too many people have too much power and control over the system. We just have the illusion of influence.
Petitions are the perfect example, it gives people the illusion that they're having an effect. But in reality, when those 10k petitions are hit, it's up to the houses discretion whether they even want to talk about it.
I mean, I just listed an example of voting making a considerable geopolitical difference. Okay, yeah, voting most likely isn't going to usher in an age of anarcho-syndicalism any time soon but telling people not to engage with the democratic process because it 'doesn't matter' is a bit disingenuous.
Petitions are the perfect example, it gives people the illusion that they’re having an effect. But in reality, when those 10k petitions are hit, it’s up to the houses discretion whether they even want to talk about it.
Yes, the way the UK Parliament handles petitions is absolutely terrible. Even though they are required to hear any petition that gets 100k, a House committee basically decides whether it gets treated seriously or not. What's really needed is a national equivalent of public questions to local government. I can understand that there would have to be some sort of signature or support-gathering requirement or ranking because first-come-first-served-with-a-time-limit (which is what happens at local government) would become an unfair fastest-finger-first contest each time the questions queue opened, but it could be better than the petitions.
By the backdoor is right. You will have to go through a private company and show id, then your face to facial recognition, then your asshole for their asshole recognition programs. Fuck this, are we so stupid we don't see what this is actually about?
Should we attempt to regulate how social media companies operate, educate children and parents on the possible harm and how to avoid it, or do anything with the goal of just improving the way technology is used?
No, we'll just ban it. Something that has famously always worked well.
In a way this makes me a little sad. I met my wife via IRC, I built long lasting relationships with random people I met online when I was a teenager; I learned so much about programming and Linux/BSD/Solaris from online forums of people that took time to help my dumb ass out. All of that same potential to be swept under the rug because of trash like TikTok and Facebook.
As far as I (a non-British person) can tell the actual proposal hasn't been released yet so: nobody knows.
I do know that I wouldn't count on them doing a good job of defining what "social media" is; and if we're being honest then IRC, Usenet, forums, and Lemmy should all be included in that definition as they are all forms of it.
I started coding when I was 10 (yea, I know, that's earlier than usual, but still!) and I learned so much from programming forums and mailing lists that I think it's safe to say my entire career would be on a very different or VERY delayed path if I wasn't allowed access to those until I was 16.
Sorry, you must be old enough to pilot a multi-thousand-pound vehicle at highway speeds before we let you learn about the dark magic that is Perl and awk.
I knew we were screwed back when all the CCTVs went up and became normalized. The spirit of it was nothing new. Just the over the top visibility of it and it not shattering the public's perception of the western worlds viewpoints on our being some sort of example of a free world
It's a toxic place full of political propaganda and dangerous mechanics designed to hack their dopamine systems.
Is it the best option? No. Digital literacy about the effects of spending time online, and being taught what it is they're actually giving their attention would be best.
But this will have to do for now.
If this doesn't happen, we're going to have a whole generation of people who never learnt to think for themselves, have absolutely no impulse control whatsoever and who knows what else.
The ways they find around it, again, are good - because they'll probably be free from agendas by other state actors and profit at their expense.
Even if you support this shit, 16 is an absolutely crazy high age. You can vote at 16 but your government thinks you are too stupid to use "social media" responsibly? This is pure stupidity. And to no surprise, the ID verification companies behind this are sponsored by Palantir. This is every fascists wet dream.
21 Comments
username_1@discuss.tchncs.de · 23 pts · 50d
Kids, be sure to never vote for anyone who let this happen.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 11 pts · 50d
No one should support anyone pushing this, it's not about the kids but locking down the internet and surrendering their citizens to silicon valley's palantir type companies to make secret social scores on everything you do or say or look at, based on their half baked metrics.
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip · -26 pts · 50d
Kids, be sure to never vote.
It's a waste of your time and energy, and the politicians don't give a fuck about you, and will do whatever the fuck they want anyway.
GelatinGeorge@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 50d
The Green Party in the UK recently won a by-election in a fairly small constituency called Gorton and Denton, to the shock of both Labour and Reform.
If Reform had won, I guarantee the UK's response to Trump declaring war on Iran would have been significantly more in line with what Trump expected: i.e. let's get the bombing party started.
Voting does matter. Why do you think so many bad actors are always trying to undermine it?
IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 50d
If voting mattered they wouldn't let you do it.
Too many people have too much power and control over the system. We just have the illusion of influence.
Petitions are the perfect example, it gives people the illusion that they're having an effect. But in reality, when those 10k petitions are hit, it's up to the houses discretion whether they even want to talk about it.
GelatinGeorge@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 50d
I mean, I just listed an example of voting making a considerable geopolitical difference. Okay, yeah, voting most likely isn't going to usher in an age of anarcho-syndicalism any time soon but telling people not to engage with the democratic process because it 'doesn't matter' is a bit disingenuous.
mjr@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 49d
Yes, the way the UK Parliament handles petitions is absolutely terrible. Even though they are required to hear any petition that gets 100k, a House committee basically decides whether it gets treated seriously or not. What's really needed is a national equivalent of public questions to local government. I can understand that there would have to be some sort of signature or support-gathering requirement or ranking because first-come-first-served-with-a-time-limit (which is what happens at local government) would become an unfair fastest-finger-first contest each time the questions queue opened, but it could be better than the petitions.
mjr@infosec.pub · 16 pts · 50d
Starmer to unveil compulsory online ID checks by the backdoor, more like.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 50d
By the backdoor is right. You will have to go through a private company and show id, then your face to facial recognition, then your asshole for their asshole recognition programs. Fuck this, are we so stupid we don't see what this is actually about?
BozeKnoflook@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 50d
Should we attempt to regulate how social media companies operate, educate children and parents on the possible harm and how to avoid it, or do anything with the goal of just improving the way technology is used?
No, we'll just ban it. Something that has famously always worked well.
In a way this makes me a little sad. I met my wife via IRC, I built long lasting relationships with random people I met online when I was a teenager; I learned so much about programming and Linux/BSD/Solaris from online forums of people that took time to help my dumb ass out. All of that same potential to be swept under the rug because of trash like TikTok and Facebook.
MurrayL@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 50d
They’re not banning IRC or forums, though?
BozeKnoflook@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 50d
As far as I (a non-British person) can tell the actual proposal hasn't been released yet so: nobody knows.
I do know that I wouldn't count on them doing a good job of defining what "social media" is; and if we're being honest then IRC, Usenet, forums, and Lemmy should all be included in that definition as they are all forms of it.
I started coding when I was 10 (yea, I know, that's earlier than usual, but still!) and I learned so much from programming forums and mailing lists that I think it's safe to say my entire career would be on a very different or VERY delayed path if I wasn't allowed access to those until I was 16.
Sorry, you must be old enough to pilot a multi-thousand-pound vehicle at highway speeds before we let you learn about the dark magic that is Perl and awk.
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 50d
Just ask Australia how well that went.
Noja@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 50d
Politicians would never admit their wrongdoing.
adarza@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 50d
double-down and do something even more stupid. it's what they do.
good thing the planet spins around and goes around on its own, because they'd find a way to fuck that up, too.
XLE@piefed.social · 5 pts · 50d
Dave Andress
Stupendous@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 49d
I knew we were screwed back when all the CCTVs went up and became normalized. The spirit of it was nothing new. Just the over the top visibility of it and it not shattering the public's perception of the western worlds viewpoints on our being some sort of example of a free world
IPeaceInYourFace@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 50d
Yea I'm all for it.
It's a toxic place full of political propaganda and dangerous mechanics designed to hack their dopamine systems.
Is it the best option? No. Digital literacy about the effects of spending time online, and being taught what it is they're actually giving their attention would be best.
But this will have to do for now.
If this doesn't happen, we're going to have a whole generation of people who never learnt to think for themselves, have absolutely no impulse control whatsoever and who knows what else.
The ways they find around it, again, are good - because they'll probably be free from agendas by other state actors and profit at their expense.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 50d
social media bans are a threat to democracy .
Noja@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 50d
Even if you support this shit, 16 is an absolutely crazy high age. You can vote at 16 but your government thinks you are too stupid to use "social media" responsibly? This is pure stupidity. And to no surprise, the ID verification companies behind this are sponsored by Palantir. This is every fascists wet dream.
BigTwerp@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 50d
Can you read?