My early teens were spent largely online, and it allowed me to connect with people from all over the world. I would be a lesser person if I was restricted to only knowing the people geographically close to me.
This just increases the impact of the birth postcode lottery. And will continue this country’s decline backwards instilling more insular and xenophobic attitudes.
Glad you had a good experience. Many did not - and demand this regulation.
While I agree with your goal of broadening horizons, the worldwide rise in xenophobia and hate crimes is pretty damning evidence that the tools currently on offer by these techbros are doing the opposite.
This is not about banning all access to the online world. It's a start at protecting people from the most rapacious sites. Much more is needed, esp data privacy and safety for all ages.
Unless I'm mistaken, the proposal includes prohibiting anyone under 16 from talking to strangers on any and all sites.
That's functionally a total ban from the entire Internet, because everyone is a stranger at first.
It's also functionally a total ban of all sites that aren't billionaire-funded, because only billionaires can afford age checks.
So yes, it's about banning all access to the online world. For everyone, not just kids.
Except X and Facebook.
Now, I don't know about you, but I really really *really* do not want to live in a world where Elon Musk has a monopoly on speech.
And that's where I fear this is going.
@argv_minus_one @theshaunwalker
I believe you are mistaken about the scope. Of course, we don't have the actual legislation, but this covers what we do know.
As for prohibiting all talking to strangers on every site...
"The government has only specified a handful of sites included in the UK's social media ban. These are Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X."
BBC News - Five big questions about the UK's under-16s social media ban
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9824zvpz9po
@TCatInReality @argv_minus_one The governments own press release says "This would capture user-to-user platforms, whose purpose is to enable social interaction [...] The ban will therefore include platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X"
platforms LIKE...
The way the govt. handled the Online Safety Act. They are 100% uncaring about the blast radius of this kind of legislation, and will happily let every community die, unless they explicitly state otherwise.
@theshaunwalker @argv_minus_one
Ok. And exactly how many community sites has the gov investigated and/or fined under #OSA? I believe it's zero - focusing on 4chan and a nudify AI site. As expected, gov is going to use it's limited resources on extreme cases.
Whereas I've seen lots of noise about sites pulling their own pages down because of scaremongering about OSA.
Sorry, I have existing posts debunking OSA hype, if interested. To me, that pivot only undermines your credibility.
@TCatInReality @argv_minus_one it was a parallel example not a pivot, as to how we cannot give govt the benefit of the doubt. They must be challenged on the widest interpretation of their own words before it becomes law.
The parallel I draw is in how the govt is haphazard with the legislation they try and do, the collatoral damage, for zero payoff as you say they don't even prosecute to the law they create.
I'm a dude pissed off the UK is going down the shitter, I don't have credibility.
@theshaunwalker @argv_minus_one
Again, using your own "parallel example" where has the gov enforced #OSA that you would object to?
Side note: don't get me wrong. I support many of the things in your bio. I think we need to be critical of corporate-bought gov. But I also think corporations AstroTurf to keep us from using government to helping citizens. There's a lot of scaremongering about OSA and now this U16 rule, but very little evidence.
@TCatInReality @argv_minus_one this derailed over crossed wires of the original point so I'm not pulling further on that thread.
I cant speak for other scaremongering, but the literal interpretation of govt words, when they are explicitly talking about creating laws, where the widest interpretation is the default in law, is not scaremongering.
I interpret you seem to be in favour of these trends, but we are well into a slippery slope of total control "for the sake of the children".
@theshaunwalker @argv_minus_one
After decades of the techbros experimenting on humanity, getting enormously wealthy with zero accountability - yes, I support any gov's effort to hold tech companies to account.
Of course, the way thru legislation is fraught, esp in an area this new. That's why it's critical we demand our democratic processes work through the issues and compromise.
I've got no time for dismissive generalities and worst case scenario thinking. But it's OK we don't agree.
Shaun Walker
TC Won't Give In To Lies
ARGVMI~1.PIF