←back to thread

139 points stubish | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
southernplaces7 ◴[] No.44441543[source]
What is it with some of the anglo countries and these ridiculous slides into nannying, vaguely repressive surveillance. It's not even much useful for real crime fighting, as the case of the UK amply and frequently demonstrates.
replies(3): >>44441725 #>>44441981 #>>44442150 #
florkbork ◴[] No.44441725[source]
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

Read the legislation. Ask yourself if it's better for a country's government or a foreign set of social media companies to control what young people see. One has a profit motive above all else. One can be at least voted for or against.

replies(3): >>44442323 #>>44442398 #>>44454000 #
1. southernplaces7 ◴[] No.44454000[source]
Oh my god, the information and social media might be "foreign"!! that's obviously cause for suspicion and prohibition. Do you perhaps live in some brainless mid-20th century authoritarian fantasy of social dangers?

If you think X domestic legislation doesn't come with its own baggage of profit motives, hidden agendas and attempts at controlling narratives for young people, you're in for a rude awakening if you dig a bit deeper.

That aside, i'd rather parents being the ones who decide what minors see instead of some hackneyed government censorship program rammed through by a plethora of boogeymen and possibly (very likely) later used to track and censor adult access to information choices.

Laws like these and their supporters can both fuck off. It's the same old story from going back centuries, nationalist, religious or generally moralizing bullshit about the supposed dangers of some nefarious influence being used to restrict what I decide to read, watch or think about.