←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hungmung ◴[] No.45006064[source]
More made up problems for a fundamentally inept government to solve because fixing real problems like a broken healthcare system is hard and not a guaranteed political win.

Thanks Starmer, you're a worthless turd and no different than your predecessor.

replies(6): >>45006181 #>>45006484 #>>45007240 #>>45007801 #>>45007859 #>>45008041 #
basisword ◴[] No.45006181[source]
The Online Safety Act was passed when the Tories were still in government.

Rolling that back essentially makes you a prime minister that believes children should have unfettered access to porn, self-harm material, gore, and that the outspoken parents of kids who've killed themselves after accessing this material shouldn't be listened to. At least, that's how the media (on all sides) would spin it. Not really a fight worth picking.

replies(4): >>45006238 #>>45006471 #>>45006495 #>>45006587 #
MrGinkgo ◴[] No.45006495[source]
The way to fight it without coming off that way is by advocating for a form of age check that doesn't require personal information, which I haven't heard any really water-tight suggestions yet.

If their real interest was in protecting children, they'd make a free, publicly accessible age blocking system that parents could choose to opt into, that isn't thrust upon all citizens at once

replies(3): >>45006954 #>>45008682 #>>45011271 #
1. zahlman ◴[] No.45006954{3}[source]
>a form of age check that doesn't require personal information

But your age is personal information.

replies(1): >>45008598 #
2. MrGinkgo ◴[] No.45008598[source]
sure, but it's far from the most identifying information you can hand over to a government, though