Grays_1890
David Ginola
Yeh all because of Glory Glory
-
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)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Or all because we see an exploited child as just that. An exploited child. Regardless of their skin tone.
johnola
Vedran Corluka
How do you work that out?
johnola
Vedran Corluka
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?
Grays_1890
David Ginola
Well it was you alluding to comments on here being a reason for being exploited
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Wth are you on about. She was groomed. And she should return to the UK and face a court for her crimes.
johnola
Vedran Corluka
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
I've no idea what you are on about again.
Silly McSilly Face
Neil Sullivan
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.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
16-17 year olds all understand proxy servers and VPNs, so it's likely only limiting older people's access to those outlets.
kb 1984
Espen Baardsen
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
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
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
You care to explain what this meant?
johnola
Vedran Corluka
Your insinuation of racism sunshine. Don’t act all innocent.
If I was racist I will vote reform.
Am I racist?
Silly McSilly Face
Neil Sullivan
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.....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
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.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
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.
monkeybarry
Les Medley
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.
Silly McSilly Face
Neil Sullivan
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?"
monkeybarry
Les Medley
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.
Silly McSilly Face
Neil Sullivan
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.