Grays_1890
David Ginola
Yeh all because of Glory GloryYou soppy sods no wonder we are exploited so mercilessly.
Yeh all because of Glory GloryYou soppy sods no wonder we are exploited so mercilessly.
Yeh all because of Glory Glory
How do you work that out?Yeh all because of Glory Glory
Or all because we see an exploited child as just that. An exploited child. Regardless of their skin tone.
Well it was you alluding to comments on here being a reason for being exploitedHow do you work that out?
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?
you and your point scoring fella.Wth are you on about. She was groomed. And she should return to the UK and face a court for her crimes.
you and your point scoring fella.
fudges sake.
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.
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 oddGood 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.
you and your point scoring fella.
fudges sake.
You care to explain what this meant?
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.www.abc.net.au
Your insinuation of racism sunshine. Don’t act all innocent.
If I was racist I will vote reform.
Am I racist?
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.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?
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.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.
In the context of what I was talking about that is targeted content (ie marketed), not content restriction.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?"
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.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.