MrHappy Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 54 minutes ago, al-yeti said: Hmmm you would have to get rid of the pedophiles and business people in parliament making money out of it (and taking part in it) and every other high position for things like this to take effect and then everyone would shout censorship blah blah and wonder why kids are messed up in the head nonce ban ? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/04/06/TELEMMGLPICT000058725877_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqhZJ9vnP3TZj6dX4F0Tnhrlt1EhdK4aiwcWMQPYeW9P0.jpeg?imwidth=680 they'd laugh out loud.... 2 Quote Mr Veritas God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Lol, although they've been around for an age, sadly the www has opened up a Pandoras box for paedos and abusers. The anonymity it gives (or they think it gives) makes them think they are invincible. Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 2 hours ago, sixwheeledbeast said: People also take things too literally because most stuff is read online with there own bias and no context. It's fuelling cancel culture and making people think negatively about others without knowing them or the intent of the text. I'm relatively conservative when it comes to wanting legislation but I believe we should seriously consider not allowing Under 16's to have internet access on personal devices. Not an easy topic to tackle but we restrict other things like smoking or buying petrol or knifes etc. Issues now is much of high school work relies on having a smartphone, this has de-facto set the age of owning a device at 11, 2 years before the US COPPA that most of the big internet services seem to use as an age limit. Much of the new Online Safety Act is useless, it's trying to target platforms but it will never work. Much like an anti-virus it can only ever be reactive as content is found, even that is only going to be suitable on public facing information. So private echo chambers are unlikely to be found, it may even move users towards more private forums. Lets ignore the fact it will impose new restrictions forcing sites to harvest more data about people to age gate them. Seems to have a requirement to back door any encryption. That it can be bypassed relatively simply and reduce growth of our UK data centres. Clearly people with no clue how the internet works have drafted it, at least they'll make some money out of big tech in the short term I suppose... Agreed, we were quite conservative with the www with our two kids, both of them were avid readers and not really into gaming etc. No phones until they were at high school, James had an ipod thing but even that was closely monitored by us. Both were taught about the obvious dangers of the www. I remember looking thorough Jamess search history and he'd been searching for boobs. He was about 12 at the time and was mortified when I spoke to him about it lol. If it was up to me I'd also restrict under 16s and think it's a cesspit for bullying, at least when I went to school the bullying stopped at 3pm. 1 1 1 Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappy Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 20 minutes ago, norman said: Lol, although they've been around for an age, The high profile people is often about getting people of power into a black mailable position ? Regards of being rich or poor I reckon I could cure all the offenders with nothing more than a simple claw hammer... Quote Mr Veritas God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Wealth has zero relevance imo, although I get the richer ones are more likely to be protected perhaps. A paedo is a paedo in my opinion and as a father I'd not lose a minutes sleep if they were euthanized on proven guilty. There's no place for them in any modern society and the one thing we should protect are those who can't protect themselves. Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappy Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 2 hours ago, norman said: Wealth has zero relevance imo, My crack pot theory, in the olden days- Unmarried sex, affairs, poofery all used to be a bit of scandal & used to be blackmailable cause if the papers found out you loose your position in society... Noncing is still very taboo, hence Mr Epstein's... Quote Mr Veritas God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al-yeti Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 5 hours ago, MrHappy said: Regards of being rich or poor I reckon I could cure all the offenders with nothing more than a simple claw hammer... Ah your old ways are gold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappy Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 9 minutes ago, al-yeti said: Ah your old ways are gold a method that's environmentally substantial..... well if the executioner was'nt powered by Maccies Quote Mr Veritas God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 6 hours ago, MrHappy said: My crack pot theory, in the olden days- Unmarried sex, affairs, poofery all used to be a bit of scandal & used to be blackmailable cause if the papers found out you loose your position in society... Noncing is still very taboo, hence Mr Epstein's... Yeah, I get where you're coming from. Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al-yeti Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 On 17/07/2024 at 18:48, MrHappy said: a method that's environmentally substantial..... well if the executioner was'nt powered by Maccies Is this you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.