Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 12 Oct 2017 at 11:41.
When Mp's say "What is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online." you know they don't understand what the internet is, what is unacceptable offline varies from country to country and as we don't have a NK style intranet (yet) trying to impose rules on what is, or isn't, acceptable is akin to reliving ones self into the wind.
Oh and BTW i don't need a UK Council for Internet Safety looking after me online as being an adult I'm perfectly capable of doing that for myself.
"What is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online." I'm guessing that means oppressing your citizens and spying on their every move.
Look at the problems with youtube content id, automated translation services having no clue regarding the context a word is used in, the rampant over blocking of websites in countries with website blocking legislation and so on, point is that technology is nowhere near advanced enough to rely on it for automated filtering / blocking.
Compliance with overly complicated and ultimately pointless regulation isn't free, so those two goals are mutually exclusive.
As Corky said, that doesn't work on a global platform as there are huge variations in what is / isn't acceptable offline.
Good luck enforcing that against companies with no physical presence in your jurisdiction.
Setting an impossibly high bar for what content would be deemed acceptable there.
You could easily interpret damn near everything as causing anxiety to someone somewhere.
That would be called basic parenting, as in parents need to make sure their kids do not have any access to any internet connected device without uninterrupted adult supervision until they deem them to be emotionally mature enough.
That sentence coming from a UK government document? Thanks for the laugh.
Is this a comedy paper?
Damn, the author must have been on some powerful drugs.
Admitting that when given an inch they will take a mile.
Since it can't be enforceable on companies abroad that inevitably means putting UK companies at a disadvantage.
If the Titanic sank today, politicians would be the first ones in the lifeboats.
Who will pay for companies to comply with all the record keeping and monitoring required for that? Oh right, no one. So those abroad where you can't enforce it will be at a significant economic advantage.
Proving that the government is just as disconnected from the world of small companies as it is disconnected from the world of poor people.
Yes, a casino raking in millions is exactly the same as a website barely scraping by on paper thin ad revenue that is constantly under threat.
Oh look, they are almost aware that it won't work.
Wow, 29 pages in and there is some common sense, except of course the government will do nothing with that common sense.
Learn to walk before you try to run.
In other words, catch up to your promise to teach basic computer literacy first before making fancy promises to parents about how you will teach kids about online safety.
Just because the governments awareness has grown doesn't mean that online behaviour has gotten worse. Also again it ignores the problem that the internet is global but there are regional differences in what is "normal behaviour".
Hint: You should do that regardless of the internet existing or not.
Only about 20 years too late.
Oh the fun one could have de-constructing and over analysing that good digital citizen bit.
The delusion that England rules the world must run deep...
And because they are the most resilient in the world they need to be wrapped in government approved and taxed bubblewrap at all times like special little snowflakes.
What I'm trying to say, pick a lane and stick to it.
Was the author raised in a borg cloning facility?
If you need to be "empowered" to do that then you are not fit to have kids in the first place.
Sure, dumb it down rather than explaining the full blown privacy horror of social media so they overshare even more, does the author want it to backfire?
Of course there is zero mention of cracking down on the rampant false advertising that goes along with those products lulling parents into a false sense of security.
Sounds good unless you know that those frontline professionals are subject to regular budget cuts and struggle like hell to provide even the most basic support due to it.
How will this be reconciled with Police budget cuts? Oh wait, it can't, so something else will have to give.
Future 999 call:
"I need the police, there is a burglar in my house"
"Sorry, we can't help you, someone's feelings have been hurt on the internet".
Ah I see, it will be a completely ineffective joke agency, ok, carry on achieving nothing then.
Have you heard of this totally crazy concept called "Parents taking responsibility"?
Overall I'd rate the whole a paper a vapid bs out of 10.
I suppose question is what offline situation is "online" comparable to? What's acceptable in the privacy of your own home isn't the same as what's acceptable on the high street. What's acceptable with people you know and have an understanding with isn't the same as what is acceptable with strangers. Is the web inherently public? Are there private bits? How are they defined?
Also can or should the government define what is acceptable beyond what is defined as legal?
Broad nebulous statements like this don't do any good at all. It just perpetuates the suspicion (...) that the people in charge don't really understand the thing they are in charge of.
Fantastic breakdown. I rate 8/8 m8.
I'm convinced it's not they don't know what they're doing. They just want it broad enough that they can get anything they want into it at a later date.
I'm just glad i can sleep comfortably tonight knowing that our government are planning to regulate the internet, i mean us people are sensitive souls and shouldn't be reading about things like MP's expenses, sex abuse, pigs, washing machine salesmen, toe sucking, or sexed up dossiers.
I'm sure these regulations and codes of practice won't be used for anything other than keeping me safe online.
Do they not know there are 3 things that are impossible to do on the internet...
2: Stopping people being racist shitheads
3: Stopping people being sexist shitheads
1: Showing **** in chronological order
Lets face it, any sort of control over the flow of information will always be (ab)used. Politicians, celebrities and the like enjoy lecturing us, telling us how bad and naughty and evil we are and how they know better and we should give up any free will and just listen to them because they know us better than we know ourselves.
"When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
"What is unacceptable offline should be unacceptable online."
So if reading my mail is unacceptable, why the hell are you reading my data packets?
Separate names with a comma.