gian @ gian @lemmy.grys.it

Posts

6

Comments

644

Joined

2 yr. ago

They were on IRC before and on a number of other chats systems before that.
They will move as soon as something better will come out, for various definitions of better

You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying.

I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself.
I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help.

So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that.

As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it.

No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference.

But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law.

True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult.

I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day).

You then charge the guilty parents after the offense.

Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ?
Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?

Da ruski, good job pointing out the actual issue and then moving past it like it doesn’t destroy your argument. To your billionaire owners: we will thresh them just like the tsar and his family.

Genius, the problem is not that they are billionaire but that they can legally avoid to pay the taxes. I don't care how much money you do as long as you pay the taxes. Same for them.

And you already can begin to trash them: stop using their products/services.

The freedom from oppression exceeds anyone’s freedom to amass wealth.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

They will pay for their success either by death or taxes and I really dont care which one

Ok, got it. Envy is bad.

So since we can’t count on all parents to properly parent their child, we’ll just infantilize the entire population and treat every single person as a child by default.

Any other solution to suggest aside the two obvious ones to use when the two obvious ones fail ?
Because face it: there are parents that don't properly parent their child and I suppose that we agree that also these child should be protected in some way.

Yeah. Again, I’m familiar with this ‘think of the children!’ line of support for fascism.

And again, I don't think that making sure that a law that already exist in the physical world is held valid also on internet is fascim.
We are not living under a fascism regime even if we are subjected to laws that ban something, be it minor accessing porn material, minors accessing alchool or adults driving while drunk or too fast.

And just as a totally coincidental side effect, the censoring tech will allow the government greater tracking of everyone.

Now, that is something we can talk about trying to solve a problem, how to check these kind of things without tracking or unecessary privacy invasion.

As one Google executive recently explained: “Organizing information is clearly a trillion-dollar opportunity, but a trillion dollars is not cool anymore. What’s cool is a quadrillion dollars.”

Any exec saying remarks like this should be old yellered.

I’m saying this being fully aware of what I just said, and I say it because of what it implies.

It requires massive poverty, massive control, massive casualties, people dying from whatever comes with that level of poverty, just so that a few assholes can brag about a quadrillion dollars.

No, it don't for the simple reason that for them to be in the quadrillion dollars someone should be able to buy/use/rent whatever they do. And they know this even if they don't say it.

We need to start hard capping maximum sizes in companies. No company can employ more than 1000 people. No company can have a net worth of over one billion dollar. When a company goes over the met worth, handle it with taxes. When it reaches the employee max, that’s it, can’t hire no more.

We also need to hard cap personal wealth. Both income and net worth must be taxed in brackets. Nobody should be allowed to own more than 10 million (or whatever is a sane max maybe less, maybe a little bit more)

The lowest of the low pay no taxes, they have no money to do so. Then the next starts with 5, 10, etc. middle class should pay around 30 like in most countries. After that it goes up and up until you reach 100% for income, and whatever % is required to put the person’s net worth back into that 10 million limit.

Instead of these stupid ideas, what about closing all the loopholes that allow these companies to not pay taxes ? It seem simpler and more effective.

BTW, all your ideas would work only in a socialist country where the state control what the people do. When you say

When it reaches the employee max, that’s it, can’t hire no more.

what about a guy that want to do that job but then can't ? He start a new company (but is he able to do so ?) Or the state plan what everyone must do ?

You are simply trading, by hate and ideology, the freedom of few to be billionaire with the freedom of everyone else to do what they want in their life.

True, the current system has a lot of problems, but you don't solve them simply not allowing a company to become too big hoping that this will lead to a multitude of smaller companies.

With this we don’t have a single quadrillion dollar company with a king that will soon enough fail, we’ll have thousands of multi million companies, thousands of owners of which some might fail, others won’t. Tax income will be so much that we can quite easily fund a giant social support system, free healthcare (physical and mental, eyes and teeth), free education, universal income to ensure everyone can live nicely

Nope, you hope so but you have no evidence that it would happen, not even theoretical. And such solution would work only if it is applied world wide, if you apply only to US (or any other country or area like EU) your companies would be crushed from the bigger ones that your laws cannot touch.

Or are you proposing isolationism as the default for every nation in the world ? Are you sure it is a better option ?

NOBODY has the right to be a billionaire, it is not a right, it is not a privilege, it should be forbidden and the very fact that it’s not is a cancer on humanity.

But everybody has the right to try to be one as long as he follow the rules.

So the problem, maybe, is that we should start to ask for laws that force these big companies to follow the rules everyone else play by instead of asking to destroy companies that became that big because the laws are bad.

Do you realize that the "effective and responsible methods" are not bullet proof, right ?

I am not arguing that parental control should not be used or that parents should not educated their kid, I am arguing that since these method are based on something that can be easily bypassed (parental control) or you cannot assume as a standard (kid education) the only other alternative is for the site to really check who is accessing.

The 3 things must work together, none of them is a magical solution in itself.

Fine, assuming you are right, what's the alternative ?
Skip the part about parental controls and parents that educate their kids, let's talk about something you would do to apply the law that does not cause some form of control.

The size of the tools are dictated from the use of the tool, not the surgeon's hand size. You simply have the same tool in different size.

But it’s not about selling online but about access. Which is parental responsibility.

Fully agree.
But I was not against the fact that also the site check if who is trying to access can legally access (and I don't think the simple "Are you of legal age" question is enough)

Why do we restrict porn at 16 anyway? Make it 13 or 12 to make more sense.

It is 18 here, but it can be a nice discussion.

In the US the “standard” low cost line was listed in the white pages by default, you effectively paid extra - per month - for an unlisted number.

As far as I remember in Italy the situation was different.
You can ask to delist the number when you sign the contract and it was free. I am not really sure if in the case you decided later to delist the number you needed to pay a one time fee for that, but keeping delisted was always free.

I am not the one saying

The fascist censorship regime is just ramping up their efforts in Europe. The Nazis took over again.

I am the one saying that in the real world there is a law that ban minor from accessing porn that should be held valid also on internet.
The one implying that enforcing a law is fascist is you, not me.

Meaning, the seller should not allow the minor to buy stuff on pornhub.

The law did not say that the minor could not try to buy pornography from the newsstand (or whatever else is forbidden to him) but that the seller could not sell to him.
Same here, a minor could try to buy, the seller must not sell to him. That is valid also for accessing the site.

So I fully agree that the EU comission check if this laws is respected also on internet.

For me the only thing to discuss about this is the "how it is done" which can be an interesting discusssion in itself.

So how we can call what is behind the "ban this and that" mentality which is without any real study about the consequences and without any suggestion for alternatives ? Pre-intentional stupidity ?

Look, I am fully aware that what VW (and everyone else) did was a crime and I agree that they must pay. On the oher hand I also fully understand that you cannot change the reality only because you write a law to change it, in this case all the Euro-x normatives about emission levels.

Do you think that it is a silly idelogy to ask that also the people that make silly decision that they will not suffer are asked to pay for the consequences ? Fine, think this way.

Do we really lost the concept that one can agree with something but also see what the problems of that thing are ?

Yes, VW could have switched to hydrid or EV but not in the timeframe they are given.
Not to consider that switching the entire production to hybrid and EV without the necessary infrastructure to use them in the real world is useless, you simply build cars that nobody will buy.

No, I’d liken it to an adult giving a child alcohol. I don’t know of any children who pay for their own Internet access

Which is still forbidden, except if you are the parent and you are in your own home or anyway not in a public space. And if the kid is educated well, he would refuse alchool from an adult that is not his parent or relatives. If not maybe you should educated your kid better than that.

But I don't know children that can pay for their own alchool either.

If your liquor cabinet at home isn’t locked, and your kid steals some, it isn’t any different than not having a locked down Internet connection.

Well, I don't need to lock my liquor cabinet because I educated my kids.
And now that they are old enough they know that they can simply ask instead of stealing.

Wait, I suspect that we don't live in the same country.
In Italy keeping the number unlisted was free (you just needed to declare it when you were signing the contract) and I have no memory of something like the 411.

So in your opinion even the ban to sell alcool to minors is in the "think of the children" category ?

Anyway, the ban to sell pornography to minors date way before internet so what's the point ? EU is not making a new law, it merely try to look if these companies respect them.

Then I could agree that back at the time, when you need to go to the newsstand to buy "the product" the check was easy and now it is everything but easy. Back at the time you just need to show your ID and that's all, the newsagent would never remember you and have nothing about you to be stoles.
Now the only problem I see is that the data you could send to verify you are an adult will be stolen (and sold) and that is a problem.

Yes, I remember these (they also send a map of the city with all the street and public transportation lines)

But the point is that you can be unlisted from these (and as far as I remember it was free). Not sure about the part where you can call an operator that tell you the number you are looking for.

Anyway, the problem is that Google seems to have shared the phone number even if the user declined to do so (and by the user account, the number was not listed for years). This just seems a move from Google that show a total disperect of the user decision.

If only parental controls would work decently...

But I agree, this should be a matter of education and the parents should be present and educate their children.

In most of EU there are laws that forbid minors to access some products (like, you cannot sell alcool to minors). Don't see as fascist to make those laws respected.

I mean, if a minor buys a liquor from a store and it is caught, the store pays a fine (or it is temporary closed or whatever the law says), why should be a company that sell pornography (or enable to watch it) not be responsible the same way ? Just because it is on internet and it is a US company ?

I disagree.

Fine, but aside the fact that everyone lied in this matter, why we should spare the ones that make an absurd law with no ties to the real world and only fueled by ideology ? I repeat, I don't think that what VW did was right.

VW could have crashed their diesel production in favor of hybrids and EVs.

The hybrids maybe, but that not really solve the problem, even the first hybrids from Toyota had a 1.5 liter gasoline engine.
For a full EVs we are just now at a point where they start to become usable. And the reason is that you need a whole infrastructure around the EV cars, just think about chargers, additional space there to put them, place where you cannot put them and so on.

They’re playing late to the game catch up now and may not survive at all.

I agree on that.

Putting off something you know is coming - the end of diesel vehicle prevalence - through deception YOU KNOW WILL RESULT IN MILLIONS OF VEHICLES CONTRIBUTING WORSE EMISSIONS BUT BEING REGARDED AS BETTER - that’s fucking heinous and criminal.

Well, from a technical point of view, the diesel engine is cleaner in some way and dirtier in other so I would say that the diesel is not better but also not worse. It only produce a different type of emissions.

And, by the way, the emission's limits for a diesel engine in the Euro-X normatives are always way lower then the ones for the gasoline.

Oh maybe you have an extra biosphere we can slap on to the one being wrecked by CO2? No?

Of course not. But on the other hand I am not stupid enough to adhere blindly to an ideology.

Anyone who knew the truth is complicit in that destruction and we’re only beginning to quantify the harm.

So the politicians are the first you need to jail.