• Hey Guest,

    We wanted to share a quick update with the community.

    Our public expense ledger is now live, allowing anyone to see how donations are used to support the ongoing operation of the site.

    👉 View the ledger here

    Over the past year, increased regulatory pressure in multiple regions like UK OFCOM and Australia's eSafety has led to higher operational costs, including infrastructure, security, and the need to work with more specialized service providers to keep the site online and stable.

    If you value the community and would like to help support its continued operation, donations are greatly appreciated. If you wish to donate via Bank Transfer or other options, please open a ticket.

    Donate via cryptocurrency:

    Bitcoin (BTC):
    Ethereum (ETH):
    Monero (XMR):
U. A.

U. A.

"Ultra Based" gigashad
Aug 8, 2022
2,600
What a cavalcade of shit these days! An excerpt from the article:

"A 'duty of care' is one of those things that sounds good to people who have no idea how anything works. As we've noted, a duty of care is the 'friendly sounding way' to threaten free speech and innovation. That's because whether or not you met your obligations is determined after something bad happened. And it will involve a long and costly legal battle to determine (in heightened circumstances, often involving a horrible incident) whether or not a website could have magically prevented a bad thing from happening. But, of course, in that context, the bad thing will have already happened, making it difficult to separate the website from the bad thing, and making it impossible to see whether or not the "bad thing" could have been reasonably foreseen.
But, at the very least, it means that any time anything bad happens that is even remotely connected to a website, the website gets sued and has to convince a court that it took appropriate measures. What that means in practice is that websites get ridiculously restrictive to avoid any possible bad thing from happening — in the process limiting tons of good stuff as well.
The whole bill is designed to do two very silly things: make it nearly impossible for websites to offer something new and, even worse, the bill looks to offload any blame on any bad thing on those websites. It especially seeks to remove blame from parents for failing to do their job as a parent. It is the ultimate 'let's just blame the internet for anything bad' bill."

Fucking 1984 was only slightly premature. I worry about how even for non-Americans these things will have a massive effect on the cyberscape, given how much is hosted there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Un-
F

Forever Sleep

Earned it we have...
May 4, 2022
15,371
Ok- I'm not a parent- so forgive me if I sound naive but what do those 'parent locks' do? Would they- for example- prevent a minor from gaining access to a site such as this? Why don't they focus the responsibility on the parents to bring up their kids (that they chose to have and expose to such a 'dangerous' world) rather than the internet?
 

Similar threads

N
Replies
3
Views
173
Offtopic
Fadenself00_
Fadenself00_
hahahahhkjsk
Replies
29
Views
577
Offtopic
seeyoulater26
S
K14~♡
Replies
4
Views
378
Offtopic
N-methylamphetamine
N-methylamphetamine
E
Replies
2
Views
171
Suicide Discussion
endeledestein
E