Kattt
Ancient of Mu-Mu
- May 18, 2021
- 798
Upon further investigation, the current situation concerning potential action aimed at this community (as of 26 October 2023) is as follows:
The legislation is already in place. The online safety bill was passed through parliament last month and presumably the house of Lords too, as royal assent is anticipated next week.
I'm a little confused as the procedure by which new legislation is introduced involves the a white paper detailing the proposal. The public should have the opportunity to petition their representative, before the house votes.
Families of "victims" have spoken out because they prefer to have the government apply censorship ( which has repeatedly had the exact opposite of the intended effect) than behave like responsible parents. Their demands upon the nanny state are indicative of their choice to allow the internet to babysit their children. By shifting responsibility onto the government, they can avoid the truth about their own shortcomings.
Do you imagine Zuckerberg will be extradited and prosecuted? When he was forced to acknowledge the role Facebook played in with regards to the genocides in Myanmar and Ethiopia, contributing to more than 600,000 lives being lost, where were the mortality police then??
The availability of accurate information is a harm reduction method.
The case of Molly Russell falsely attributes blame to this site. The judge presiding over her inquest declared that she was bullied by her peers on Instagram and Pinterest. The BBC is notorious for their cherry picking and character assassination campaigns.
A wealth of more accurate reports reveal that two thirds of British people support "legalised assisted dying".
It's hard to conceive of the kind of parents who don't even realise how desperately unhappy their children have to be. It's not something that occurs overnight.
It may be too late to influence the legislation already passed, but should OFCOM choose to single out this site, the double standard would expose their blatant hypocrisy.
Lest any doubt remains....
The legislation is already in place. The online safety bill was passed through parliament last month and presumably the house of Lords too, as royal assent is anticipated next week.
I'm a little confused as the procedure by which new legislation is introduced involves the a white paper detailing the proposal. The public should have the opportunity to petition their representative, before the house votes.
Families of "victims" have spoken out because they prefer to have the government apply censorship ( which has repeatedly had the exact opposite of the intended effect) than behave like responsible parents. Their demands upon the nanny state are indicative of their choice to allow the internet to babysit their children. By shifting responsibility onto the government, they can avoid the truth about their own shortcomings.
Do you imagine Zuckerberg will be extradited and prosecuted? When he was forced to acknowledge the role Facebook played in with regards to the genocides in Myanmar and Ethiopia, contributing to more than 600,000 lives being lost, where were the mortality police then??
The availability of accurate information is a harm reduction method.
The case of Molly Russell falsely attributes blame to this site. The judge presiding over her inquest declared that she was bullied by her peers on Instagram and Pinterest. The BBC is notorious for their cherry picking and character assassination campaigns.
A wealth of more accurate reports reveal that two thirds of British people support "legalised assisted dying".
It's hard to conceive of the kind of parents who don't even realise how desperately unhappy their children have to be. It's not something that occurs overnight.
It may be too late to influence the legislation already passed, but should OFCOM choose to single out this site, the double standard would expose their blatant hypocrisy.
Lest any doubt remains....
