Theresa May to create new internet that would be controlled and regulated by government

[Amp34]

"Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline," the Conservatives' manifesto says, explaining this justification for a new level of regulation.

Doesn't seem unreasonable.

So that means you can start creating a database of what websites people visit and who people contact via email when a system is in place to monitor all letters. Currently there is no large scale database with information on who received what letter by the RM/courier sent by whom.

There's no database listing which newspapers/magazines people buy and read, or a database tracking the movement of everyone listing who people spoke to or what building they visited.

So with that in mind there shouldn't be the same online should there. Or is the manifesto just full of useless sound bites that are completely irrelevant/borderline untrue?

And there were those people insisting the slippery slope argument was a fallacy. It sounds scarily likely if they do what they appear to want to that it is no fallacy.

 

[Trusty]

And yet for some reason you want to vote for the 1%...

This is nothing short of an attack on free speech, privacy and an attempt to introduce a filter like the Chinese dictatorship.

It's not conspiracy, it has been spelled out in plain and then covered up with a layer of fear to sell it as only protecting us from the bad people, the ones you quite rightly recognise as a very small percentage of society.

It's to protect us from terror... something which is a lower risk to our lives than flying on an aeroplane.

Using fear to control.

It's not voting for the 1% though is it, have you read the manifesto's? Why is it the wealthy that's at fault for the problems in the UK? They pay for 50% of all tax in this country. 45% of people pay NO TAX at all.

Spongers everywhere! Why is it ok for someone to waste all their money on holidays, fags and booze and then the people who save for later in life have to pay from those people? It's a joke

 

[lokiss]

A strong, stable internet for the future?

Just imagine what Corbyn would do!!

 

[crinkleshoes]

I don't actually have kids, i was sort of speaking in future tense, my mistake. When i have kids, i don't want them stumbling across it, and it's obvious you don't get it. Go do some research about it and then say that, i think you'd have a completely different view, children as young as 10 are stumbling across it all the time. Do you think thats ok? Or would like an environment where that doesn't happen? i know which option i'd choose. No idea how someone can defend it really, it's obvious you haven't done any reading on the topic. It's baaad!

LOL... shooting yourself in the mouth a bit there... as i said, there are already many blocks in place and more available.

As it's an important issue to you, I'm sure you will be vigilant for that.

Then... what's to stop your kid from walking into a newsagent and picking up and copy of The Sun for page 3 or it/it's friends nabbing a naughty magasine off the top shelf?

Freedom is more important than your inability to be a proper parent... take some damn responsibility instead of expecting others to do it for you.

 

[Trusty]

LOL... shooting yourself in the mouth a bit there... as i said, there are already many blocks in place and more available.

As it's an important issue to you, I'm sure you will be vigilant for that.

Then... what's to stop your kid from walking into a newsagent and picking up and copy of The Sun for page 3 or it/it's friends nabbing a naughty magasine off the top shelf?

Freedom is more important than your inability to be a proper parent... take some damn responsibility instead of expecting others to do it for you.

How are you not free? It's ridiculous. It's a spectrum

 

[adolf hamster]

Well, people will still vote tory even when they are living in a police state.

It'll be even easier, what with all the propaganda they'll be able to put out/suppress as needed. this is how it starts, it's not a sudden jump to totalitarianism, small steps, small enough people wont notice or care, until you've got the groundwork down to take that big step.

Do people really think this is about the average joe? This is about making it harder for people to find hitmen, guns, porn, death videos. How is that a bad thing? I don't understand.

because if you suppress it via the internet then people will get their hitmen, guns, porn, etc the good old fashioned way and make the death videos themselves. a lot of people seem to be confused into thinking that the internet has somehow created "new" problems with humanity, newsflash- it hasn't, all it's done is held a magnifying glass to everything people have been able to do and have been doing for as long as the human race has existed.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Will this make internets strong and stable? That's all that matters right?

 

[Trusty]

a lot of people seem to be confused into thinking that the internet has somehow created "new" problems with humanity, newsflash- it hasn't, all it's done is held a magnifying glass to everything people have been able to do and have been doing for as long as the human race has existed.

No confusion here, it would certainly would make it easier in a unregulated unpoliced internet to get your hitman, wouldn't it?

If it means 10% regulation will save 1 life, then i'm all for it.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Personally don't see the problem, threat of violence and racist remarks are something i don't condone in our society.

So when someone gets drunk, angry and posts something stupid on the internet - they should have their life ruined because of it? Don't be silly.

Someone can say something that sounds bad because they're annoyed and just want a reaction and that's what comes out because they know it'll have an effect and can't think of anywhere else to go... things can sound racist, hateful, blah or even be interpreted as such when the person doesn't even really mean it... this won't be differentiated as it won't be possible to differentiate... but of course these people should have their lives ruined because it's on the internet?

I can think of many more scenarios... but that's all I can be bothered to list.

 

[Kenai]

I've talked about a spectrum haven't i, do you not believe in that spectrum?

There's no thought police here, i've no idea why you used that term. If someone is racist bugger or something then i personally believe the business has every right to fire you.

Spectrum is just weasel words, censorship is censorship, spectrum is just a vague way of saying 'I support censorship of things I don't like'.

As for thought police, what else would you call it when you support a business right to fire people for things they say that don't involve the business or their conduct at work at all?

 

[Uther]

It's for our own good, saving us from ourselves. All hail our glorious Strong and Stable leader. Sieg...

 

[Trusty]

So when someone gets drunk, angry and posts something stupid on the internet - they should have their life ruined because of it? Don't be silly.

this is a bit of silly scenario really i think

 

[Amp34]

Then make an effort and stop it yourself... there are numerous options out there(sorry bit presumptuous you're not doing that already).

If your kids are remotely intelligent they'll get around whatever blockades are put in place anyway.

And even if they don't they'll just be making it and distributing it themselves...

Perhaps we should move away from the prudish puritanical view we in the UK seem to have (especially compared to the rest of Europe) and move towards a situation where we can talk about sex and nudity freely.

You're never going to stop people, so why not educate people instead?

Unfortunately May is very clearly bringing her faith into all this and trying to move us as a society backwards, back into the Victorian era.

 

[Trusty]

Spectrum is just weasel words, censorship is censorship, spectrum is just a vague way of saying 'I support censorship of things I don't like'.

As for thought police, what else would you call it when you support a business right to fire people for things they say that don't involve the business or their conduct at work at all?

Not weasal words at all, it's reality, life is a spectrum. Much like a state trying to govern it's citizens. Why do we have judges if you don't believe in a spectrum?

 

[crinkleshoes]

I've talked about a spectrum haven't i, do you not believe in that spectrum?

There's no thought police here, i've no idea why you used that term. If someone is racist bugger or something then i personally believe the business has every right to fire you.

If they really are racist / hateful / horrible but behave in an acceptable and PC manner at work... then what they do in their personal life that does not affect their work, the employer has absolutely no right to know anything about that.

 

[crinkleshoes]

this is a bit of silly scenario really i think

Not at all... it's what you just said you want to give employers permission to fire people over. There are many scenarios where the difference between real racism and random silliness is impossible to discern between.

Imagine extending this to 4chan... lol... it's absurd and I'm baffled you can't see that.

 

[Trusty]

If they really are racist / hateful / horrible but behave in an acceptable and PC manner at work... then what they do in their personal life that does not affect their work, the employer has absolutely no right to know anything about that.

So what about a family member that was like that behind your back? Would you still be friends with them?

 

[Kenai]

Not weasal word at all, it's reality, life is a spectrum. Much like a state trying to govern it's citizens. Why do we have judges if you don't believe in a spectrum?

Life might be a spectrum but in terms of censorship it just means 'I support censoring things I don't like'. It's weasel words at their finest to try and deflect from the fact you clearly support the idea of the government being able to control what their population can and can't see.

 

[Kenai]

So what about a family member that was like that behind your back? Would you still be friends with them?

Your personal choice to react to someone's personal views is in no way equivalent to supporting a business being allowed to fire employees for things that have absolutely nothing to do with work.

 

[Trusty]

Life might be a spectrum but in terms of censorship it just means 'I support censoring things I don't like'. It's weasel words at their finest to try and deflect from the fact you clearly support the idea of the government being able to control what their population can and can't see.

It's really not though, it's such a leap.