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

[crinkleshoes]

"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.

They are very good at making unreasonable things sound reasonable and then making people feel guilty for thinking differently - they have had a lot of practice

You don't want that one lonely terrorist to kill that 4 year old you just saw dead on the news, do you? How could you? OK... now give us your freedom so we can stop that happening again...

 

[crinkleshoes]

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

Ummm... you are the one who turned your own quote of "1% of people are bad" into the "1% rich people" connotation...

By voting for this Con government, you're voting for the "bad" people... irregardless of their bank account.

The deaths they've caused are beyond anything we have seen in decades and it was all easily avoidable.

 

[Sankari]

Headline is absurd. You can't 'create a new internet', and that's not what the Tories are proposing. I'm opposed to the policy, but the headline is rubbish.

 

[crinkleshoes]

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

A vote for this is a vote to remove a portion of your freedom and that of others.

 

[Kenai]

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

No leap involved, you've stated quite clearly you support them being able to censor porn as one example, because you don't want your imaginary children to see it. Spectrum is just a get out clause for avoiding the issue of why you support censoring certain things but not others. The fundamental fact at the root of it is that you support censorship, just as long as it's only to censor things you don't want to see.

 

[Trusty]

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.

I think you are getting a bit confused here, you seem to think that i feel it's alright for a business to fire someone for doing silly pranks or something. I'm not. But i don't oppose a business for firing someone is showing extreme views, eg being a racist, throwing out hate speech, threatening people. If someone shows that kind of behaviour on a consistent basis, i have no problem with a company firing them, maybe they'll learn to reel it in then.

 

[crinkleshoes]

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.

It wouldn't... people who are that determined will find a way around it or take it into their own hands. The effect on the average person will far outweigh any misperceived benefit.

 

[crinkleshoes]

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?

Exactly, it's so wrong I can't believe someone is trying to be its proponent.

 

[Trusty]

No leap involved, you've stated quite clearly you support them being able to censor porn as one example, because you don't want your imaginary children to see it. Spectrum is just a get out clause for avoiding the issue of why you support censoring certain things but not others. The fundamental fact at the root of it is that you support censorship, just as long as it's only to censor things you don't want to see.

Censor porn? I've said i want it to be harder to find, not censor the porn itself. In your world, there's no regulation, no policing, i don't agree with that.

 

[Amp34]

If there wasn't a realistic way of achieving it then why are guns so hard to find? Google have said there efforts have been excellent in making searching a safer place for people.

I don't know about your internet, but I can go onto google and find millions of photos of guns in a few seconds... YouTube has thousands of videos of people using them too!

If you're trying to compare virtual goods to physical products then there's an obvious failure in logic there.

Don't disagree at all about the education and stuff but it's the severity of the porn, surely you can make a distinction between a porno mag where it's still life and double penetration violent gangbanging.

You just said you can't control what happens when they are round a friends house, well this is exactly what we're talking about, hopefully in the future, it won't matter if they at friends parents house in which they haven't put the correct restrictions in place. it'll already be filtered out.

As long as all those participating are doing so happily and at their on free will what's the issue. That's where education comes in - you teach people that it's not a normal thing most couples do, but if you want to do it and everyone else involved is also up for it then go for it.. safely.

There are numerous ways of protecting people from this anyway. It's not perfect no, but it's generally pretty good.

The only way you're really going to improve on it is by creating a seperate "internet" that is based on white lists rather tham blacklists. For example perhaps we could have a government department that views what you want to put online and has to authorize it before it's visible to anyone else... By the very nature of the internet it's just not possible, and governments need to realise that.

It's closer to international waters than domestic law. Yes you can send a few ships out and try and enforce what people do and don't do, but you can't control it - the only way you may be able to do something about it is to create an international coalition and international "internet" law. Up until that point all you can try and do is try and regulate who can have access to a boat from your country.

 

[Kenai]

I think you are getting a bit confused here, you seem to think that i feel it's alright for a business to fire someone for doing silly pranks or something. I'm not. But i don't oppose a business for firing someone is showing extreme views, eg being a racist, throwing out hate speech, threatening people. If someone shows that kind of behaviour on a consistent basis, i have no problem with a company firing them, maybe they'll learn to reel it in then.

No confusion at all, you're just being inconsistent. It's no different, they should have no right to fire people for anything unrelated to work. Bring the business into disrepute? Sure, get involved, but outside of that, it's got nothing to do with your employer.

 

[Trusty]

Exactly, it's so wrong I can't believe someone is trying to be its proponent.

Yea i'm mad, let's get rid of the police as well.

 

[crinkleshoes]

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.

It's almost amusing that the UK still considers itself to be a Christian nation... to hold such uptight views and yet one of the most well known stories, the garden of Eden thing, speaks about how shame of our basic natural nature was one of the main things to contribute to our fall from Grace.

Hypocrisy has to be one of my biggest frustrations in this world...

 

[Trusty]

No confusion at all, you're just being inconsistent. It's no different, they should have no right to fire people for anything unrelated to work. Bring the business into disrepute? Sure, get involved, but outside of that, it's got nothing to do with your employer.

Nope, you are confused. It's spectrum, like i've said before. It's not black and white. Much like a judge will look at all the facts and make a decision based on that.

Just like the police will hear both sides of the story and decide whether to arrest you or not

 

[crinkleshoes]

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?

And for some reason you want to shrink, control and regulate that spectrum.

 

[Kenai]

Censor porn? I've said i want it to be harder to find, not censor the porn itself. In your world, there's no regulation, no policing, i don't agree with that.

How do you propose that works? Hide it under the mattress?

It falls back to censorship, whether you're prepared to see that or not.

 

[Trusty]

How do you propose that works? Hide it under the mattress?

It falls back to censorship, whether you're prepared to see that or not.

Im my eyes censoring porn is what the Japanese do, saying you can't do this act or that act, or not show certain parts. Its different to making it harder to find for younger children who stumble across it.

 

[Kenai]

Nope, you are confused. It's spectrum, like i've said before. It's not black and white.

The discussion isn't really worth continuing if your response to everything is just 'spectrum' is it?

I'm clearly not going to convince you it's not good for government to have control of what you can and can't see, nor that businesses being able to fire workers for things totally unrelated to their work is fundamentally wrong, so I'll leave it there.

 

[crinkleshoes]

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

Soooo... now you want to disown family members if they don't fit into your mental box? Yikes... I'm glad I don't know you in person... although a reasoned debate could be interesting I suppose.

No, family is family... friends can be family too... in that scenario it's more likely I would be the one disowned as I'd point it out to them when I disagreed with something.

 

[Trusty]

The discussion isn't really worth continuing if your response to everything is just 'spectrum' is it?

I'm clearly not going to convince you it's not good for government to have control of what you can and can't see, nor that businesses being able to fire workers for things totally unrelated to their work is fundamentally wrong, so I'll leave it there.

Do you believe in any government regulation?