With the approximately zero quality of current administrations the difference between "legitimate" and "legal" has become bewildering and well beyond damaging.
Yeah, there’s nothing more objectionable than a law that is not seriously enforced. It need not be perfectly enforced (what law is?), but anything that doesn’t come with real teeth should just be repealed, regardless of the merits
I suppose Wikipedia needs to go to the dark net for allowing British kids to read it. One might reckon that reading Wikipedia would be good for kids, but I suppose the Soviet Uni... err. disagrees.
Reminder that they attacked YouTube - the Video Museum.
> The "news" are there (the Springfield times and the Patagonian Mirror), the "intelligence" (the interview to the Prestigious, the interview from the Authority, the exchange from the Thinkers, the commentary from the Author, the piece from the Periodical...), the "institutes" (the Conference, the Presentation etc.), the "academy" ("""only""" the courses of the MIT, for example, and courses from many other Universities and free Professors), the "divulgation" (a large amount of divulgators of primary importance from 3blue1brown to Steve Mould, Lesics, Asianometry...), the inquirers and commentators in all areas and disciplines, the museum of the historical pieces that must be preserved out of preciousness and importance (from the voice of Freud to the lessons of Dirac), and a massive wealth of Arts and good entertainment. // The value of the above is beyond the scale; its attendance should be taken for a requirement. // A kid that grows up without access to that is something that must be disposed of, wasted, spoiled - "sorry kid, in the ditch. You have not been exposed to Culture, now you are valueless. These things must be absorbed early". // And beasts that restrict access to e.g. the _free_ lessons from the MIT are to be treated as less than beasts.
> We did mean "know, prestigious intellectuals": academicians and renown experts. // The last public intervention of Niall Ferguson is of yesterday; that of Francis Fukuyama is of a few days ago; I see a Paul Scharre out in the past few days... All on YouTube, of course. // Repeat: either the kids have absorbed all of the higher culture we are so lucky today to have disseminated in immediately accessible places, or they can be disposed of as spoilt, wasted - useless. Higher culture that is chiefly on YouTube when in video form: kids are ___mandated___ to it.
(Quoting myself.)
Reminder that if they remove anonymous access, Men will be forced out.
Reminder that the beasts in australia also were reported to wanting to block search engines, together with Wikipedia.
If this is the cokamany bullshit Child Safety Act that the AU Gov put in place with the social media ban and age verification shit™ -- I knew this would happens inevitably. The whole thing was stupid as fuck. Not a single one of us that _actually_ work in this industry were consulted to ask whether we _thought_ this was a good idea, no sir. -- Be careful my fellow Aussies, or we end up letting the government build the Great Wall of Australa!
I'm sorry, but what I have to say to that is simple this; Parent should teach their children better, teach them virtues, how the world works, protect them from the horrors that exists. Love and nurture them. Not wash their hands and shrug and expect some lousy politicians to protect their children. Geez fuck.
Forgive me for being passionate. But this isn't the way to solve the problem.
Going "entrance forbidden to the libraries and bookstores: they are full of bad texts (and there are people scribbling dumb harmful things on the billboards there)" is not "protecting children".
(With reference to YouTube, chiefly, but not necessarily excluding other repositories. And not to mention the actual intention to block access to encyclopedias.)
I think that depends a lot on the age of the child in question. I absolutely would simply forbid an 8 year old from entering a library or book store with neo nazi writings or aum shinrikyo literature or Ted Kaczynki’s manifesto easily accessible. Trying to provide appropriate context for everything at that age is simply not feasible.
Are these authors bought and paid for by big tech? This assertion, with nothing to back it up and zero mention of the negative side effects, calls the entire article’s legitimacy into doubt for me:
> It’s important for kids to do this online, an arena where they often develop social skills and refine their identities.
Later on they say:
> Rather than attempting to block young people from online services that allow them to access information and engage in age-essential communication
The fact being “social media online” is taken as a given for under 16s is laughable. Kids do not need to socialize like this, they do not need to be online, they can and should go outside. When they turn 16 their brains will be slightly more fully formed and I could go on and on but it seems these authors just want the kids exposed to the algorithms.
Sorry can you explain that a bit more literally? They must be online at the same level as they must read? I didn’t see any other posts referencing this elsewhere in the page.
Yes, it is. I don't want to live in a country where everything is illegal but not enforced (until someone in power dislikes you).
With the approximately zero quality of current administrations the difference between "legitimate" and "legal" has become bewildering and well beyond damaging.
Yeah, there’s nothing more objectionable than a law that is not seriously enforced. It need not be perfectly enforced (what law is?), but anything that doesn’t come with real teeth should just be repealed, regardless of the merits
I suppose Wikipedia needs to go to the dark net for allowing British kids to read it. One might reckon that reading Wikipedia would be good for kids, but I suppose the Soviet Uni... err. disagrees.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...
> would be good for kids
Reminder that they attacked YouTube - the Video Museum.
> The "news" are there (the Springfield times and the Patagonian Mirror), the "intelligence" (the interview to the Prestigious, the interview from the Authority, the exchange from the Thinkers, the commentary from the Author, the piece from the Periodical...), the "institutes" (the Conference, the Presentation etc.), the "academy" ("""only""" the courses of the MIT, for example, and courses from many other Universities and free Professors), the "divulgation" (a large amount of divulgators of primary importance from 3blue1brown to Steve Mould, Lesics, Asianometry...), the inquirers and commentators in all areas and disciplines, the museum of the historical pieces that must be preserved out of preciousness and importance (from the voice of Freud to the lessons of Dirac), and a massive wealth of Arts and good entertainment. // The value of the above is beyond the scale; its attendance should be taken for a requirement. // A kid that grows up without access to that is something that must be disposed of, wasted, spoiled - "sorry kid, in the ditch. You have not been exposed to Culture, now you are valueless. These things must be absorbed early". // And beasts that restrict access to e.g. the _free_ lessons from the MIT are to be treated as less than beasts.
> We did mean "know, prestigious intellectuals": academicians and renown experts. // The last public intervention of Niall Ferguson is of yesterday; that of Francis Fukuyama is of a few days ago; I see a Paul Scharre out in the past few days... All on YouTube, of course. // Repeat: either the kids have absorbed all of the higher culture we are so lucky today to have disseminated in immediately accessible places, or they can be disposed of as spoilt, wasted - useless. Higher culture that is chiefly on YouTube when in video form: kids are ___mandated___ to it.
(Quoting myself.)
Reminder that if they remove anonymous access, Men will be forced out.
Reminder that the beasts in australia also were reported to wanting to block search engines, together with Wikipedia.
> Reminder that the beasts in australia also were reported to wanting to block search engines, together with Wikipedia.
“Beasts” eh? Sounds a little hyperbolic. I’m going to need a reference for the search engine and Wikipedia blocking claims.
If this is the cokamany bullshit Child Safety Act that the AU Gov put in place with the social media ban and age verification shit™ -- I knew this would happens inevitably. The whole thing was stupid as fuck. Not a single one of us that _actually_ work in this industry were consulted to ask whether we _thought_ this was a good idea, no sir. -- Be careful my fellow Aussies, or we end up letting the government build the Great Wall of Australa!
> [au g]ov
The attempt is everywhere - probably not just in the undead "western world".
Can I remind you that the thing out in the australian government uttered something like "a hill to die on"? What were the exact words?
Why are not people outpspoken on the bestiality of those things? To stress the total difference that separates from those things?
I'm sorry, but what I have to say to that is simple this; Parent should teach their children better, teach them virtues, how the world works, protect them from the horrors that exists. Love and nurture them. Not wash their hands and shrug and expect some lousy politicians to protect their children. Geez fuck.
Forgive me for being passionate. But this isn't the way to solve the problem.
> protect their children
Going "entrance forbidden to the libraries and bookstores: they are full of bad texts (and there are people scribbling dumb harmful things on the billboards there)" is not "protecting children".
(With reference to YouTube, chiefly, but not necessarily excluding other repositories. And not to mention the actual intention to block access to encyclopedias.)
I think that depends a lot on the age of the child in question. I absolutely would simply forbid an 8 year old from entering a library or book store with neo nazi writings or aum shinrikyo literature or Ted Kaczynki’s manifesto easily accessible. Trying to provide appropriate context for everything at that age is simply not feasible.
Are these authors bought and paid for by big tech? This assertion, with nothing to back it up and zero mention of the negative side effects, calls the entire article’s legitimacy into doubt for me:
> It’s important for kids to do this online, an arena where they often develop social skills and refine their identities.
Later on they say:
> Rather than attempting to block young people from online services that allow them to access information and engage in age-essential communication
The fact being “social media online” is taken as a given for under 16s is laughable. Kids do not need to socialize like this, they do not need to be online, they can and should go outside. When they turn 16 their brains will be slightly more fully formed and I could go on and on but it seems these authors just want the kids exposed to the algorithms.
> [kids] do not need to be online
They ___must___ at the same level as they must read. See posts elsewhere in this page.
Sorry can you explain that a bit more literally? They must be online at the same level as they must read? I didn’t see any other posts referencing this elsewhere in the page.