Hacker News Reader

Comment by lacoolj | Hacker News Reader

Very shallow, naive approach to child safety. This is like banning children from riding scooters on a highway. They're just going to use a bike instead. Danger still exists.

VPNs are not the only way around this, so if you want to ban the "method of access" you need to be much more broad, and get the parents involved.

View on HN

A innefective mandate for the intended purpose, but a very effective mandate to know what adults use VPNs.

Between this and the repeated attempts at encryption backdoors, this is something I would expect from a totalitarian regime that is preparing for civil unrest, not the UK.

> but a very effective mandate to know what adults use VPNs.

How? I suppose if the VPN services all started requiring age verification that might tell you this info. But I very much doubt that'll happen, as it runs completely counter to many legitimate VPN services' missions.

> Very shallow, naive approach to child safety.

It's naive of you to think this has anything to do with the child safety.

This is not about the child safety, please stop believing British politicians. They just say things that are supposed to be discussed and repeated.

People say this, and maybe it is true. But do you live in the same Britain as me? The majority of parents and older people want this. They are ignorant of how it all works and want the government to "do something". They support stuff like this.

It doesn't actually matter how flawed it is. All that matters to the government is votes. Always. Governments exist to buy votes, otherwise they're not governments. Any time you see a government action, you can be very sure they think it will buy them votes.

I do.

But the government doesn't just implements things the people want.

The government passes whatever government wants, and if the STATED purpose matches the engineered demand, it's called democracy.

Tell me how much public support is for the ongoing UK participation in the genocide of Gaza (yes, participation, RAF flies spy planes and feeds Intel to IDF). How much public support is for human hormones treated beef/chlorinated chicken? How much public support is for the ongoing assault on freedoms / liberties? For the continued enshittification (literal!) of our rivers, lakes and beaches? For another Heathrow runway, for the ongoing, stealth privatization of NHS.

Policing bill (2022) had a significant opposition, recent upgrades to sentencing bill causing environmental protesters planning an event go to the prison for more than may be handed out for rape,

Legacy Act in 2024 shuts down all inquests and civil cases pertaining to the British Army alleged crimes during the Troubles.

The government legislates whatever government wants to legislate.

And I don't think the majority of the people want THIS exactly, they've been brainwashed by the overwhelmingly rightwing and pro-state media.

Are you actually a parent to school age children? I am guessing not. I only say this because this whole group of policies (OSA, social media ban, etc) are highly supported by most parents in our school. Not me, but I have stopped trying to explain to others why I don't think the policies are good.

If you are a parent then I'm very surprised you have a different experience.

Actually I am, and I do not support OSA, I despise it's subversive, toxic nature on par with Snooper's Charter. It was intentionally written in such a nebulous ways OFCOM makes idiots from themselves, and it somehow "accidentally" creeps up further and further and further.

Nothing will result in the stated goal except for the complete ban of ALL platforms other than licenced/blessed by the UK government (meaning full 1984 and no privacy at all).

Notice looming VPN bans and advanced approach to banning private communications.

And conversely parents have second thoughts if they hear how their intimate photos will all be scanned, every conversation effectively bugged, and sometimes I'll sprinkle with a story of an innocent parent with blocked Google account and reported to the police because he had a private conversation with a GP (or so he thought).

Social media ban is a COMPLETELY different thing.

It's like banning children from owning and carrying handguns. They still have knives and ultimately fists. We cannot eliminate harms, therefore we should not attempt to reduce harms.

But, we do ban children on scooters from roads in the UK, but they can go on bikes? I don't understand your metaphor.. what you are suggesting is what we do and it's sensible.

I don't think they don't mean the same thing you mean by scooters. Difference in the language.

In fairness we essentially ban scooters from practically every public path/road but they're still everywhere

If parent could be sufficiently involved, there'd be no need for any ban.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com