Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

>> for this best to work, particularly when children are more technically aware than their parents, they know how to get around better than mum and dad, that actually there has to be something which is really simple and which kind of delivers itself to your door

So basically, when children are smarter than us, we should invoke a higher power to keep'em in their place. Where did I hear that before...

(and this from the "progressive" party, you can imagine how bad the others can be. We're all doomed.)

View on HN

Nice to see the authoritarian streak is still strong... eh?

Is it really authoritarian to prevent your children from seeing obscene content online?

Preventing your children from seeing obscene content is fine.

Deciding that other people are too stupid to be able to do this, and thus those other people need a government mandated filter at the ISP to filter adult content is perhaps a bit authoritarian.

Don't forget that UK mobile providers already filter adult content (T-Mobile have something called "Content lock" - you need to go to the shop with ID to prove age to have it switched off. O2 and the others have something similar.)

And the UK has the Internet Watch Foundation - a quango that has the power to request that ISPs filter some pages and images.

I don't know what the answer to protecting people from extreme imagery is, but I do know a government filter isn't it.

I guess we disagree then. I believe protecting children is partly the responsibility of the government, and the level of protection a child receives, shouldn't be dependent upon the technical proficiency of their parents.

> I believe protecting children is partly the responsibility of the government,

While this is noble, what happens when I as a parent disagree with what the government thinks my child needs to be protected from?

Another thing, where the hell are the parents in all of this? If the kid is young enough to need protection from many things on the internet, that same kid shouldn't be surfing the internet unsupervised!

The recommendation is for an opt-in filter that is easy to use for non tech-savvy parents.

The government aren't trying to enforce a filter, despite sensationalist journalism like this.

> Deciding that other people are too stupid to be able to do this, and thus those other people need a government mandated filter at the ISP to filter adult content is perhaps a bit authoritarian.

How is it 'authoritarian'? The motivation here is clearly to make it easy and therefore usable, rather than difficult and therefore unusable.

> I don't know what the answer to protecting people from extreme imagery is, but I do know a government filter isn't it.

How do you know that it isn't it? It seems to me that you've started from the axiom that it isn't it and come to no conclusions whatsoever.

This is an old argument but: most internet filters only filter for smut and not violence. I'd challenge the notion that using such a filter is at all an effective tool for filtering the obscene.

Of course it is. You may think that the parent-child relationship is a place where authoritarianism is a very good idea, but that doesn't change the word used for the basic power structure involved.

In this context, the word authoritarian refers to government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism.

Not at all, as long as you as the parent decides what can and can not be viewed by your children. What is authoritarian though is the government deciding that for you and imposing that nation wide.

This is not about the government imposing anything.

It's about the government providing tools for parents.

From the actual report: "The Panel believes that ISPs working together will deliver a more effective Opt-In system on a self-regulated basis "

Clearly, it's not the intent - or at least, not the publically professed intent - that's the problem, but the notion that instead of downloading and installing filters, it's simpler to just turn off the internet.

It's like when using contraception is too difficult for some people - so let's outlaw non-procreational sex entirely.

Since when was the Labour Party "progressive"?

> Since when was the Labour Party no longer "progressive"?

Since Blair.

>when was the Labour Party "progressive"?

1918-1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV

Is nationalisation of the entire economy to state ownership really "progressive"? That clause has some pretty nasty overtones IMHO.

You may not be familiar with the history of nationalization in Britain. (Apologies if you are.) We used to have many nationalized industries. They didn't work very well, but their prices were cheap. The Tory party and the New Labour party privatized these industries, and now they work even less well, and also charge very high prices and make massive profits for the prime minister's friends while still relying on massive taxpayer subsidies. So for us in Britain a return to nationalization would indeed be progressive.

If we hadn't privatised industries like British Leyland, British Steel, etc etc etc, we would be bankrupt and in the grips of unions.

Maybe you weren't born when this was going on, but "prices were cheap" is idiotic. British leyland, British steel, etc etc were some of the most loss making, unproductive industries. If by "prices were cheap" you mean "were massively subsidized by the government so we were paying through the nose for them anyway", then agreed.

Look at the 1970s. Strikes. Union action. Rubbish piling up on the streets, and power cuts. That is what nationalization means.

Since privatization, how many times has your water supply or energy supply failed?

Even the worst privatization (British Rail) is arguably far better than it was before privatization.

One of Thatchers biggest achievements was to take on the millitant socialist unions, and she won. Overwhelmingly. She set us free from their grip.

"Profit" shouldn't be a dirty word. I love companies to make profits when they provide a good service. What I dislike are millitant unions striking for endless pay and pension increases, whilst at the same time providing a horrible service.

I hate to descend into politics, but you are presenting as "fact" what is actually a very biased and extreme left wing view, which thankfully is pretty outdated in the UK now.

>> If by "prices were cheap" you mean "were massively subsidized by the government so we were paying through the nose for them anyway"

Correction: higher-band taxpayers might have been paying through the nose. People paying less tax (i.e. the less well-off) were paying less.

>> Even the worst privatization (British Rail) is arguably far better than it was before privatization.

Besides, the privatized UK rail network is shambolic when compared to (officially or de-facto) nationalized companies on the Continent.

>> One of Thatchers biggest achievements was to take on the millitant socialist unions, and she won. Overwhelmingly. She set us free from their grip.

I hate to descend into politics, but you are presenting as "fact" what is actually a very biased and extreme right-wing view, which thankfully is getting less and less popular in the UK now.

> Correction: higher-band taxpayers might have been paying through the nose. People paying less tax (i.e. the less well-off) were paying less.

Ah yes, because as long as it's those nasty greedy rich people overpaying for inefficient state monopolies, that's fine?!!

If it's considered "extremely right-wing" to believe in the freedom for individuals to own property, free enterprise free market, and smaller government without state monopolies locking out competition, then I guess I'm a right wing extremist.

In Europe, it is.

> "extremely right-wing" to believe in the freedom for individuals to own property

You are conflating removing "the freedom for individuals to own property" with state-run railways and healthcare? Seriously? You just lost all credibility with me.

If you nationalize everything, and run everything as a state owned monopoly, then individuals can no longer own companies.

That was the extreme position of the Labour party.

Obviously some things need to be state owned. I would say that health care, just like the police service would be one of them. Railways are debatable.

So clause 4 goes further than I thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV

But there are several positions here:

a) The actual behaviour of the UK Labour in most of the second half of the 20th century. i.e. Essential services nationalised, state players in strategic industries, and private enterprise for the rest. Wanting to nationalise the corner shop would be an extreme position.

b) The stated goals of clause 4.

c) State ownwership of all businesses. To see how this is different from b, I refer you to the abovelinked article.

d) removing "the freedom for individuals to own property" (your phrase). I have lots of property that isn't corporations. I'm sure you do too. People own houses, cars, laptops, clothes, teaspoons, etc.

to conflate b with d as you have done is a cartoonish strawman.

Socialism is just a path to Communism.

No it is not, and it is "extremely right-wing" to believe that. It's more moderate to believe that things are what they are, not what some scaremonger tells you they are going to turn into some day.

It may be true that the path to communism first goes to socialism. But ... so does the path to socialism. Democratic countries can and do become more and less socialistic over time, in effect debating how socialistic they want to be at the polling booth. They don't turn into communist dictatorships.

Do you for instance, believe that equality of marriage, allowing gay people to marry each other, will lead inevitably to marriages involving three people and a horse? Would you argue against equality of marriage on that basis? It's the same kind of illogic.

Good god, if I am ever unelected dictator those that run the railways will be first against the wall - if we had given the British Rail the same level of subsidy the companies get now we'd have a much better rail system and without the ridiculous fares.

It's sad that the only way the government will put decent money into things is when it's owned by their friends so profits go straight into their pockets.

You have a poor memory if you think they work less well. Fancy going back to a six month wait for a telephone? Or seeing your garbage pile up in the street for months on end? Or buying a card with 33 faults on delivery (my dad had this)?

There are some things it doesn't make sense to privatise (NHS and the police come to mind) but general industry doesn't work when it is under the control of government.

British politics aside, its bothersome how quickly people forget the past.

And how history is often decided based on who shouts the loudest, rather than the actual facts.

>Is nationalisation of the entire economy to state ownership really "progressive"?

>pro·gres·sive /prəˈgresiv/ Noun: A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

Ok, that doesn't completely line up, but you get the idea. Progressive != "progress"

How is the state owning monopolies and locking out competition considered "liberal"?

There was an 'or' clause in the preceding definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com