SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Overdriven]

People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office

Study in US shows one day a week of remote working cuts emissions by just 2% but two or four days lowers them by up to 29%

www.theguardian.com

I've just had another survey and am constantly farting again. I'm making up for it.

 

[Raven]

Change the points system to 3, get 3 points over a 5 year rolling period, 2 year ban, retest before reissue. Increase on time period for "special cases"

1 point for speeding (but an increase to limit of 90 on some parts of motorways)
1 point for lack of care and attention.
1 point for middle lane/right lane hogging.
1 point for no seatbelt.
2 points for dangerous driving.
3 points for no insurance.
3 points for drinking/drug driving.

Confiscate and auction cars with no insurance or MOT, 2 points for the driver.

Driving, sorted.

 

[Scouse]

Problem is, those with no insurance or MOT, you can ban 'em all you like but they'll carry on driving, largely with impunity.

We can't police like that @Raven - we use cameras for speed (regardless of the danger) and that's it.

 

[Wij]

The UK passes massive online safety bill

The Online Safety Bill is coming into force.

www.theverge.com

 

[Embattle]

The UK passes massive online safety bill

The Online Safety Bill is coming into force.

www.theverge.com

Interesting, although I dislike the way the platforms try to convince people that their stance on end to end encryption is about their privacy rather than the advantage it gives the platforms of not being able to monitor this not knowing what is going across their platform.

 

[Bodhi]

The UK passes massive online safety bill

The Online Safety Bill is coming into force.

www.theverge.com

Combined with the below that's pretty fucking concerning tbh.

https://x.com/piersmorgan/status/1704808395658727715?s=20

 

[Scouse]

Interesting, although I dislike the way the platforms try to convince people that their stance on end to end encryption is about their privacy rather than the advantage it gives the platforms of not being able to monitor this not knowing what is going across their platform.

It's about our privacy. Not theirs.

You cannot have end-to-end encryption and selective messages. It either works for everything, or it doesn't work. And removing the advantages for all of us, just because a tiny number of people want to fuck kids is transparent madness - and being used by unscrupulous governments to gain public sympathy for policies that allow governments to spy on us. End of.

 

[Scouse]

Combined with the below that's pretty fucking concerning tbh.

https://x.com/piersmorgan/status/1704808395658727715?s=20

Wow.

@Wij. Care to comment?

 

[Ormorof]

Considering how many MPs are currently under investigation for sexual harassment and worse they should clean their own house first FFS

 

[Bodhi]

Considering how many MPs are currently under investigation for sexual harassment and worse they should clean their own house first FFS

All suspended with full pay too afaik.

 

[Embattle]

It's about our privacy. Not theirs.

You cannot have end-to-end encryption and selective messages. It either works for everything, or it doesn't work. And removing the advantages for all of us, just because a tiny number of people want to fuck kids is transparent madness - and being used by unscrupulous governments to gain public sympathy for policies that allow governments to spy on us. End of.

Thanks but I know how end-to-end encryption works, my point was quite simple but obviously lost on you about when the tech companies are quite happy to sing that song.

 

[Scouse]

Thanks but I know how end-to-end encryption works, my point was quite simple but obviously lost on you about when the tech companies are quite happy to sing that song.

Your point about it being about their privacy was factually incorrect. It's about our privacy. Yes, it gives them the ability to not have to monitor what's going on in their platforms - because they physically can't - but that's what we want, right?

Or is your hatred of tech companies and their undoubted shysterism worth more than your ability to have private conversations?

 

[Wij]

Wow.

@Wij. Care to comment?

I would hope the platforms would demonetise him of their own volition for being a nasty prick but it's nothing to do with the government.

 

[Scouse]

I would hope the platforms would demonetise him of their own volition for being a nasty prick but it's nothing to do with the government.

I would hope that platforms would be agnostic to speech that happens on them, considering they're now the defacto public square.

People shouldn't be de-monetised unless they're found guilty of criminal behaviour. We don't have to like them, and the public are able to vote with their own feet (and wallets). But we shouldn't be mob-ruling people into the ground. The platforms themselves are profit-motivated which is a problem when it comes to free speech. They should have legal protection for what is said and distributed on them by their users. Treated like a utility, not an undemocratic profit-motivated mob-morality and populism-ruled censor.

 

[Raven]

Combined with the below that's pretty fucking concerning tbh.

https://x.com/piersmorgan/status/1704808395658727715?s=20

Pretty chilling, but completely predictable.

Tories, innit.

 

[Scouse]

Pretty chilling, but completely predictable.

Tories, innit.

Labour would probably table a bill allowing the de-monetisation of anyone accused of wrongdoing, on pain of closing down social media platforms that don't push an "approved" view.

I fucking hate the tories, but Labour getting in terrifies me in all the ways.

 

[Embattle]

Your point about it being about their privacy was factually incorrect. It's about our privacy. Yes, it gives them the ability to not have to monitor what's going on in their platforms - because they physically can't - but that's what we want, right?

Or is your hatred of tech companies and their undoubted shysterism worth more than your ability to have private conversations?

Apart from I never said about their privacy, so it isn't factually anything. I said the tech companies reasons are totally different from what they are selling it as which isn't unexpected.

I've said it before and I'll say it again I'm not that bothered about needing encryption on my private messages as I have no conversations on my phone that are overly private, my last WhatsApp message was about what drink someone wanted with their meal deal, so if the government wants to waste it's time going after such message go ahead.

BTW As usual I won't follow you down the path of endless waffle you like to sprout about what you think people said vs what they actually said, it is expected and as pointless as ever.

 

[Scouse]

Apart from I never said about their privacy

the platforms try to convince people that their stance on end to end encryption is about their privacy

🤷

 

[Embattle]

🤷

The user's not the company.

 

[Bodhi]

Labour would probably table a bill allowing the de-monetisation of anyone accused of wrongdoing, on pain of closing down social media platforms that don't push an "approved" view.

I fucking hate the tories, but Labour getting in terrifies me in all the ways.

This - this bill has been pushed into law by the supposedly (slightly) libertarian option we have, what the hell are Labour going to do with it?

https://x.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1704785125869789657?s=20

 

[Ormorof]

Maybe im becoming infected by Scouse but have the conservatives, or any other party ever overturned a power grab/abuse from a previous government?

 

[Ormorof]

Apart from I never said about their privacy, so it isn't factually anything. I said the tech companies reasons are totally different from what they are selling it as which isn't unexpected.

I've said it before and I'll say it again I'm not that bothered about needing encryption on my private messages as I have no conversations on my phone that are overly private, my last WhatsApp message was about what drink someone wanted with their meal deal, so if the government wants to waste it's time going after such message go ahead.

BTW As usual I won't follow you down the path of endless waffle you like to sprout about what you think people said vs what they actually said, it is expected and as pointless as ever.

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear right? What a naive notion, governments and companies have proven time and again they cannot be trusted with that kind of power , why willingly hand it over?

 

[Wij]

I would hope that platforms would be agnostic to speech that happens on them, considering they're now the defacto public square.

People shouldn't be de-monetised unless they're found guilty of criminal behaviour. We don't have to like them, and the public are able to vote with their own feet (and wallets). But we shouldn't be mob-ruling people into the ground. The platforms themselves are profit-motivated which is a problem when it comes to free speech. They should have legal protection for what is said and distributed on them by their users. Treated like a utility, not an undemocratic profit-motivated mob-morality and populism-ruled censor.

You forget how money actually comes about in such spaces. Advertisers. It bad for business when you start showing adverts against some videos. Advertisers get nervous about the association. It's the advertisers and the platforms choice. His videos are still there to be watched. Tough shit.

 

[Embattle]

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear right? What a naive notion, governments and companies have proven time and again they cannot be trusted with that kind of power , why willingly hand it over?

I never said that either, but if you want to play that game that is easily reversed the other way when those who are naive enough to believe it won't make it easier for bad faith actors to exploit the fact their messages etc are now very hard to access.

I used various communication methods without any security or protection for decades, I can't say I was bothered then and I can't say I am now. I also have various legal avenues and protections as well to use if something was used against me in some way.

Again you can debate this point until you are blue in the face I'm just not bothered by the majority of those who seem to want something they just don't need and believe they are interesting enough for someone to spy on them.

 

[Deebs]

I never said that either, but if you want to play that game that is easily reversed the other way when those who are naive enough to believe it won't make it easier for bad faith actors to exploit the fact their messages etc are now very hard to access.

I used various communication methods without any security or protection for decades, I can't say I was bothered then and I can't say I am now. I also have various legal avenues and protections as well to use if something was used against me in some way.

Again you can debate this point until you are blue in the face I'm just not bothered by the majority of those who seem to want something they just don't need and believe they are interesting enough for someone to spy on them.

Thank fuck for that. Now I can have @Wij and his goatse pose unencrypted on my NAS without fear.

 

[Wij]

Thank fuck for that. Now I can have @Wij and his goatse pose unencrypted on my NAS without fear.

:goatse:

 

[Scouse]

You forget how money actually comes about in such spaces. Advertisers. It bad for business when you start showing adverts against some videos. Advertisers get nervous about the association. It's the advertisers and the platforms choice. His videos are still there to be watched. Tough shit.

I don't forget it. Which is why I think these platforms should be legally protected. Advertisers shouldn't be able to be arbiters of morality. Corporate action of withdrawal of advertising funding, designed to force platforms into withdrawing content that upsets the majority so they can sell things to the largest number of people shouldn't be allowed. They get to advertise, they can withdraw funding if they wish so, but they shouldn't be able to do it to put pressure on what is "allowable speech".

 

[Scouse]

Maybe im becoming infected by Scouse but have the conservatives, or any other party ever overturned a power grab/abuse from a previous government?

Nope. They grab more and more in a slippery slide towards authoritarianism.

 

[Wij]

I don't forget it. Which is why I think these platforms should be legally protected. Advertisers shouldn't be able to be arbiters of morality. Corporate action of withdrawal of advertising funding, designed to force platforms into withdrawing content that upsets the majority so they can sell things to the largest number of people shouldn't be allowed. They get to advertise, they can withdraw funding if they wish so, but they shouldn't be able to do it to put pressure on what is "allowable speech".

It's nothing to do with allowable speech. They don't want their adverts playing because of what he has done, not what's in the videos.

Also people can still watch it. It's not been censored. It's still there. Youtube is still serving it up for free.

 

[Scouse]

No point in talking about Brand @Wij. I'm talking principles - which apply to everyone.