Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all...
  • FishFace@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    6 hours ago

    No, no, the accusation is that politicians are lying.

    In order to be lying, they must know better - that’s my point. You can’t have a nefarious plan without understanding the plan.

    The only thing left to do is lobby. Politicians might not have this vision, but they do understand really expensive dinners.

    That is more of an uphill battle in an environment like Europe or the UK where politicians are deeply skeptical of American big tech companies.

    • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      The plan is that they like money, and they’ll say whatever they have to to get more money. Or power, maybe.

      I don’t really need to know what their motives are, though, anyway. If they were saying that spilling gasoline over a fire would put out the fire, I know that they’re either lying for some reason, or they’re really fucking stupid. Kind of a distinction without a difference.

      where politicians are deeply skeptical of American big tech companies.

      I could believe that people are. Especially after recent events. But… you really think your right wing isn’t in bed with capital? Google was just an example, you know.

      • FishFace@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        If the right wing were in bed with big tech, they would never have passed this Act, which all big tech companies hate because it imposes serious duties and costs on them.

        I don’t really need to know what their motives are, though, anyway.

        Then you shouldn’t pretend that you do.

        It’s perfectly reasonable to argue about how shit the law is, but it’s not reasonable to advance without evidence the view that politicians made the law for some underhanded purpose. Have you trawled the MPs’ Register of Interests to find whether its supporters were wined and dined by those companies? Do you have an explanation for why their request was supposedly “let us become age-verifiers” rather than “don’t force us to moderate our products more”?

        No; you and others don’t have any of this because you haven’t done that journalistic work (and because it probably doesn’t exist). You’re just pissing conspiracy theories into the pot.

        • Senal@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          13 minutes ago

          By that rationale you world also need to prove that they are misunderstood upstanding citizens.

          Because both interpretations are deviations from the stated intent and outcome, why would yours not also need journalistic rigour?

          Just because yours is a slightly positive spin doesn’t mean its not conjecture against the provided facts.