Actually with data fusion VPN does not fix privacy. Ad networks does data fusion of Javascript browser finger print. So you are de cloaked any way on a VPN
And also VPNs are tools to open doors in the minefield of legislations that they need to create to improve the incoming of some business, not of the people that voted for them.
This assumes that all parties involved have already a perfect understanding of the incentive alignment structure of those representated and involved.
Even with the uncharitable interpretation that "the government" is against you, it assumes that the government will operate on the "level 1" and would outright accept the premise that they aren't interested in privacy. Regardless they might have to concede on key points due to optics and other variables they have to manage for long-term success operating on the "level 2" as described in SLtI.
This comment is psychotic. It could be that they're doing something you don't like, while still meaning what they say, and being mistaken about it.
I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments and the type of people who make them. It's a sign of mental illness or personality disorder, and I don't trust anyone who has got either of those.
Yeah except that Ofcom(the UK communications regulator) already said that the main goal of the Online Safety Act isn't about protecting children, it's about "controlling online discourse". They dropped that pretense literally one day after the act got passed.
>>I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments
I've heard people on HN make the argument that a blanket ban is better because their kids won't feel it's unfair that only their family implements strict internet blocks
> Also - outside the HN bubble this stuff isn’t even unpopular.
This stuff wasn't unpopular on HN until it actually happened. Almost every submission on HN about social media had people calling for similar regulations or even outright bans. It was not until they actually started asking for IDs when HNers realized what they really wanted to achieve with these laws.
This is a fairly difficult problem. I think the internet should be for adults only, like many other things. But we've fucked up by giving children internet access and it's going to be hard to undo it. I think rather than fighting these measures we need to work on alternatives because keeping children off the internet is a good idea, we just need to implement it in a good way.
What about just banning phones for children? Could we ever make that work? It would be like cigarette bans except we now have 5 year olds addicted to tobacco and addict parents who don't want to make them go cold turkey.
Public libraries and schools can be used for genuine research purposes, but not addictive shit. And implemented ad blockers at the network level.
Sexualization of teens is a thing. I personally blame social media together with showbusiness. But kids had access to the internet at the same time.
And the internet was slightly different than it's now. It had much more sharp edges that we learned how to live with.
But it also was much less predatory. World's smartest psychologists and programmers didn't work 80 hour weeks for small fortunes to make it as much addictive as possible.. if it was only that. It's also as triggering and depressing as possible, because distressed and depressed people are engaging more and can't stop.
What I mean to say is that you can't really draw an equal sign between internet we grew up with and the one we give (or choose to limit) to our children.
I don't mean we should block them, just that it's not the same.
We are fine. You're just falling for the "*this" generation is different" fallacy. Look up some history if you think previous generations had it all sorted until the nasty internet came along and corrupted us.
Something I learned just recently—the Australian government (surprisingly!) actually recommends VPN usage, they even provide a bit of a guide and how to; https://beconnected.esafety.gov.au/topic-library/advanced-on...
The very same office of the eSafety commissioner that is enforcing age verification for social media.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/blogs/social-media-minim...
That’s funny, I wonder if they might remove it since it is a common way for people to circumvent the ID requirement laws for certain sites.
That's why the government wants to get rid of them.
Actually with data fusion VPN does not fix privacy. Ad networks does data fusion of Javascript browser finger print. So you are de cloaked any way on a VPN
While their arguments are sound, Perhaps Mozilla should disclose in this document that they are also a VPN reseller.
It would sound like an advertisement though, so in some way it’s better they don’t mention it
User to Mozilla: Cannot read your statement with a variant of your own browser because you have it "protected" by an internet gatekeeper.
1984 was meant to be a warning, not the UK’s digital infrastructure roadmap
What an original thought.
https://www.google.com/search?q=1984+was+not+meant+to+be+an+...
Look at the images tab. This is so cliché there are hundreds of mugs and t-shirts with it!
And also VPNs are tools to open doors in the minefield of legislations that they need to create to improve the incoming of some business, not of the people that voted for them.
Interesting that they mention the UK but forget that the EU also wants to protect the kids by banning VPNs
So your strategy when you are trying to change someones mind is to mention a lot of other people think like the mind you are trying to change?
Could you explain what is the theory behind that?
> VPNs are essential privacy tools
Does Mozilla not understand that this is the exact reason why the UK wants to forbid them?
And that's also the reason why they introduced "age verification". It's not age verification, they couldn't care less about children.
Age verification is just mass surveillance under a fake name.
This assumes that all parties involved have already a perfect understanding of the incentive alignment structure of those representated and involved.
Even with the uncharitable interpretation that "the government" is against you, it assumes that the government will operate on the "level 1" and would outright accept the premise that they aren't interested in privacy. Regardless they might have to concede on key points due to optics and other variables they have to manage for long-term success operating on the "level 2" as described in SLtI.
This comment is psychotic. It could be that they're doing something you don't like, while still meaning what they say, and being mistaken about it.
I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments and the type of people who make them. It's a sign of mental illness or personality disorder, and I don't trust anyone who has got either of those.
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
Your comment is psychotic too.
Yeah except that Ofcom(the UK communications regulator) already said that the main goal of the Online Safety Act isn't about protecting children, it's about "controlling online discourse". They dropped that pretense literally one day after the act got passed.
>>I am getting very intolerant of these conspiratorial comments
Weird thing to brag about, but sure.
Source, please?
Would you mind linking to where you got that "controlling online discourse" quote. I am not able to find anything like that.
Didn't people make kinda that huge and broad movement too terminate PIPA and SOPA?
Could you, my wonderful Western friends, do that again?
I mean, all of it is even on video and largely on YouTube.
The UK government does whatever Meta tells them to do. We tax cigarettes because they’re bad for you. Let’s tax algorithmic news feeds.
And who tells Meta what to do?
UK regulators are just hearing another excuse for a loicense.
The UK gov needs to sod off with all this 1984 BS
UK is not and has never been a free society, UK elites have an authoritarian streak.
Historically they were fairly smart at doing it subtly but the mask slipped during Covid and they never really put it back on.
Also - outside the HN bubble this stuff isn’t even unpopular. Normies supported covid lockdowns and they don’t want their kids watching porn either.
The people yearn to be ruled and nannied
I've heard people on HN make the argument that a blanket ban is better because their kids won't feel it's unfair that only their family implements strict internet blocks
> Also - outside the HN bubble this stuff isn’t even unpopular.
This stuff wasn't unpopular on HN until it actually happened. Almost every submission on HN about social media had people calling for similar regulations or even outright bans. It was not until they actually started asking for IDs when HNers realized what they really wanted to achieve with these laws.
This is a fairly difficult problem. I think the internet should be for adults only, like many other things. But we've fucked up by giving children internet access and it's going to be hard to undo it. I think rather than fighting these measures we need to work on alternatives because keeping children off the internet is a good idea, we just need to implement it in a good way.
What about just banning phones for children? Could we ever make that work? It would be like cigarette bans except we now have 5 year olds addicted to tobacco and addict parents who don't want to make them go cold turkey.
Public libraries and schools can be used for genuine research purposes, but not addictive shit. And implemented ad blockers at the network level.
I had internet since I was a kid. By attacking the internet you are attacking my homeland.
Or we could realize that there are already 2 generations that grew while having access to the internet and turned out perfectly fine?
Who knows?
Sexualization of teens is a thing. I personally blame social media together with showbusiness. But kids had access to the internet at the same time.
And the internet was slightly different than it's now. It had much more sharp edges that we learned how to live with.
But it also was much less predatory. World's smartest psychologists and programmers didn't work 80 hour weeks for small fortunes to make it as much addictive as possible.. if it was only that. It's also as triggering and depressing as possible, because distressed and depressed people are engaging more and can't stop.
What I mean to say is that you can't really draw an equal sign between internet we grew up with and the one we give (or choose to limit) to our children.
I don't mean we should block them, just that it's not the same.
We are many things, but "fine" isn't one of them.
How much the problems today are due to, rather than coincidental with, the internet, is a much more difficult thing to discern.
We are fine. You're just falling for the "*this" generation is different" fallacy. Look up some history if you think previous generations had it all sorted until the nasty internet came along and corrupted us.