UK internet censoring - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2023, 07:18:22 pm
content: https://www.irishnews.com/news/uknews/2023/07/06/news/wikipedia_could_shut_down_in_uk_after_online_safety_law_passes_government_told-3416017/QuoteIf they force Wikipedia to shut down in the name of children will that have gone too far?I do not want to have to prove my age to do anything.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2023, 07:34:15 pm
content: Send an email to your MP, highlighting the key points.I have.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2023, 07:56:53 pm
content: QuoteThere are also fears that it could lead to “age-gating” – requiring age verification and blocking children’s access –although Wikipedia has said it will not do this. Peers have suggested adding a regulatory exemption for sites which are considered low risk for harm and provide a public good.end quoteWell there's the problem isn't it? WHO gets to decide what's harmful forthe children, or who gets to decide who should be exempt from the regulations because they"quote" Provide a public good "unquote"?A quote from a fairly recently political movement in the US: "Ban XYZ because if it saves even one child, it's worth it." I suppose that someone could use exactly the same argument to completely ban automobiles, the entire internet, knives and forks, and virtually everything in today's world.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2023, 08:02:09 pm
content: In my view, young children are viewing armful content online and it is causing damage. Societal damage. More worrying is that I see so clear path to a better, safer internet for younger folks. Age verification will probably be of limited benefit to the younger generation and a PITA to the rest of us. But we gotta do something. Firewalled internet (China style) for different age groups under 16? Under 10's limited to fifty websites? Fuck knows.

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2023, 08:25:48 pm
content: "I do not want to have to prove my age to do anything."VPN, increasingly many providers even free oens are now looking to create cloacked VPN protocols too, so a regime cannot tell that you're even using VPN, your traffic under those new protocols looks like normal http/https. You're absolutely right that never should prove your age to access services, such would in all practical implemtnations mean proving your identity (whatever nonsense politicians try to spout about magic unicorns the same way they talk about crypto backdoors), which would mean centralised ID databases which would be a very attractive target for hackers and blackmailers. Wrongful and stupid laws need defying, a VPN is the best way to do that initially*.*If the labour party are to be believed they'd try to completely block VPNs as well, but I suspect VPN providers would be several steps ahead by that time. So long as there is a defiant and moral community of geeks and open-sourcing enthusiasts somewhere in the world, a way around technical censorship of the wider internet will always exist, eternal cat and mouse. There is ofcourse trouble with so much of the internet no longer being the wider internet, but being inside the walled gardens of facebook and other megacorporations, who have mostly proven all to willing to assist crooekd regimes in censoring things within their platforms.I'm glad to see that Signal is pledging that if that corrupt and illegitimate bill passes then it will not comply with it, and Signal has now stated they'll provide proxying and other anti-censorship tools to ensure UK users can reach their services if the government blocks it, just they way they already do for the likes of Iran, Russia and China. I wish wikipedia would show this spirit of defiance too, refusing to comply and stating they'll find ways to still make themselves accessible in the UK, we need tech people to tell governments precisely where they can stick their totalitarian impulses. I just wish Signal would make a desktop standalone linux client (I make a point of not having a smartphone) so I could actually use their service.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2023, 11:26:55 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 07, 2023, 08:02:09 pmSure, and some are playing in the road.BAN AUTOMOBILES** except for the very necessary recreational use by parliamentariansWe have children's libraries, distinct from "adult" libraries. Plenty of commercial options for Internet filtering for those people who want it.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 03:33:20 am
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on July 07, 2023, 08:25:48 pmIt appears to already exist? Or does it just link to the Signal app on a smartphone?https://www.signal.org/download/linux/

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 04:55:58 am
content: I would have thought more children have suicided from bullying by people using the likes of facebook, instagram, myspace, <insert your social media website here> then wikipedia.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 05:30:31 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on July 08, 2023, 04:55:58 amBullying, stupid challenges, etc.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 05:34:31 am
content: LOLI wonder what sort of content the government considers inappropriate for children, given what they are know to consider appropriateBut don't worry guys, no one will ever block Wikipedia, that would be too much good for children. It's that bunch of liberal SJWs over there as usual using whatever notoriety they enjoy to influence politics of a sovereign government.

author: Bryn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 06:54:58 am
content: Here I am thinking that the new law would be a good thing (even by giving the likes of Facebook and Twitter a lesson) but like all laws, there's always one issue with it.So if Wikipedia ever gets banned here in the UK, just for the sake of the kids, then I'll have no hope for humanity anymore (and it means I have to rely on Google for every little lookup I have to conduct, and I personally don't want that). Not only that, I've been a member and contributor to Wikipedia for almosttwenty yearsso that would be an even bigger loss to me...

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 07:16:18 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 07, 2023, 11:26:55 pmThanks, that's great argument for more regulation. The plethora of vehicle safety regulations has no doubt saved many childrens lives or reduced the trauma they are subjected to in road accidents. Both in and out of the vehicle. In Australia in 2018, 60% of child deaths on the road network were not children playing on the road, but children riding in thevehicle, which is probably typical.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 08:06:36 am
content: Wikipedia is not that innocent as people use to think.Got a strong political bias in the last couple decades.First, I've bumped into a research paper 10 years ago, or so, where the researchers made bots to automatically create Wikipedia pages for whatever they thought it didn't have enough representation on Wikipedia. It was mostly feminism, and the pages were very brief (I think the term is a Wikipedia stab article/page, but I'm not very sure). Whatever that is called, it was SJW vandalism.Then, there were some complains about the references that can only be from mainstream media, which already has a strong bias, and some other internal complaints from the editors.Not to say last year the politicization went so far that an article about "The Alley of Angels" was deleted from Wikipedia. That page was about a shrine and in the memory of killed children in Donbass/Ukraine, allegedly by the Ukraine gov/army, but I'm not familiar with that story so I might have misunderstood the events. My understanding was that that shrine was about events before the Russian invasion in Donbass, and was (or could have been) used as a justification by Russia. Again, I don't know for sure, that is what I remember from when I've seen on a asocial media post (for the first time) about the deletion of Wikipedia pages.What I know for sure (because I've personally checked the page back then), is that the page was nowhere to be found in the online (latest) version of Wikipedia, while the deleted page was still present in the archived versions of Wikipedia.(By the way, Wikipedia can be legally downloaded and accessed offline, if you have the space and the will to store a local copy. There are many versions at different timestamps, some only a few hundreds of MB, some up to many TB if you want the newest with included editing history).For science/engineering articles, the political bias might not be that obvious. For science articles I'm bothered mostly by the fact that Wikipedia became too detailed. Wikipedia pages these days look more like a reference book, with included graduate math, than like an encyclopedia.I would prefer Wikipedia to emphasize on the bird eye view and on the understanding of the principles and ideas in science and technology. Some pages looks like a formula cheat-sheet. I've even seen pages with math proofs, or with code examples in specific languages (for algorithms).About age restrictions, either online or AFK, I think they are necessary.About individual digital ID's and online surveillance, I'm totally against.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 08:17:01 am
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 07:16:18 amThe road is still not a place for children to play unattended, there are other places for that. Uncontrolled access to the internet is something which should be continued, but at the same time specific places for children are made available.Road vs ParkOr perhaps we should further restrict motor vehicle velocities and the danger they pose to the point they are benign threats to all? Plainly ridiculous. As would be filtering the internet down to a lowest common denominator acceptable to "all" fairyland.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 12:24:49 pm
content: They could do more social good by banning gambling apps for smartphones.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 12:45:55 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 08:17:01 amWell, we agree there needs to be seperate internet areas for children, but you prefer choice while I prefer enforcement. As I see it, enforcement would have a much greater chance of protecting more children. Perhaps some sort of legal framework that required parents to route childrens internet access through commercial internet filters that you mentioned previously. There would need to be software tools (mobile, desktop apps), pricing options and funding (via government child support payments) to give this a chance of working. Many parents are concerned about kids internet access but the technically illerate parents don't understand the options currently available, or baulk at the costs. Regulation forces them (at least a good percentage of them) to take action.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 10:12:36 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on July 08, 2023, 08:06:36 amYes.Conundrum here being, how can we ever trust politicians to handle political bias?They will not. They will just possibly twist the bias in their favor.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 10:37:24 pm
content: "Who guards the guardians?" is an age old question, for good reason.As an engineer I'm predisposed to look for cause and effect - which leads me towards conspiracy theories.However, over a long lifetime, I've been ever mindful that the "cockup theory of history" is usually correct, and the "conspiracy theory of history" should only be considered where there is strong evidence.In this case you have a very difficult problem plus a bunch of untrained people that neither understand the technology nor understand how things fail - and they are making the laws. That means the cockup theory of history is sufficient to explain half-baked proposed laws like this.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 11:28:27 pm
content: And the political class wonder why they have to live behind bullet proof glass?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2023, 11:32:33 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 12:45:55 pmBut you keep arguing for the lowest common denominator approach which is not applied to (any?) other situation other than perhaps smoking in enclosed spaces.Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 08, 2023, 12:45:55 pmRight, so say that instead of the provocative/sensational extreme of must be applied to everyone at all times because some vulnerable group might be at risk.Oh wait, the UK is already moving on that for schools:https://saferinternet.org.uk/guide-and-resource/teachers-and-school-staff/appropriate-filtering-and-monitoring/appropriate-filteringand has been providing guidance for parents on that for a long time. If a parent chooses to let their kids loose unsupervised and unattended on the internet, they need to accept thats basically the same as letting them freely roam the city (including roads, and "adult" encounters). The reaction is not OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN**because I'm a lazy parent and cant be bothered to care for my child

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 12:44:45 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 08, 2023, 10:37:24 pmConspiracy theories only have to go a few steps past the original notion to become ridiculously complex concoctions relying upon the impossible collusion of every-increasing numbers of conspirators to try to cover their own inconsistencies.The cockup theory covers the inconsistencies well, by comparison.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 01:00:48 am
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on July 08, 2023, 11:28:27 pmAnthony Albanese, Peter Dutton, & Scott Morrison wander around in public in shirtsleeves without anyone ever taking a shot at them.Even such people as Don Trump, Joe Biden, & Boris Johnson appear in public with no "Bullet proof glass".One thing I've always regarded as weird, in fact, is how prominent Politicians & other public figures, such as the Pope & King Charles, when they fly somewhere, exit the aircraft using old fashioned stairs, so they are out "in the breeze", whereas the rest of us enter & exit via tubes, not seeing the light of day till we emerge from "processing".Surely, the "waving to the adoring crowd" thing is obsolete these days, (as there are none "airside") & the security aspect of being out of sight of possible snipers should be a "biggie" for using the tubes.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 09:22:55 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 11:32:33 pmYou mean an approach which impacts everyone to protect or benefit a particular group. But that is what we do in society, and in the end it benefits us all. We all contribute taxes, in part to fund the upbringing and education of children, amoungst other things. So, thanks for your contribution, even if it's resented.QuoteThere is always a balance to be made between over-reguation and under-regulation, which the political system rarely gets just right. The 'saferinternet' site you mentioned is clearly not having enough impact and more needs to be done, for the benefit of children now, and society in the long term. The voluntary approach you and I prefer has failed (perhaps due to poor parenting), and your upset because the next level of protection may impact you in some way. You could be more sanguine about it, and accept that if such regulation comes to Australia it might benefit your kids or grandchildren. Or if you don't have kids, then your society.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 09:57:29 am
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 09:22:55 amFunding services for those who choose to use them is radically different from introducing restrictions on all.Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 09:22:55 amBut there is the rub, you equate universal moderation/control with a net win for society based on... nothing? Emotive nonsense. The people supporting such draconian oversight/moderation are either: a) bad parents (as they are letting their children into an unmoderated space without supervision) or b) trying to hide their true motivations by using the THINK OF THE CHILDREN rubbish.Most laws make economic sense and safety laws are usually backed by risk assessment and $$$ values, funny how all that is missing here.There is no problem for adults, with many resources and solutions already existing for those who want their children to access the internet within a safe boundary why are they pushing that onto everyone else? Might as well start banning books thatmightcause damageifthey end up in the hands of children.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 10:10:25 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 09:57:29 amBooks have to beactively chosenby the reader (or teacher). With (un)social media the platform chooses what the reader sees based on opaque criteria designed to hook the reader intopassively consumingmore of the platform's product.That's a significant difference.Having said that, this whole argument is very similar to the old debates about pornography, and how to define a distinction between that and "art".

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 11:04:50 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 09, 2023, 10:10:25 amSocial media is like newspapers of old, they contain a vast array of topics and content, not all suitable for children. Wikipedia being a different example of broad content pitched at all sorts of audiences, descending from encyclopaedias (which came in children's versions). If parents dont like their children having access to the broader content, then those children can be restricted/blocked/diverted away from that platform/site rather than adding barriers for everyone.People choose to visit any specific website just as they choose to pick any specific book.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 11:15:15 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 11:04:50 amI reiterate my point about active choices vs passive consumption of whatever somebody is paying to push.QuoteHow, exactly?I suspect you don't have children, because if you did you would realise how inventively devious they can be. (I encouraged that in my daughter, and it has paid off)QuoteUnlike books, all (un)social media websiteschange on-the-flywhat the reader sees based on who is paying them them most to rent the readers' eyeballs and brains.N.B. my reply #1 in this threadhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/uk-internet-censoring/msg4948498/#msg4948498"Send an email to your MP, highlighting the key points.I have."

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 12:42:49 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 09:57:29 amBased on the fact we have a fairly functional society which uses the law ("Universal moderation/control" as you call it) to restrict the actions of all for the benefit of all. Perhaps some form of internet restriction is one more law than you can stand. But my suggestion above would not impact anyone other than parents and their children. Put a legal requirement in place for parents to provide only filtered internet access for their children. At least it would get parents talking about it, even if it was completey unenforcable.QuoteI agree with you on that. If enough parents did this, new laws wouldn't be needed. Why are they not doing it? Technical incompetance, cost, or just don't care. I do know parents who only allow net access in a shared room of their house (corridor or living room), to have some oversight, but were unaware of commercial filtered internet options.Quote from: tggzzz on July 09, 2023, 10:10:25 amAt least in the old days, it was literally out of reach, ...at least for the shorter kids!

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 03:18:01 pm
content: There are a number of States here in the U.S. that have passed laws requiring some kind of age validation to access porn sites and other bad places on the internet. I live in one of them. I have not checked to see how this is supposed to work. I read that at least one large site is geo-blocking access completely. I suspect that the sellers of VPN services are happy.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 04:06:07 pm
content: Adapted from the Wikipedia article:The First Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1768–1771, in three volumes) featured 160 copperplate illustrations.Some illustrations were shocking, such as the three pages depicting female pelvises and fetuses in the midwifery article; King George III commanded that these pages be ripped from every copy.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 04:27:46 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 12:42:49 pmDude!

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 09:15:22 pm
content: I believe this thread relates to a piece of legislation known as the online harms bill. It's not specifically about protecting children, but targetting harmful content. This can be anything from misinformation, to blogs relating to suicide. The problem is, what's harmful, is open to interpretation and more often than not, we don't know what is misinformation, when we don't know the truth.Handing the power to decide what is harmful and fact from fiction to a central body, especially the government, is dangerous because it will make said organisation very powerful. Heck, the authorities in this country have been guilty of spreading misinformation and dangerous content, especially over the last two years.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 09:23:23 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 09, 2023, 09:15:22 pmThe government is normally the bad guy. If it doesn't appear to be in some area today, give it some time, and see how it works out. Nobody who can escape the consequences of their actions stays a good guy for long, and those in government are almost totally immune.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 09:58:12 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 09, 2023, 11:15:15 amGoing online, active choice, going to specific website, active choice, you cannot claim people are being forced to use platforms or sites which push unwanted content to them... because you are pointing to sites that are peoples choice to use.Quote from: tggzzz on July 09, 2023, 11:15:15 amDid you lock your children behind an electrified razor wire fence to stop them wandering the city (and then gave the keys to the government)? unlikely. Some schools have fences and lock kids inside, other have no fences and have students learn and understand the consequences of leaving of their own will. There are people who will choose one of those fortheirchildren but why shouldtheir preferencebe forced on everyone else? and then onto adults too?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 10:06:59 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 12:42:49 pmJust because you can point to other good things about laws does not make all laws good. How dumb do you think we are?What are the actual benefits of forcibly blocking content that would be legal to view in a book? can those benefits be quantified? what are the costs?The proposed law is not only affecting children and parents, and only now do you make the reveal that is what you want to support (after many misleading posts trying to take such more extreme positions). Seems like you're here to add confusion and noise to the issue and keep banging on about THINK OF THE CHILDREN... who are not in any immediate and serious threat to their being/safety. Any psychological trauma from children coming across inappropriate content is entirely from the parents letting them access it (now that the schools are required to provide better controlled internet access).

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 11:29:13 pm
content: I think there is one key thing here to consider: We cannot make the world a safe space.To make the world a safe space, we'd have toput awaya large fraction of the human population, because we are inherently unsafe.No, I don't mean specific people are unsafe all the time, but that most people are unsafe some fraction of the time; for example, when drunk, on drugs, when in the grips of teenage angst and uncertainty, mental disorders, angry and frustrated at the lack of control over their lives, and so on.The truly evil people are just the carrot on top, and not the meat of the issue at all.Besides, accidents happen.It's like with many mental problems like depression: we cannotremovethe problem, we can only help the person to become strong and resilient enough toovercomethe problem. To many, the two feel the exact same thing, but the nature of the help needed is completely different.In situations where actual physical violence or altercations are not involved, I think it is healthier to help make individuals stronger and more resilient, than to try and make their surroundings safe. Children are a difficult point (I mean, there are many valid arguments to take into account), but I believe parents should have both the power and the responsibility of the upbringing of their children. I do not believe governments trying to control all humans so that particular models of child upbringing will be safe, is at all tenable. If not for any other reason, because prohibition laws not supported by a large majority of the population always fail.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 12:27:05 am
content: Quote from: coppice on July 09, 2023, 09:23:23 pmWe can kick out the government. We can't kick out the corporations.That alone means the corporations are more insidiously dangerousin the long term.Add that the corporations are the ones creating productsspecifically designedto amplify Tom Dick and Harriets nonsensical and paranoid ramblings.Overall theunaccountable and untouchablecorporations are,in the long term, more dangerous than any Western government.Mind you, recent UK governments have been eroding that difference - but the current mob will largely disappear in 2024.

author: twospoons
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 01:29:45 am
content: If you never let your kids climb a tree they will never appreciate the consequences of combining body-weight, dead branches and hard ground.The end result of taking away all risks for kids is a generation of snowflakes who would take a sick-day for a hangnail.I've never restricted my kids access to risky things, but I have madedamnsure they understood the potential consequences. There's no point trying to fence off the dangerous bits of the internet - that just makes it all the more enticing, and a determined kid absolutely will find a way around the barrier. Instead, teach them to make the smart choice.Education beats restriction every time.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 02:59:41 am
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 07, 2023, 08:02:09 pmHow about parents do their job and parent? If they want to shield their kids from certain websites then install a firewall in their home, or just do things the old fashioned way and supervise their children. We got our hands on dirty magazines now and then when we were kids and it doesn't seem to have done any lasting harm.I just hope this doesn't become another fiasco like those goddamned cookie notifications that I constantly have to deal with thanks to some European law that doesn't even apply to me.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 04:02:47 am
content: This reminds me of how at the high school I went to, one of the biology books in the library has pictures of male and female private parts. (That's photographs, in addition to cross section drawings which are standard for such books.) I just kept it to myself and continued reading. In fairness, there are truly lots of books in any good sized library and it would be impractical to check each one for such "bad" pictures and words.Looking back, it would have been fun to anonymously mention that such a book exists in the school library, then see how long it takes for it to be found. (That was before social media was a thing.) At the least, the librarian would be confused why there's suddenly a lot of students interested in books.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 08:24:00 am
content: Quote from: twospoons on July 10, 2023, 01:29:45 amMy attitudes too, expecially with climbing trees, respecting electricity, backpacking abroad, and more.But there are important preconditions for it to work: intelligent and knowledgeable parents, attentive hand-on parenting. The latter isn't always possible, the former raises the obvious bootstrapping problem.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 08:32:34 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 10, 2023, 02:59:41 amInstalling a firewall simply doesn't work. Evidence: China's great wall, and the general impracticality of filtering "good" from "bad".The "cookie fiasco" isn't bad: it viscerally shows you how you are being traded across many companies. That, plus "no javascript" plugins make people realise why there are farcebook and twatter logos on many web pages. That's basic survival information for, say, those unfortunate to be based in countries where religious zealots attempt to control how you use bits of your body.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 08:36:53 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 10, 2023, 04:02:47 amMy daughter found one of those in a local bookshop when she was slightly "too young", i.e. about 7. I tried and failed to deflect her by pointing out other books on her traditional favourite subjects, to no avail.I ended up buying the (rather good) book. Favourite comment: "did you and mummyreallydo that?"

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 09:00:25 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 09, 2023, 10:06:59 pmYou are arguing against laws that impinge on your freedoms for the benefit of others, yet there are many of those already. The thought of one more has apparently tipped you over the edge. You don't care whether there is any net benefit for society, just that you are not affected in any way. Ever thought of moving to your own island, all by yourself?QuoteYou aren't aware but there is substancial online material which is not legal in any book.QuoteYou haven't even read what I've written and just love to jump in for the attack. You're advocating for doing nothing (which has been shown to be inadeqate in the last 20 years) and just banging on about poor (technical) parenting, which is exactly what my suggestion aims to improve, with regards to safer surfing.Did you have any proposal, other than do nothing?

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 09:01:09 am
content: Quote from: twospoons on July 10, 2023, 01:29:45 amI think the greatest risk of seemingly taking away all risks is "risk compensation."People, particularly the young, are prone to seek excitement and that includes risk. We did it in my school days well past 16. It's not just 16-year olds. When young, we took dares, jumped stairs, balanced on cables, and surfed in restricted areas (Camp Pendleton, CA). Older, there is no need to mention some of that stuff.Today, life probably is not really any safer, but there seems to be a false sense of safety promoted by all the exhaustive warnings and protective devices. The end results are the tragedies we read in the news about TikTok (etc.) challenges gone wrong. To me, there is no right way to choke yourself into unconsciousness. I never walk into a parking lot or cross a street without looking, yet I see younger generations doing just that on the expectation that all drivers will be watching out for them.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 10:24:06 am
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 10, 2023, 09:00:25 amBecause you say there is some big problem which needs fixing but fail to bring any substantiation or evidence of the supposed harms, still. There is evidence of harms from too much censorship in some areas right now (https://www.mamamia.com.au/why-australian-law-demands-all-vaginas-be-digitally-altered-nsfw/), a balance needs to be struck, but it certainly appears adding further broad censorship controls are not substantiated or justified at this time.You say the status quo has been shown to be inadequate, where? how? why? by who?Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 10, 2023, 09:00:25 amYes, and most of that is already illegal to distribute or share over the internet. That is in no way requiring these new laws. The questions posted to you are clear and plain, yet you just jump around with more vague emotional blither rather than respond to their content.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 10:56:35 am
content: Quote from: Someone on July 10, 2023, 10:24:06 amPerhaps you could list and enumerate your questions for me.If you are referring to evidence that children are being harmed by online content, it's only a cursory search away.Here's one report by the UK's leading children’s charity theNSPCChttps://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/online-safety/parliamentary-briefing---draft-online-safety-bill---sept-2021.pdfYou may not care to read it, so allow me to provide a short excerpt:Quote

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 11:36:14 am
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 10, 2023, 10:56:35 amOk so there is an increase in inappropriate personal interactions between children and other people, so why not argue for things which will address that? Like you know, supervision and having parents in the loop/vetting contacts?Censoring static content and limiting access to information is not doing anything to address that.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 12:05:57 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 10, 2023, 11:36:14 amI first need to argue against the folks who think doing nothing is the preferred option.QuoteWhich is my suggestion above, to put legal requirements on parents to provide a filtered (somewhat safer) internet connection - force the parents into the loop.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 01:54:44 pm
content: If its about protecting the children aint it about time we banned the bbc

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 02:31:15 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on July 10, 2023, 01:54:44 pmI'm not in favour of banning things. However, the licence fee needs to be replaced by something similar with a more appropriate name, like the "BBC fee", that you don't need to pay to use other people's services. Then adjust the fee to the value they provide. Five pounds a year seem reasonable? The BBC's audiences are falling faster than the number of licence payers. Where's the incentive for the BBC to perform when they can get away with that?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 04:06:49 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 10, 2023, 11:36:14 amGood to see you (finally) conceding the bleeding obvious.Now you have to think, and recognise that voltsandjoltsisarguing for some specific things "which will address that".QuoteBecause it hasprovento beinsufficient. Supervision is not only desirable, but also necessary for many other purposes - but insufficient in these cases.QuoteStatic-vs-dynamic content is an irrelevant red herring.We all agree that limiting access to information has significant problems. The question is where to strike the balance in the grey areas.You appear to not be interested in discussing balance, but prefer to see things in black and white.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:09:54 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 12:27:05 amOn what information do we elect our government on? In the past it was the press, radio and TV, but now it's increasingly online. If we allow the government to censor the Internet, then it will interfere with democracy.Also note there's very little difference between the Labour and Conservative parties, especially since Brexit. I very much doubt things would be any different now, if Labour had been in power for the last 5 years. This country has been in decline for the last decade and nothing will change as long as we have Labour or the Conservatives in power.Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 10, 2023, 10:56:35 amGovernment policy has largely been responsible for the increase in online harm to children over the pandemic. Closing schools, children's clubs, cutting home visits by social workers have all created the ideal conditions for children to spend more time online, where they can be preyed on by nonces. If the government really cared about children, they would have adopted similar policies to Sweden, who kept everything going as normal, especially for children.

author: Bryn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:27:23 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 10, 2023, 05:09:54 pmIf Labour do come to power, they pledge totoughen up the shoddy bill, and make it closer to its original form before the Tories mucked it up for their own gain.Speaking of internet censorship in the UK, anybody remember Theresa May's plan to lock down our internet North Korea-style, just to "combat" extremism? Thank god that didn't happen and she got a right good scolding for it.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:34:08 pm
content: Quote from: Bryn on July 10, 2023, 05:27:23 pmNothing pricks the ears of an authoritarian more than a plausible justification for things they like. Whichever party they in, its only the control freaks who will be motivated enough to get their pet ideas into any oppressive legislation.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:39:19 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 08:32:34 amWell what do you suppose this internet censoring will do that a firewall won't? People will get around any kind of limitations put in place if they really want to.Regarding the cookies, speak for yourself. I don't like cookies much but those notifications are SO obnoxious, they make my blood boil because they are EVERYWHERE, the cure is FAR worse than the disease! I would seriously like to strangle the person that thought requiring those was a good idea, and at the very least I wish they would only be shown to users in the bone headed nation(s) that inflicted them on the world. Thankfully recent versions of Brave contain a built in blocker for them.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:42:20 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 10, 2023, 04:02:47 amThere's nothing wrong with photos of reproductive organs in a biology book, every mammal has those bits and there is nothing obscene or pornographic about them, it's just biology.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:44:26 pm
content: Quote from: voltsandjolts on July 09, 2023, 12:42:49 pmIt doesn't matter why, that is up to the individual parents. It isn't your, my or the government's responsibility to do the parent's job for them, it's something the individual parents need to figure out how to do themselves. That's just part of what being a parent is.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:45:59 pm
content: It don't matter who you vote for,the government still gets in.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 05:50:25 pm
content: This thread makes this come to mind

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 06:11:11 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 08, 2023, 11:32:33 pmQuoteOh dear, anything which mentions the equality act makes me cringe. It's a terrible piece of legislation. The problem is, the protected characteristic religion, conflicts with sexual orientation and gender identity. Parts of the Quran and Bible are considered to be homophobic by many people, yet they can't be blocked, as it would discriminate against religions.Quote from: james_s on July 10, 2023, 05:44:26 pmThe only law I would be in favour of is Internet service providers and mobile phone companies being made to ask whether anyone under the age of 18 will be using their service and if so, providing parental controls to the person who pays for it by default. As I said it's not supposed to be about protecting children though, but everyone, which I call BS on. It's just a power grab by the state.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 06:37:33 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 10, 2023, 05:09:54 pm...and vice versa.QuoteI predicted that frightening consequence of the brexit vote. I'm not clear whether I explicitly made the prediction shortly before or after the vote - either way "shortly" was hours or days, not weeks.The consequence is that people will turn to anybody that proclaims "it isn't your fault and I have the answer to your problems". That's what happened in the Weimar Republic, and didn't that work well.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 06:40:02 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 10, 2023, 05:09:54 pmAh. Someone viewing the world through blinkers supplied by conspiracy theorists.Plonk.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 06:45:14 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 10, 2023, 05:34:08 pmTrue.Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 06:37:33 pmBrexit is not to blame for the majority oe our current problems. True, it hasn't been good, but it's responsible for less than 10% of the mess we're currently in.Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 06:40:02 pmYou appear to be trolling now: no rebuttal, just insults.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 06:46:06 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 10, 2023, 05:39:19 pmThat's a strawman argument. I have never given any indication I think the problem can be solved.In fact I have indicated the opposite - it is like the undecideable art-vs-pornography problem - and hence technology cannot solve the unsolvable problem.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 10:18:55 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 04:06:49 pmI never came out in disagreement with having safe spaces for children, and have tried to take a centred/balanced position against the extremist(s) here. voltsandjolts is starting from some reasonable position/point and extrapolating/stretching it out to insanity, without coherent explanations, a consistent and clear position, or anything more than emotion. More importantly the "problem" is not being addressed by their proposed "solution", unless you redefine problem to be some nebulous THINK OF THE CHILDREN that no-one else can question or ask for specifics of. Troll arguments are troll arguments, and deserve to be pointed out for the smoke and mirrors they are.Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 04:06:49 pmI keep pushing back with constructive questions, if broad censorship is the answer then what is the question/problem that it is trying to solve? Blocking/censoring/restricting static content (one of the things the bill proposes) is nothing to do with the given example of possible harms from unsupervised/uncontrolled personal communications. Such harms equally exist outside the internet if children are given phones without supervision/controls over who they communicate with. Try and put forward a coherent argument for why broad internet controls are necessary beyond THINK OF THE CHILDREN.Perhaps age controls for person to person communications could be argued for, but that doesn't mean it has to come with all the other stuff being proposed. This is a classic political move of grouping together a whole bunch of things which are poorly connected and divisive, so that anyone raising objections to specific parts is shut down by the opposition saying "how can you stand in the way of the obvious benefits of the bill" which I have not done. Limiting access online to material which children can view in books is one example of the problems this law is proposing. The simpler one I'll keep coming back to:if children are the group which are being harmed, why should the entire internet (most of which is not under the jurisdiction of the UK) change the way it operates? that will have costs and implications beyond the people it is trying to protect. A very simple alternative would be to restrict what children can reach from their point of access, mandate children have "safe" connections to the internet that flow through appropriate controls. Why is that so unpalatable to you or others?And no, children bypassing controls is not a counter argument to that, as no matter where the control is implemented children will try to find ways around it. I'd argue a child "safe" choke point for access would be far more reliable and effective than relying on every website to individually co-operate.Then you get to subtleties like "children" are not a homogenous group, treating them all the same does not work in legislation. Example being child car seat laws which required anyone under the age XX to be in a child seat and/or rear seat of a car, regardless of how large they were.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 11:12:54 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 06:46:06 pmIt wasn't intended to be. If the problem can't be solved then why are we wasting time discussing it? Certainly we should not be implementing solutions to an unsolvable problem. If the problem can be partially solved then any potential partial solutions need to be weighed carefully against the cost. Ultimately I think it still comes down to parenting, part of the job of a parent is to shield their kids from harmful things up until the point that they are old enough to be taught how to make decisions on their own and protect themselves. A good parent gives their children gradually increasing amounts of autonomy and trust.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 11:23:18 pm
content: People who directly ingested post-WW2 allied victory propaganda have their brains irreversibly damaged and I consider it better use of my time to wait for their expiration than attempting to argue any sort of political matters with them. YMMV.This unfortunately includes many politicians alive today, and plenty of voters in many places too.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 11:25:33 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 08:36:53 amThe book I read didn't present it in a sexual way, the pictures were labeled so that a medical student can identify the different parts.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 11:53:47 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 10, 2023, 11:12:54 pmWell, it was, whether or not you intended it to be.It isn't difficult to think of several reasons why it is worth discussing an insoluble problem. How about the simplest: to guide naive people into realising that it is insoluble, why it is insoluble, and what needs to be sorted out before it is worth asking whether it has been solved.QuoteThat's one and only one viewpoint. It may be one of several suitable strategies for some children, but it would fail for others.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 11:56:39 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 10, 2023, 11:25:33 pmThe book my daughter discovered (and I bought) was solely sexual.Example: one diagram was a cross-section through a copulating couple.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 01:57:40 pm
content: I find it odd that we must protect children from the very thing that created them. Meanwhile, it's OK to show violence in cartoons and even let children play with toy guns.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 04:02:22 pm
content: It's always been the normal development path to learn violence before reproduction.You may wonder what the reasons might be, but simply not understanding the reasons is no reason to blindly turn everything backwards.So-called "progressive" populations are undergoing extinction right before our eyes.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 09:04:50 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 10, 2023, 11:56:39 pmFrankly that sounds like a parenting failure to me. The child is 7, the fact that you tried and failed to redirect her doesn't make much sense to me, you are the parent, you are the law, all you have to do is say "no, that's not appropriate for you at this age" and that should be that, case closed, there is no negotiating.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 09:07:03 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 11, 2023, 01:57:40 pmI see no issue with that at all. Violence in cartoons is not realistic at all, I certainly watched a lot of cartoons when I was a kid and that never translated into violence to me. I played with toy guns a lot too and also that never turned into real violence. Young kids don't need to know anything about sex, there's just no reason for it, and there isn't that same boundary between real life and play.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 09:41:01 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 11, 2023, 09:04:50 pmOh riiiight.Teach her not to be curious.Teach her not to find answers by reading.Teach her to deviously hide things from me.Teach her that sex is a disgusting subject.Teach her to be ashamed of asking questions and having independent thoughts.Teach her that I'm not interested in what she is thinking.Teach her that "might is right" rather than "right because reason X".Good parenting... Not!It was a good book. I was delighted she had found it and was fascinated by the subject. That's why I bought it for her so she could continue reading it at her leisure.It paid dividends. Three years later she wanted chickens as pets. I didn't, and raised all sorts of objections. She went and did the research online, and countered every one of my objections with solid arguments. That delighted me, and I agreed we could have them. She specified what was needed in a coop and enclosure, and we built one together. Over the next six years she used her chickens as a spring board for learning all sorts of skills that we never anticipated.More recently she has used those attitudes and skills to successfully start her own business. She's even been invited to demonstrate to others that how it is possible to start their own business.But I suppose you think that, because I didn't want something, I should have been "a good parent" by stomping on her interests and ambitions.If letting her read that book was a parenting failure, IMNSHO the world would be a better place if more parents failed.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 09:56:00 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 11, 2023, 09:04:50 pmThis is the person who tried to argue flood defences are a bad and evil thing as a hypothetical malevolent operator could use such defences to instead create floods:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tidal-lagoon-energy-from-the-ocean-uk-gov-is-putting-money-in-it/msg632713/#msg632713I'd agree and classify the person as disingenuous and a bad influence on society (and therefore their children). A simple substitution of another book that matches the Childs desires for choosing the inappropriate title should be relatively easy to construe, assuming a parent actually engages with their child and understands their motivations.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 10:08:52 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on July 11, 2023, 09:56:00 pmWow.One short post containing so many outright misrepresentations, strawman arguments, non-sequiteurs, and incorrect presumptions of understanding individuals and circumstances.Quite an achievement.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 03:20:13 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 11, 2023, 09:41:01 pmYou are free to decide for yourself at what age it is appropriate to teach your child about various topics, that isn't really the issue. Personally I think 7 is too young to be taught about sex, they shouldn't be taught that it's dirty and disgusting, they simply don't really need to know about it at all, when I was 7 I only vaguely knew what sex was and I didn't care, I was busy being a kid. But like I said that isn't really the issue, the parenting failure here (which does not necessarily mean that you have failed overall as a parent) is succumbing to the demands of a 7 year old after failing to direct them to something else. As a parent part of your job is to set reasonable and consistent rules and boundaries and stick to them, you can simply say "no" and that's that. You're the child's parent, not their friend.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 04:41:31 am
content: One aspect of Finnish culture I really like is the concept of Sauna.It is a scrupulously clean place; like a surgery. Just like in pre-teen kids' lives, there is no room in there for sex.Even though families and friends typically bathe together nude, it's just nudity, explicitly non-sexual.And it's perfectly okay to say that I am too shy to bathe nude in a mixed crowd: it just leads to a common decision whether to bathe by gender or not, and a friendly reminder that it's always okay to wrap yourself in a towel in sauna if you're shy. At least in my circles!It isverycommon for teens and young adults to be shy and picky about it, with small kids and older adults having more relaxed attitudes. Hormones, perhaps?I think this cultural aspect teaches kids at the emotional level that there is perfectly ordinary non-sexual nudity.This gives a natural path to give kids the general outline of human biology, including procreation, while leaving the sexual activity aspects out of it, until they're old enough to understand.

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:44:46 am
content: Is this an example of Young's law appearing?"A culture which becomes more open about sexual topics becomes more censorious of everything else", after Toby Young, journalist at the Daily Sceptic?To be quite honest I've always been a Victorian level prude when it comes to consideration of sex/nudity/... but I respect the importance of the rights of others to discuss them openly because I know that censorship is too damaging a tool to be acceptable even if I were to want the kind of things censors propose to censor to be censored.The particularly weird thing about the Uk is that there are insane politicians*, both on the "progressive" and "reactionary" sides of the typical social debate, both pushing ahead for these horrific plans.The answer must be open defiance by the public. And also a highlightingof the fact that the youth are cunning, and however much censorship is enacted someone will find a way past, and then tell all their mates, and if their mates can't understand how to bypass it for themselves they would end up with a sneaker-net of USB sticks with verboten content on them being passed around.*either unaware of the damage censorship causes to society, especially the damage to the trustworthines of infrastructure itself when that censorship involves tampering with the technical underpinnings of the internet, or completely aware of it and desperate to censor nonetheless

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:51:23 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on July 12, 2023, 04:41:31 amI have no issue at all with non-sexual nudity, personally I prefer not to be nude around anyone that is not a romantic partner but I don't have an issue with whatever other people want to do. To me plain old nudity and sexual nudity are completely different things. Everybody has a set of naughty bits and there are only two varieties so there is no great secret there.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:56:41 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 10, 2023, 04:02:47 amHeh... my biology textbook from around 1990 might actually get someone thrown in jail today. It had images of pre- and post puberty kids in it, to show the development.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:17:19 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 03:20:13 amYou sound like an HR-droid that treats employees as resources rather than people.Or a boss that thinks his minions should just obey commands and "don't need to know why".Or maybe as someone who believes in strong religious doctrines.She decided when it was appropriate for her. I was going to leave it another year or two, but she took the initiative. That was fine, and thealternative would have been far far worsefor the reasons I outlined above.Things don't happen according to a fixed schedule. Everybody is individual, and that should be understood, accepted, and accomodated.Many people thought 3yo was too young to learn to read. I didn't have any such preconceptions (of course), so asked my father to teach me and he did. Family lore is that I was reading the daily newspaper before I went to school. Some people thought that was wrong and that I should "just be a normal kid", which I presume means "be like I was".QuoteThe same with me, but that's irrelevant.My daughter is not me. She is an independent individual, and should be treated as such.QuoteDo you have children?It sounds like you have read how to interact with young people from a textbook or newspaper.Children are not - or should not be - submissive to their parents. They are young people and should be treated as you would treat otherinexperiencedpeople. That meansexplaining and guiding, not forcingallowing them to jump in at the deep end, but being there to make sure they don't sink. Including, depending on the child's personality,encouragingthem to jump in at the deep endgiving information that is appropriate to their level of experience

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:22:22 am
content: I shower in the nude. Please do not judge me.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:25:44 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on July 12, 2023, 04:41:31 amPrecisely, with one exception.I would change "sexual activity out of it" to "psychological and emotional aspects of it". The physical side of sexuality isn't - to me - a problematic issue.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:31:03 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 05:51:23 amThe problem with that is that the sexuality is in themindof theobserver, not the nude person.It is entirely possible to have one nude person, two observers, and only one observer thinking of sexual activity. Which view should dominate?Here's a clear (to me) example of that. In the US there appear to becreepybeauty pagents where parents dress their ?5-10? year old children like adults, including full makeup. I was gobsmacked when I heard about those, due to the Jon Ramsey Benet case hitting the headlines.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 02:59:26 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 12, 2023, 10:25:44 amYep; I couldn't think of better words to exactly express the difference between "human procreation as a biological process" and "having sex and its consequences".Quote from: tggzzz on July 12, 2023, 10:31:03 amThe one that matches their behaviour, if we include things like eye focus and body language in "behaviour".Quote from: tggzzz on July 12, 2023, 10:31:03 amCreepy parents are creepy.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 04:50:23 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on July 12, 2023, 02:59:26 pmIt isn't clear to me that the parents are creepy.Thoughtless, yes.Misguided in terms of wanting to live their lives through their children, yes.Juvenile in terms of treating their children as dolls, yes.Dimwitted in claiming the children like it, yes. Even if the kids do enjoy the (only?) attention they get, that's not an excuse.But none of those can apply to the creeps that organise (for profit) the shows, nor those that watch the shows. They make me shudder and spit blood.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:11:03 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 05:51:23 amThe fact that you describe genitals as "naughty bits" speaks volumes.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:24:39 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 12, 2023, 10:17:19 amThat's quite a lot of assumptions to make about somebody you don't know and have never met based on a single statement.I'm quite the opposite really, I'm an engineer, I'm not a people person and have/will never claim to be and I have zero interest in HR.A boss is fundamentally different than a parent, a boss's job is to work with his/her reports, coordinate their strengths, shield them from bs from higher layers in the org and give them the resources and support they need to grow in their career in order to get a job done. A parent's job is to raise their children into functional adults, totally different relationship. A parent has the absolute right to say no and to dictate what their child is allowed to have or do, as the child gets older they gradually get more freedom and autonomy. Employees are adults, adults have autonomy and are fully responsible for their own actions and behavior. A child is different, they will earn that autonomy as they grow up. Not even remotely the same thing.I'm about as far from "someone who believes in strong religious doctrines" as they come, I'm an agnostic atheist, never been to church in my life, don't plan on ever going, won't tell you not to go or not, don't know if my beliefs are "right" and don't care. I don't personally believe there is a supreme being that created the universe and I think as an explanation the concept creates more questions than it answers but on the other hand I can't say for certainty that there isn't. I simply don't know for sure, and I think anyone that does claim to know with certainty is either crazy or full of shit.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:30:38 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 12, 2023, 06:11:03 pmIt's a term that I heard somewhere and thought it sounded funny, what exactly are you reading into those volumes that it speaks? It seems you've formed a complete picture of me based on a word I used in attempt to mix in a little humor and to be polite in mixed company. I'd encourage you to try to be a tad less prejudiced and not jump to conclusions.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:37:51 pm
content: What if your daughter decided she wanted crisps, a chocolate bar and ice cream for dinner? Would you say no, or just gave her what she wanted?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:41:13 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 12, 2023, 10:31:03 amSure but you can't control how an observer perceives something, and that is part of the problem with some of this "culture war" stuff that is going on. Some people are focused on trying to demand others to perceive something in a certain way and that is just fundamentally flawed, it's not possible to do. You can't stop an observer from possibly sexualizing in their head a nude person that they're observing, but there is a HUGE difference between say a centerfold from a Penthouse magazine and a photo of a nude female in a biology textbook.Yes those pageants where they tart up toddlers and parade them around in front of a room full of adults are repulsive, contrary to how it may appear I'm no prude, I consider myself "sex positive", I'm perfectly fine with adults doing whatever they want with other consenting adults with no shame in that and if statistics are to be believed I've had more partners than is average in my country, but I set a hard boundary between children, especially pre-pubescent children, and adults. Sexualizing pre-pubescent children is revolting and I think there is something seriously wrong with people that want to do that.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:50:37 pm
content: Whenever politicians start talking about children, you'd better watch your pockets.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:54:28 pm
content: Heck, it's possible for pictures of clothed people, with the naughty bits covered, to be pornographic. Sexually suggestive poses, tight fitting garments, allowing the body shape to be seen, hands or objects placed down their pants etc.Pornography is simply material created with the sole intention of causing sexual arousal. It can be pictures, video, writing etc. Whether something is pornographic or not is somewhat subjective, but most people know it when they see it.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 07:35:29 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on July 12, 2023, 06:50:37 pmAnd when they don't, you'd better watch your children.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:00:44 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 06:24:39 pmI will assume your comprehension skills are reasonable, so I conclude that you speed read so fast that you missed the key words. To aid you, I'vehighlightedthem above. Just to make the point clear to people that don't have English as a first language, my statement was asimile, notmetaphor.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/similedefines similie as "a figure of speech comparingtwo unlike thingsthat is often introduced by like or as"Now, do you have any response to my more interesting points and questions? Viz:Quote from: tggzzz on July 12, 2023, 10:17:19 amPerhaps the single most revealing answer would be if you told us whether you have (or are responsible for) any children.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:07:59 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 12, 2023, 06:37:51 pmThat's not really comparable: one-off education vs potentially repetitive habit.Nonetheless, I would probably do what my mother did when my brother became interested in smoking (back when smoking was normal and non-smoking exceptional). She bought a pack of fags and let him smoke them all. Naturally he was sick, and became a lifelong non-smoker. Job done.Forbidding/denying young people something is anexcellentway to get them to surreptitiously/furtively investigate something. Not good behaviour on the part of the parent or child, IMHO.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:17:45 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 06:41:13 pmNot when I was an adolescentOne was more available than the other, doubly so since I have to stretch to reach the top shelf.QuoteI completely agree, as is self-evident from what I've said before.But you appear to be confusing that revolting behaviour with letting an interested child research and understand the (physical) facts of how our bodies work. Very different.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:13:07 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 12, 2023, 08:07:59 pmWhen I was maybe 2 or 3 I remember being fascinated watching people smoke cigarettes in restaurants which was a common thing back then, because the end would light up whenever they would draw from it and I was obsessed with light bulbs and lighting. I was always told they were dirty and disgusting and that stuck, I never had any desire to smoke, nobody had to demand that I not do it, they just impressed upon me that it was gross and bad. I think that worked better than giving me a pack of cigarettes and telling me to go ahead and smoke them all.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:18:56 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 09:13:07 pmThere are, indeed, many ways to skin a cat. Choose whichever way best suits you and the cat.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:33:28 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 09:13:07 pmMe too, although I admit, I did occasionally smoke at school, when I was a teenager, but never got hooked. I did it due to a mixture of curiosity and showing off. I doubt there would have been anything my parents could have done to stop me. I knew the punishment would have been a detention at school and no computer/TV/games console, but I didn't get caught.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:38:02 pm
content: I think it also helped that I had a couple of relatives that were regularly trying unsuccessfully to quit. Then when I was a bit older I had friends that were constantly struggling to get people to buy them cigarettes and on top of that it smelled gross so it just never seemed logical to me. I mean why start doing something that costs a lot of money, is a pain to support when I'm not old enough to buy them myself and smells gross? I could see no reason to do it. Even if I had thought it looked cool, being an electricity obsessed autistic kid I was so far from cool there was no point in trying to be anyway.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 08:43:02 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 12, 2023, 06:30:38 pmCalling genitals "naughty bits" is one of the tools by which people are taught to be ashamed of nudity, it has nothing to do with being polite, and the only humour attached to it is that of a sniggering schoolboy talking about something he isn't supposed to. I need not jump to any conclusions; you already admitted in the same post that you "prefer not to be nude around anyone that is not a romantic partner", clear evidence of the societal conditioning I was alluding to. I am not blaming or criticising you personally, but making an observation regarding the social norms programmed into you.Using the correct terminology is not impolite, in any company; it provides clarity.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 09:01:58 am
content: Arguing about nudity, you're all yelling at the wrong cloud.These legislation changes are intended to reflect and also be considerate of the inevitable evolving socio-culture of the UK. That means the focus is on modesty, not nudity.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 11:41:50 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on July 13, 2023, 09:01:58 amAs a UK resident of more than 50 years, I can tell you there is no focus on modesty these days.Censorship is never about modesty, or nudity, it's about mind control.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 05:15:51 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 13, 2023, 08:43:02 amMaybe English is not your first language? The term "naughty bits" is common slang, don't read too much into it, people use slang all the time, you knew exactly what I was referring to didn't you? So what more clarity is needed? I don't think it's unusual to prefer not to be nude around random people, it doesn't mean shame, many people simply prefer a bit of modesty, there are just some things I prefer to save for certain people rather than just any old person that comes along. As far as social norms, sure, everyone has social norms, that's part of what defines culture, which is part of what defines society.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 05:52:46 pm
content: I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 07:00:02 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 13, 2023, 05:52:46 pmIt doesn't gain consent. It attempts to make consent irrelevant. Talk to people who have lived through regimes which turned their propaganda up to 11, and they all say roughly the same thing. They were not sure what the truth was, but they knew full well it wasn't what they were being told.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 09:33:44 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 13, 2023, 07:00:02 pmFor those that haven't lived in such regimes and can't fathom what that means, read 1984. The whole thing is very well explained.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 11:59:59 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 13, 2023, 05:52:46 pmI dunno, I get pretty terrified when a Boss describes the latest hare-brained scheme as a "win-win situation".

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:14:51 am
content: Quote from: james_s on July 13, 2023, 05:15:51 pmI am English, and English is my first language. I am aware of the usage of the phrase, and I am pointing outwhyit exists as a slang term. It's not unusual to prefer to not be nude around random peoplein cultures dominated by Abrahamic religions, mostly. Other cultures are often less prudish. There is a direct link between language and culture, and furthermore, both are in constant evolution, hence this thread, amongst other things.I don't mind the use of slang at all; learning about the way other cultures approach things is interesting to me. The divide between the UK and US is a curious one. We have a great deal of common history and culture, but the branching in the 17th century has sent the US down a path that is at times utterly perplexing to those of us in the UK that take an interest in these things. Most people of course notice no difference at all, and live their lives in happy ignorance; I often wonder if I would be happier if I was as disengaged.Though I don't mind the use of slang, I do like for people to understand the cultural roots of the slang they use, as it almost always has subtle undertones that can be misunderstood by people from different cultures, and indeed can be missed even by denizens of the culture of origin.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 12:39:21 pm
content: I believe the term "naughty bits" was invented by Monty Python for a comedy sketch "How to Recognise Different Parts of the Body" where naughty bits were covered up by polka-dot underwear.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 12:52:41 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 14, 2023, 12:39:21 pmIts older than that. They probably made it a lot more popular.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 02:00:22 pm
content: According to one source (discussing the evolution of "naughty" in English usage): “Naughty bits”, referring to the genitals, was first recorded in a Monty Python sketch in 1970. This euphemism was considered too explicit for American audiences and was bleeped out when the show was broadcast in the US.https://theconversation.com/five-words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-do-158102There is a later comic-book series unrelated to Monty Python called "Naughty Bits" (1991 to 2004), and a sex-toy company.There seems to have been a small outbreak of this usage in the immediate postwar period.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 05:29:43 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 14, 2023, 02:00:22 pmAround that time we were experimenting with flashes of (female) full frontal nudity. It had to be art, of course.A famous rule of thumb used to distinguish between art and porn was the "angle of the dangle" relative to the Mull of Kintyre. I'm going to leave the interpretation of that to your imagination; it isn't difficult.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 05:34:18 pm
content: I was taught the theorem: "The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat."

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 05:46:20 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 14, 2023, 02:00:22 pmI seem remember one of the risque comedians, well before Monty Python, like Max Wall or Max Miller, using that term when the BBC wouldn't allow them to say anything more direct. They still managed to get into plenty of trouble, though.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:53:57 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 13, 2023, 07:00:02 pmI definitely agree about not being sure of what the truth is. I get that feeling about many topics discussed by the mainstream media. That doesn't change the fact that propaganda can garner support for some pretty extreme policies, such as those implemented in the Third Reich.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:59:12 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 14, 2023, 08:53:57 pmThe Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:07:01 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 14, 2023, 08:59:12 pmCompare and contrast with the Brexit vote.History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:10:58 pm
content: History has no subjunctive mood. (Russian proverb)

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:27:41 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 14, 2023, 09:07:01 pmBrexit is nothing but a small cut, compared to the huge injury of lockdown and mass immigration, which would have happened anyway.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 11:09:44 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 14, 2023, 09:27:41 pmThat's avoiding doing the compare and contrast exercise between comparing UK and 2016 Brexit vote, with Weimar Republic and their 1933 vote.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 08:58:09 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 14, 2023, 11:09:44 pmThat's like comparing chalk and cheese.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 09:41:59 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 08:58:09 amNot so.How about many voters becoming pissed off with their current leaders, populist demigogs appearing, blame for current woes placed on Them, where "Them" is (a) foreigners and (b) experienced specialists.That rhymes all too well, and hasn't fully played out here and nowAnd that's all thepoliticsI will discuss here.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 10:17:05 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on July 15, 2023, 09:41:59 amPopularism is good, because it aligns with democracy.You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about Brexit. It's not something I voted for, but I can certainly understand why people voted for it. There's no point in remoaning. We have far worse problems.People are rightly fed up with their leaders. The two parties are essentially the same, so as long as people vote for either one of them, nothing will change.One does not have to dislike foreigners, to be against mass immigration. It is the cause of many problems in our society. It's the main reason why housing is in short supply and young people can't afford to buy. It's no good building new homes. We need to deal with the demand, caused by an increasing population, due to immigration. The idea pushed by the mainstream media, that we need it due to the ageing population and for the economy is nonsense. Foreigners get old too and there are other countries such as Japan who appear to be doing fine without it. Immigration benefits the rich, elites, at the expense of the poor, hence why those in power are so keen on it. The majority who support so-called far-right parties who want to cut immigration, do not dislike foreigners, or want to harm anyone, just to see immigration cut to a sustainable level. I don't support any political party. They're all rotten.Going back to the original topic. We're truly stuffed. Voting Labour won't make and difference, because they want to go further and the Liberal Democrats will simply form a government with the next largest party. I don't know what the Green Party's position is on this, but I don't support their extreme environmental taxes, which would damage the economy. There are other more right-wing parties, too small to have an impact, but I disagree with many of their other policies.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 12:19:09 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 10:17:05 amNo it isn't. It's because the Thatcher government changed some of the financial rules for councils, making it effectively impossible for them to replace the stock they were being forced to sell, or that was just no longer fit for purpose.Building new social housing, and also affordable housing, is the answer. Immigration is a separate issue.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 01:14:50 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 15, 2023, 12:19:09 pmYou are right there.Quote from: AVGresponding on July 15, 2023, 12:19:09 pmIncorrect. It's simply a matter of supply vs demand. Importing around a million people per year will increase demand for housing, because they all require somewhere to live. Cutting immigration will reduce the need for new homes.Building more homes will not solve the problem. It will just make a few people very rich. The government will never cut immigration because the rich and powerful want property and land to be expensive. It's funny I get often accused of being far-right for stating this.

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:04:19 pm
content: " comparing UK and 2016 Brexit vote, with Weimar Republic and their 1933 vote. "A bit extreme definitely, I was a very determined remainer from 2016-2020 (now I'm brexit-agnostic, it's bad but nowehere near as bad as I feared and the EU is in a mess now anyway which we might yet be glad not to be inside), and whilst I expected many terribe things to come of it Nazi style rule wasn't one of them. The snoopers charter of 2016, and the lockdowns of 2020, were much more like voting in Hitler than brexit was. In the aftermath of brexit I expected we'd lose a lot of our fundamental rights due to the UK sneaking away from the EU human rights courts, but then those human rights courts spent 2020 proving they no longer cared about human rights (while the Uk was still in), and the EU now is becoming increasingly tyranical itself with plans for digital IDs and for mass scale internet censorship*. Brexit wasn't the biggest problem, all the other things which went on while brexit had people distracted were. Today ofcourse, the political class use immigration as as a distraction, to keeppeople's attention while truly dangerous things with CBDC plans are done in the background. Also, since Britain has been out of the EU, it has actually morphed a lot more in to the bad things (unified EU vaccine digital ID passes, EU digital services diktats, EU plans for close collaboration wih the disgraced WHO, EU plans to spy on journalists...) which brexiteers claimed (incorrectly at THAT time) it was in 2016.*just the same asmost of the rest of the world, virtually everywhere is in need of a regime change in which the bureaucratic authoritarian busy-body jobsworth tick-box class all get kicked out of politics and sent in to eternal unemployment where they can do no further harm

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:16:30 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 01:14:50 pmIn places nobody wants to live, housing is usually very cheap. Places that go out of favour (e.g. industry shuts down) often have plenty of available houses at low prices. Supply and demand are clearly a huge part of house prices. However, where people want to live, generally because there are good incomes to be made there, houses generally cost the same - the very limit of what people can pay. Push up the interest rate and prices goes down. Push down the interest rate and prices goes up. Push up incomes and prices go up. Drive down incomes and prices go down.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:32:44 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 15, 2023, 05:16:30 pmEven the crappiest places in the UK are still better than many parts of the world.It's certainly true having low interest rates is a big driver of house prices. It encourages people with money to in invest in property, which increases prices further, rather than putting the money in the bank, where they get bugger all back. The government here are doing their level best to keep the price of property and land as high as possible. They might say otherwise, but their policies and actions clearly show this, whatever they claim.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:42:29 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 05:32:44 pmHuh? Weird response. How did crappiness come into this? Many dead seaside towns in the UK are not crappy (although steady decline isn't helping with that) but without available jobs the houses sell for scrap value, and large numbers are empty.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 07:09:54 pm
content: one thing the uk needs to sort is reusing brownfield/intown sites that have sat derelict for years instead of extending the urban sprawl into the countryside.Of course for this to succeed it helps if your councillors dont own large swaths of land on the outskirts of town that gets sold of with planning for "much needed new housing"

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 07:19:58 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on July 15, 2023, 07:09:54 pmThere used to be huge amounts of land fitting that description in London, but most of it eventually got reused. There is plenty of derelict land in many UK towns, but those aren't the towns that are doing well, and offer reasonable employment prospects.