X

[TailWindHome]

If he bans X paedos will still have access to similar means of getting their kicks but he will also have stamped out a means of holding his government to account. It's called using a sledgehammer to miss a nut.

Accepting that Twitter is a 'means for paedos to get their kicks', what action should the government take?

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Accepting that Twitter is a 'means for paedos to get their kicks', what action should the government take?

Recently, the government introduced age checking for porn sites, so they aren’t singling X out for any special treatment. It’s policy.
Like you, I’m not buying this line about leaving paedo material on X along, because they’ll just find it elsewhere. That’s just not a viable argument.
I am suspicious that some individuals are using this as excuse to promote the party line being spun from across the Atlantic by their spiritual leader.

 

[Shortfall]

Accepting that Twitter is a 'means for paedos to get their kicks', what action should the government take?

Here's an honest answer. I don't know. But banning X is the wrong answer

 

[TailWindHome]

Here's an honest answer. I don't know. But banning X is the wrong answer

OK. Do you think the government should take action?

 

[Shortfall]

OK. Do you think the government should take action?

I look at the long history of government wading in to do something with good intentions and either having no effect, the wrong effect or making matters worse. The Dangerous Dogs act springs to mind. In this instance I'm not even convinced they have good intentions, even if some people urging them to do something might. So the answer is I hate the idea of people using this technology to do such a disgusting thing but what will the net effect of a useless politician meddling be?

 

[Rusty Nails]

X has Global reach and influence and is one of the main p!affirms used by journalists and other interested parties to share ideas and criticisms of Starmers government. Cycle Chat not so much. In fact there's only a tiny handful of people here criticising Labour

There's a few more criticising Starmer though. In case you hadn't noticed. He's not universally popular with left leaning supporters.

Generally people don't go on X for real news, they go on there to have their own prejudices validated by the like-minded.

If a few more on here criticised Starmer we'd be closed down and then where would the BF refugees go for intelligent debate?

 

[Shortfall]

There's a few more criticising Starmer though. In case you hadn't noticed. He's not universally popular with left leaning supporters.

Generally people don't go on X for real news, they go on there to have their own prejudices validated by the like-minded.

If a few more on here criticised Starmer we'd be closed down and then where would the BF refugees go for intelligent debate?

See my answer above. Apart from about 3 of us, the criticism of Starmer on here is that he's too right wing. I mean it's a point of view I suppose although not necessarily one that is widely held outside this bubb!e, sorry forum.

 

[Rusty Nails]

See my answer above. Apart from about 3 of us, the criticism of Starmer on here is that he's too right wing. I mean it's a point of view I suppose although not necessarily one that is widely held outside this bubb!e, sorry forum.

If the critics, and there are a lot of them, not just in this country, who think that X/Grok makes the production of sexualised images of women and children too easy are right do you believe Starmer is right or wrong to put pressure on Musk via sanctions to cut that facility?

 

[Shortfall]

If the critics, and there are a lot of them, not just in this country, who think that X/Grok makes the production of sexualised images of women and children too easy are right do you believe Starmer is right or wrong to put pressure on Musk via sanctions to cut that facility?

I don't mind criticism of people making profits from a technology that can be abused and having a dialogue about how best to prevent such abuses. I do mind authoritarian politicians hiding behind the excuse of public interest to ban something that is holding him to account.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I don't mind criticism of people making profits from a technology that can be abused and having a dialogue about how best to prevent such abuses. I do mind authoritarian politicians hiding behind the excuse of public interest to ban something that is holding him to account.

So the answer is no. It certainly isn't yes. Although I suppose it could be a don't know.

The premise behind your reply, about Starmer's motivation, is just conjecture.

 

[Shortfall]

So the answer is no. It certainly isn't yes. Although I suppose it could be a don't know.

The premise behind your reply, about Starmer's motivation, is just conjecture.

You can take.Starmer at face value if you like. Sure he wants to ban X because of.protecting vulnerable children. Excuse me if I've heard that kid of horsesh1t too many times in the past and I'm a tad more cynical.

 

[TailWindHome]

You can take.Starmer at face value if you like. Sure he wants to ban X because of.protecting vulnerable children. Excuse me if I've heard that kid of horsesh1t too many times in the past and I'm a tad more cynical.

Do you take people at face value when they tell you they want to reduce immigration to protect vulnerable children?

 

[Blazing Saddles]

You can take.Starmer at face value if you like. Sure he wants to ban X because of.protecting vulnerable children. Excuse me if I've heard that kid of horsesh1t too many times in the past and I'm a tad more cynical.

They have that kind of horse shǐt in Australia. Go ask any 15 year old.

 

[TailWindHome]

I look at the long history of government wading in to do something with good intentions and either having no effect, the wrong effect or making matters worse. The Dangerous Dogs act springs to mind. In this instance I'm not even convinced they have good intentions, even if some people urging them to do something might. So the answer is I hate the idea of people using this technology to do such a disgusting thing but what will the net effect of a useless politician meddling be?

That's an argument for the government doing nothing ever.

I'm not sure X should get nonce immunity because CatTurd2 posts that Londonstan has fallen and Starmer is a bad president of England.

 

[Beebo]

Here's an honest answer. I don't know. But banning X is the wrong answer

The government don’t actually want to ban X.
They want X to stop generating child porn and other unwanted images. It shouldn’t be hard for X to do this. And it isn’t a free speech issue.