They come for the things nobody would be caught dead defending (often even people who privately engage in it) first. Look at how during the thing with payment processors and porn games, some people were saying they didn’t mind if it were just the rape games being banned. Those are used as justification for speech restrictions to the public.
(I don’t even think KiwiFarms should be legal personally, Chris Chan’s story should be considered evidence enough that they’re a harassment forum)
I’m just saying like I oppose the death penalty, but there are certain cases where I’m not going to die on that particular hill. I don’t believe they should be killed, but the context of the moment is going to alienate more people than it convinces.
Same thing here. I oppose identification laws but making that argument in defense of those two is going to make folks think it’s a fanatical position rather than a reasonable one.
It’s far better to argue from a reasonable position and then extend that to other cases than just argue these places should be allowed to continue to weaponize anonymity.
Now 4chan becomes the face of resistance to this shit, and people will think it is only being opposed by a bunch of deplorable incels. It delegitimizes the entire opposition - you can’t speak out against it any more without being associated with 4chan and whatever the fuck kiwi farm is.
At least that’s the risk, and that’s why I wish these sites would go die in a hole rather than involve themselves with things I care about.
Tbh, I don’t know why a push by more left leaning sites hasn’t happened? This would at the very least show the broader unpopularity of the age verification law among pretty much both sides.
One problem is that quite a lot of left leaning people support this. Certainly in the UK the Labour Party has been paternalistic for a long time, thinking that the public are not able to look after themselves when it comes to having liberties. On issues like this there’s little between labour and Tories, with them swapping places quite frequently.
We haven’t had a socially liberal government in 70 years at least.
Wikipedia’s case was odd. They tried to fight that the act was illegal rather than them being caught by it was wrong (good for them), but did so by arguing that the Minister was uninformed and acted irrationally, which is a non starter.
The judge said that they can still contest whether they should be caught by the act. It sounded like the judge felt they’d have a decent case.
Literally the worst possible champions of this cause.
First they came for my tendies…
Sir this is a Wednesday’s
Wendy’s sells tendies and i got GBP to spend
They come for the things nobody would be caught dead defending (often even people who privately engage in it) first. Look at how during the thing with payment processors and porn games, some people were saying they didn’t mind if it were just the rape games being banned. Those are used as justification for speech restrictions to the public.
(I don’t even think KiwiFarms should be legal personally, Chris Chan’s story should be considered evidence enough that they’re a harassment forum)
I’m just saying like I oppose the death penalty, but there are certain cases where I’m not going to die on that particular hill. I don’t believe they should be killed, but the context of the moment is going to alienate more people than it convinces.
Same thing here. I oppose identification laws but making that argument in defense of those two is going to make folks think it’s a fanatical position rather than a reasonable one.
It’s far better to argue from a reasonable position and then extend that to other cases than just argue these places should be allowed to continue to weaponize anonymity.
One I heard recently is a murder case. I’d say it sounds like murder but fuck it he deserved to die
Who cares? Nobody else is fighting this crap.
Now 4chan becomes the face of resistance to this shit, and people will think it is only being opposed by a bunch of deplorable incels. It delegitimizes the entire opposition - you can’t speak out against it any more without being associated with 4chan and whatever the fuck kiwi farm is.
At least that’s the risk, and that’s why I wish these sites would go die in a hole rather than involve themselves with things I care about.
Tbh, I don’t know why a push by more left leaning sites hasn’t happened? This would at the very least show the broader unpopularity of the age verification law among pretty much both sides.
One problem is that quite a lot of left leaning people support this. Certainly in the UK the Labour Party has been paternalistic for a long time, thinking that the public are not able to look after themselves when it comes to having liberties. On issues like this there’s little between labour and Tories, with them swapping places quite frequently.
We haven’t had a socially liberal government in 70 years at least.
Nazis.
Wikipedia also sued but lost
Wikipedia’s case was odd. They tried to fight that the act was illegal rather than them being caught by it was wrong (good for them), but did so by arguing that the Minister was uninformed and acted irrationally, which is a non starter.
The judge said that they can still contest whether they should be caught by the act. It sounded like the judge felt they’d have a decent case.