It is "funny" to read every single time "to protect minors online" like there are no adult around them, while technically those technologies are by design to control every single human for online access. It is not because the words are well chosen to sound unpolitical, just for "security", that it make those law/technology not political. It is political.
Speaking of well chosen words. If you have to put "funny" between quotes at the beginning of a sentence, just tell us how you really feel.
I fully understand the people who say it's all about control.
I also understand why politicians feel they have to do something. My wife works with low IQ, low income and otherwise underprivileged kids. The completely unsupervised 'iPad' generation, if you will.
There are no adults in their lives. The 'adults' in their lives are mentally children, emotionally unavailable or working too many hours to do a good job at parenting. You cannot expect them to take any responsibility.
Also, every one of my 3 children has had classmates looking up porn during class. It starts around age 7-8 nowadays and it's always the same demographic.
Let's take an example with a current project of law from Macron (french president):
"Some people can't support their health condition, and they should be helped to die". This end of life law is introduced like a care service for people having issue with health with no happy ending at sight.
The reality of the vision of Macron (liberale capitalist) is: All his actions are made to kill public health care, and aims to open the field to private corporate.
People in need of bed at hospital are denied (public beds are getting more and more cut).
People in need of teams for mental care are denied (public teams are getting more and more cut and overbooked).
People in need are juste denied. They cant' pay? great, they can now legally choose death, it will be legal. Next client please. Everyone who can't pay doesn't need to feel a weight on his family/friend. Yay :/
This law is shown like a right of care, all the population can be legally targeted, while they could just have the right of health care and stay alive in decent condition. This could be another solution, but it doesn't meet Macron (and its sponsors) ultra capitalist's vision of open market.
Note: current concerned people are the first to call a big NOPE on this law.
I think you see where I go:
I think you're highlighting a true and very important problem (I've worked 10 years with children, i confirm your point), but the current solution brings more issues than what it is supposed to solve, same for Macron's end of life law. Having a problem doesn't mean you have to risk the full society in a Orwellien way.
Sorry im not english speaking native, hope you understand more my feeling ?
It might help to broaden your perspective a bit and look at multiple sources, before you spread rumours like they are facts.
Under Emmanuel Macron, France has been debating a law on “assisted dying” (aide à mourir). This is not a general idea that “some people should be helped to die,” but a narrowly defined proposal.
The draft would apply only in very specific situations:
- Adults (18+)
- With a serious and incurable illness
- Often life-threatening or terminal
- Experiencing unbearable suffering
- Who make a voluntary and well-considered request
If approved, the patient would typically self-administer the medication. Only if physically unable would a doctor be allowed to assist.
For context, Netherlands already has a regulated system for euthanasia. This policy allowed my terminally ill grandmother to pass away with dignity. She hated her final days, being bedridden, in pain, and dependent on others for basic needs like taking a shit.
Because of this policy, she was able to say goodbye to everyone she loved, over 100 family members, and make her own decision. No one questioned her choice.
Honestly, that’s the kind of dignity and control I would want for myself if I would ever end up in that situation.
I'm not trying to spread rumours, i said i wasn't english native, sorry if there is a misunderstanding.
Almost 100% of the population that is targeted by this law *should* not need it. When I said "people can't pay [for private paliative healthcare because public healthcare is going to be more and more broken]" I was talking about the people in the criteria of the law, not "all" the people.
I don't have the exact number, but for people under heavy care needs, palliative care, only something like x% (this is the number i cant recall, less says it's a "part") could ask themselves if they should access this end of life because science + our healthcare system cant do much more.
The other part, if they think about end of life is because the health care system failed them. Because in France public palliative healthcare teams are on budget cuts. Those people should have physical and mental healthcare, instead, they have just what the teams can do best as they can cuts after cuts. What happend when you are in paliative care, and there is no team to help your mental health? What could you think about and what does this law allow ?
There is no kind or dignity in Macron's law.
Really, we could save a "part" of that population, but instead priorise to allow them to die, for supposed kindness. True kindness would have been to focus to provide a decent public healthcare system especially in paliative field, for example, right ? (But Macron effort are to destroy the healthcare system and, in my opinion, not a rumour, that it is Orweilien to propose this law in this specific context in France)
I think you should let someone explain Macron's law to you, because you're clearly unable to understand how it works and why it is being proposed even though I wrote a pretty clear explanation for you.
Parisians Métro 's ads screen are equiped with BT scanner, with a hidden sticker on the side to link you with a qrcode to a RGPD output website, where you have to log your private data to register your devices to be not scanned...
Youtube has pretty much always supported RSS and still does. Google killed their RSS reader, but if they wanted to kill RSS they wouldn't put it in their video platform.
When it comes to killing web technology, Google is mostly killing their own weird APIs that nobody ended up using or pruning away code that almost nobody uses according to their statistics.
Can you please clarify? For me, maintaining my own watch lists, that is, per channel RSS feeds, all neatly organized in my RSS aggregator's folders, is the only way to fly.
Am french, I can say that most of the voters whatch TV and mainstream medias.
Owned by the french oligarchs (les milliardaires comme on "aime" les appeler). They actually successfully make people think "right wing" is not left or right (for far right) or even centrist (modem), and all the left spectrum is extremist terrorist. Racism, islamophobia, lgbtphobia, anti feminism, and others kyriarchies are normalized.
What make you think the elections are fairs in this context ?
That's not what the term "free and fair" elections means though. To be considered fair, there can be no government interference of the voting process (ex: ballot stuffing, voter suppression) and its results must be accepted.
Media manipulation exists of course, all democracies have this to a certain extent. But France is actually not too bad compared to other countries.
reply