Rq is this legitimate? Clicked the link and it redirected me a bunch before sending me to a supposedly-captcha where the website wasn't orientated for mobile. Seemed suspish
"look, Stanley! I won the first round! People think I'm desirable! ...*Attractive,* even! Did you vote for me? I bet you did. Who wouldn't want to vote for me? I'm beautiful! I'm handsome! I'm cute! I'm adorable! I'm rich! I'm– okay, well, yes, I'm not rich, as such, I don't really *need* money, do I, when I've got all this office, but you know what I mean, Stanley. Don't be pedantic, it's "
I like it when I say something stupid and someone reblogs it with a character speech bubble image. Haha, I'm glad you noticed I was posting as Stanley Pines, that was my intention and you're the one who saw that first, good job!
I'm already seeing more discourse than I feel comfortable with and people (it feels like) choosing to interpret other fans opinions in the most negative or reactionary way instead of being empathetic at all, and it is so so so frustrating.
I don't understand why when there are disagreements about things like whether an ending is happy or whether a ship is "canon enough" or anything in that vein it always becomes this stupid competition of "I like it/I dislike it, and I'm right to because I know the show better than you and understand the characters better than you"
I want to scream.
As an example:
There are valid, narrative supported reasons to think that in the situations that happened in the finale Aziraphale and Crowley made a satisfying and in character choice given the circumstances AND there are valid reasons to think that specific situation and choice should have never been what it came down to, there was always a more hopeful and meaningful ending that could have happened if the plot was restructured.
There are valid reasons to be disappointed they didn't kiss (queer people deserve representation and queer couples deserve to kiss onscreen, they kissed once in s2 under more sad/angsty circumstances and that element of their arc wasn't closed in a way that was satisfying to everyone, people wanted to see a happy kiss, people wanted more overt romance and loved these characters and their love story) and valid reasons to be okay with them not kissing (interpreting their relationship through a more aro/ace spec lens and being happy with the other ways their love was shown that didn't center physical expressions of romantic love, or alternatively being satisfied with the fact that a version of the characters got an unashamedly romantic ending) and nobody is fundamentally less a fan for disagreeing with each other on that
THANK YOU for sending this ask like i SO agree with you here, i don’t want this to become a mass blocking event, and different opinions are fine as long as ppl don’t attack each other
PLEASEEEEE listen to this person's wisdom gang it would be genuinely awful if this drove a massive wedge through the fandom, like not now of all times when we're supposed to be screaming crying hugging each other 😭
ok I don't have GIFs so we're gonna have to make do with awkward screenshots but uh
It's very quick in the actual sequence (I had to put it in x0.25 to verify what I thought I'd seen) but here you can see that just before the big deletion happens, Kinger goes to press one key, his finger slips, and it ends up on another. The delete key, specifically.
It's such an easy to miss moment that I wanted to point it out, especially since a lot of theories I've seen so far seem to not know abt it
All this age verification shit is insane. It's obviously just a mass surveillance attempt. It very clearly violates the first amendment of the United States Constitution. It violates the fourth as well. Yet politicians are trying to force it to happen under the lie of protecting kids. Let's look at that lie.
First they started by "banning" porn by requiring ID to even use free porn sites. This already violated the Constitution based mid 00s Supreme Court ruined by the Corrupt Court in control now decided it's fine because they're old and don't understand how the internet works. They literally compared online ID verification to showing your ID to a cashier at a physical store. Uploading your ID to the internet is extremely dangerous and millions of IDs have been leaked long before any of this even started.
But more than that, is porn even dangerous? No, not really. An entire generation group up with unlimited access to porn online and there's no noticeable amount of millennials who were traumatized or damaged from it. We saw things like Goatse, Lemon Party, 2 Girls 1 Cup, beheading on live leaks, and worse. And there's been no known cases of people being traumatized. Labeling porn as "harmful" is literally just an excuse to get people on board with the censorship and control. Studies have shown that children who run into porn online show no developmental differences to those who don't. The one exception is that a small percentage of those studied showed some signs of damage from running into violent porn.
The other argument is that social media as a whole is damaging to kids. This seems very true on the surface level and there's studies that show this. Except those studies are biased and funded by groups with incentives that benefit from this narrative. The reality is that social media is bad for EVERYONE - if used in excess. Literally everything on Earth is bad for you in excess, including water.
The real solution to any possible problem regarding kids on the internet, already exists. The solution is parental controls. Windows, Apple, most Linux, Android, video game consoles..., basically everything that connects online today has very robust parental controls. ISPs even often provide tools that allow parents to shut off their kids' connection remotely from the parent phone. Parental controls can even read every message sent to and from the child. I'd never want to do that to my own kid but if someone is that concerned about their child, that's an option that's far better and safer than requiring a everyone to ID verify.
There's also another solution that's far simpler and saves money: Don't give kids devices.
No child under 13 needs a phone. The age I just listed can be debated but I think it's an objective fact that there's no purpose for a child under 13 to have a phone or personal tablet. If parents simply stopped giving kids devices, the government wouldn't even have this "protecting the kids" excuse to implement mass surveillance. Those studies I mentioned earlier were mostly kids 13-17. Kids in this age range have already had Sex Education and can understand and navigate properly when they run into "inappropriate" content online. We did fine 20 years ago. Kids today can do fine too. The way we should be viewing this is that if a parent gives their child a device with no parental controls, then that parent is consenting to anything their child does online. They're giving their child freedom online as CHOICE the parent made.
Either way, ID verification is not a solution. It removes choice from parents and dismantles the basic rights of everyone.
Edit: I felt it should also point out a few more things. First, that all these resources they're spending trying to push Online ID Verification to "protect kids" is taking away resources that should be used to actually protect kids.
But also... Most people who hurt kids are family members, authority figures like teachers or coaches, and/or other people the child already knows. Most crimes against children happen in their in homes, schools, or community settings, not through the internet. Research shows that less than 1% of crimes against children happen on the internet. Online, it's usually things like grooming. The far more damaging things are done in the real world. And even online, most of the grooming situations are done by people they know in real life. To me, this furthers my theory that this push for Online ID Verification isn't about protecting kids. If they cared about kids, then they'd be focusing on the physical world far more than the digital. So why is there so much focus on the internet when all the true harm is done in the real world?
Take action! What’s the problem? The Government has proposed amendments to the Children Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would give Ministe
"What’s the problem?
The Government has proposed amendments to the Children Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would give Ministers the power to restrict access to "internet services".
This is supposed to give the Government the power to ban under 16s from social media but “internet services" is a very broad definition, which means any online platform can be included. The wording of the amendment means they could do this without even having to prove that these sites are harmful for children.
If a Minister used this power all adults would have to go through a digital ID check to establish their age to access these restricted online services. Anyone refusing to hand over sensitive data to a third-party could face blocks, or time restricted curfews for when services can be accessed.
The Government also wants the power so that they - not parents - can impose a curfew on under 18s' use of the Internet. This could mean that they could, for example, set an 8pm curfew on Snapchat, Fortnite and even sites like Wikipedia!
And while under 18s will be banned from those spaces, adults could have to go through a digital ID-check to use the Internet at night.
In January, the Lords passed an amendment to restrict access to under 16s to ‘user-to-user’ services. While this was also problematic, it was at least more narrow in its focus. The Government has not accepted this amendment. They have instead tabled sweeping 'Henry VIII' powers* that could bring in even more restrictive measures following a national consultation.
These powers could be used by any future Government to restrict access to almost any online service you could imagine.
This is no longer about banning under 16s from social media – it’s about control over all information and forcing adults through digital ID checks to access the Internet.
We have to stop this broad and draconian proposal from becoming law."
They plan to use secondary legislation once the Under 16 ban consultation is over! there will only be a yes or no vote but no debates.
If you live in the UK please contact your MP! Vote could happen as soon as monday!
Find your MP and learn more about them, including details of their parliamentary career and contact information. Find them by name/location,
This coming out just days after it was revealed in the Jeffrey Epstein email dump that powerful people manipulated American and British news, political figures and forums to push transphobia to distract from people looking at their child abuse ring.
This includes chief anti-Corbyn-ite in Labour Peter Mandelson, directly feeding anti-trans stories to UK and US newspapers, actively bullshiting "biological studies" that trans people are idk ontologically evil (we have proof of Epstein pitching this exact thing), and creating /pol/ and then feeding anti-trans conspiracy theories for years until it all boiled over.
And over and over we found out each plank of this argument was rotten from the start but people are choosing to keep the bigotry.
Here is a list of every reason I can find for NOT banning social media for under-16s. This includes both things I have seen from other people and things I have considered myself. I will edit is as I find more.
• Young people in minorites (especially in rural/not-particularly-diverse areas) lose access to their communities
• No more access to "lower priority" peoples' opinions on all matters (big and small)
• Age verification doesn't work anyway*
• Young people would be driven to less regulated / more dangerous internet areas
• For autistic people in particular, loss of access to hyperfixation/special interest material is highly distressing, can result in outbursts involving physical harm
• There is very little to no strong evidence that social media consistently causes mental health problems in young people - it could just as easily be that mentally ill young people simply more often go to social media as an escape from worse pressures of the "real world"
• On the above: social media and "the real world" are no longer fully separable things. For many it is a genuine facet of life, not simply an addiction
• All of the same arguments against children using social media/internet were made when novels/written stories first became widespread media. Nowadays, reading is regarded as the activity of an intellectual
• Genuinely the only emotional outlet for many - this may well be unhealthy, but it is true, and removing that outlet would only worsen the issue
• For the majority of issues around harm coming to under-16s through social media, the harmer is an actual person working through the internet, not the internet itself. (Eg. Brianna Ghey was killed by transphobes, not social media itself.) This is harm that existed before - and can still exist without - social media
• Young people have consistently been the main driver of political/societal change - removing their main medium of communication and info-/idea-sharing drastically limits the ability for any change (GOOD and bad) to occur
• It is a parent's responsibility as a parent to make sure what their child is watching/doing is appropriate. It should not be on platform hosts or creators to censor their own material, nor to make sure every consumer is of age to be consuming that content
• The main news outlet for the majority of people nowadays - not just young people - rather than TV/radio news or newspapers. 16-year-olds are allowed to vote in the UK, but 15-year-olds would not have access to the most helpful news outlet they can have
* On age verification:
• "Social media" includes services like help websites (eg Childline forums), Amazon (user reviews of products are counted as user-generated content, classing it as social media in some opinions), TripAdvisor, and WhatsApp (Statuses, large groupchats and Channels class it as social media)
• Photo verification can be easily fooled; has irrevocably locked adults out of their accounts
• Photo verification provides pictures of both adults and children to untrustworthy and unaccountable third party companies
• Some over-16s do not have the physical identification required, nor the means to obtain it
• Online Safety 101: Do Not Give Your Personal Information To Anyone
• Far from what would realistically be done if the government truly wished for the safety of children (eg increase funding for education and young people's mental health services)
Parental rights are an insane concept the more you think about it, and you should think about it more
Children aren't property, are their own individuals and there's such a thing as objectively safe things at every age
Yes?
So why is it perfectly acceptable to restrict your child's access to all sorts of information, know their exact location at all times, brick their phone and keep them locked up inside the house?
Why is it "normal" for parents to forbid their child from going on school trips and participating in activities, why is a parental signature required for absolutely everything?
I am convinced the people abusing their children like that would do it to everyone if they had the ability. Too bad it's only their youngest family members who can not advocate for themselves
The internet briefly served as a safe haven for everyone who did not have a voice in their community. That's why human rights progressed so much in these few years
And now, the liberties that led to us obtaining these rights are being revoked under the guise of "protecting the youth" from seeing things such as naked bodies and footage from ongoing genocide.
Age verification, beyond simply restricting children from any kind of autonomy, links real-world identity to online activity. Even if data is not supposed to be retained, there are still massive leaks. Such weak points should not be allowed to exist
I have a track record of my predictions coming true. I correctly predicted the effects the advent of AI would have, I correctly predicted what Elon Musk (disgusting) would want to use Twitter for
My prediction this time is that we are soon going to see a massive regression in the rights of minorities, rights related to personal autonomy and precautions against monopolies.
With the aid of AI, Trump, current EU leadership and public ignorance, the authoritarians are winning the culture war, and there is no resistance, because they pinky promised to only go after the kids.
note: Tumblr is one of the last strongholds we have, and they already capitulated to Australian censorship laws without yet having to. Please resist
I think sex repulsed aces should be able to openly embrace their indentity, their "culture" and to be openly happy being themselves without having to say for the 627291 time things like "but it's okay if other people enjoy sexual stuff!" so people don't harrass them, or accuse them of being "puritans".
amandla
gamechangershow
turnnoffyourmind
romaincrisis
origamiaround
blakekathryn
