I’m not entirely sure but I think it might. I don’t see how big tech would voluntarily not scan the rest of their user base in the name of “protecting the children”. This is already done to some extent but the new law would amplify what is already being done.
Ugh yeah the sites you linked said you just wouldn’t be able to use E2E apps unless you consent to upload everything you do. I’m all for protecting children but this is not the way. This is super nefarious in that people outside the country or using VPNs would be unaware they are being surveilled. I would start a movement to create a law to require any E2E app to disclose if it is monitored by a third party
Exactly this! Take it from someone who has worked in content moderation (including CSEM, amongst other things). What is being proposed will not help fight this battle.
And what kills me is that continually trotting out "for the children" as an automatic "gotcha" watchword lessens the public concern for actual children and muddies the proverbial pond with regards to the actual effective/productive methods for actually protecting children.
There should be a rule about using "think of the children"/"support our troops" where you have to actually be doing something that directly and proportionally affects the group you're referencing in a positive manner commensurate with the amount of money that's being funnelled into the effort.
That and no shilling for cancer research donations just to spend it on yachts and advertising or whatever.
Not a big tea drinker myself but my dad did a blind taste test with my sister to determine which was the best tea. I can never remember the results though - they did it a few years back.
Lyon's vs Barry's is a bit closer to vim vs emacs than it is to Coke vs Pepsi. When you think about the fact that the Irish annually consume the 2nd largest amount of tea per capita in the world, behind only Turkey, it makes good sense.
A lot of people misunderstand DEI questions, so here's the theory. DEI questions are for HR, and are not seen by the interviewer. They're used to track how successful applicants from different protected groups and social classes are in interviews. The goal is to make sure people from groups that are historically discriminated against are successful in interviews at a similar rate to people who are not from a protected group or class.
Yes, these questions can feel invasive. As someone from a protected group myself, I've felt, at times, that these questions step over a line. But having seen when they are applied correctly, they do have a positive effect.
Are they perfect? Fuck no. HR can slip up, sometimes deliberately so, and share these answers beyond where they should be shared. Or they're not tracked correctly and merely used as a way to excuse systemic failures.
Can they be used for good? Absolutely yes. Systemic injustices are difficult to correct for, take time, and work to overcome. This is a part of that. But I don't begrudge you exercising your right not to answer.
The UK Civil Service and some large organisations here in the UK are doing this. They've added class/social mobility to the diversity questions, so these all come in the same section as gender/religion/age/etc.
Ireland
Hot