Skip to content

Canada Drops Digital Tax That Infuriated Trump to Restart Trade Talks

Technology
17 15 0
  • Google kills the fact-checking snippet

    Technology technology
    5
    92 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    P
    Mbfc is ok but is itself biased towards Western and Pro-Israel content.
  • Do you remember Windows 95? How about Windows 96?

    Technology technology
    32
    77 Stimmen
    32 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    M
    Ha, thanks for searching!
  • 643 Stimmen
    170 Beiträge
    38 Aufrufe
    F
    I actually wouldn't enjoy talking to most people at work, because that would involve going there instead of doing it from the computer where I already am
  • Affordable Assignments

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 20 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 48 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    evkob@lemmy.caE
    Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • 360 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    F
    If only they didn’t fake it to get their desired result, then maybe it could have been useful. I agree that LiDAR and other technologies should be used in conjunction with regular cameras. I don’t know why anyone would be against that unless they have vested interests. For various reasons though I understand that it isn’t always possible - price being a big one.