... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories
wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there,
any chance we can see that here?
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:21:38 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories
wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but
Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there,
any chance we can see that here?
It's a total and utter waste of all our times.
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories
wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there,
any chance we can see that here?
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:21:38 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories
wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but
Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there,
any chance we can see that here?
About as effective as trying to ban junk food for the under 16s.
Someone will help them evade the restrictions.
On 01/12/2024 14:59, David wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:21:38 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories
wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but
Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there,
any chance we can see that here?
About as effective as trying to ban junk food for the under 16s.
Someone will help them evade the restrictions.
The age related restrictions on selling certain items, (e.g. tobacco,
alcohol and knives to name but three), work by placing the
responsibility for enforcement firmly at the door of the vendor.
The Australian legislation operates similarly for Social Media. Under
the legislation, it is the responsibility of Social Media companies to
ensure under-16s are not accessing their platforms using whatever means
and methods they deem appropriate, robust age-verification, (i.e.
something other than a check box that says, "Tick here to confirm you
are over 16"), being one such option with the Social Media companies
facing fines for failing to prevent underage users from accessing their platform.
Children still manage to buy tobacco, alcohol and knives but not in the numbers they would without the legislation in place. I expect the same
will be true of Social Media use in Australia should the legislation
survive the numerous challenges being launched by the Social Media
companies.
Regards
S.P.
What if a social media company chooses to have no-one to hold accountable
in the UK ? And does their business outwith UK banking laws so cannot be >fined or have assets impounded.
Facebook employs nearly 3,000 staff in the UK, the majority of which are
in sales and marketing (because the tech staff are primarily in the US).
They wouldn't be there to begin with if they weren't making money for
the company, so having to sack them all and close the office would be a significant loss.
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:50:28 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Facebook employs nearly 3,000 staff in the UK, the majority of which are
in sales and marketing (because the tech staff are primarily in the US).
They wouldn't be there to begin with if they weren't making money for
the company, so having to sack them all and close the office would be a
significant loss.
Supposed I advanced a suggestion that the aforementioned rocketeer has demonstrated a clear disregard for the norms of business by allowing
Twitters revenues to fall ?
Also I can't think of a better way to get people to queue up to install
an app than officially banning it.
Assuming you use Social Media, I invite you to plug the phrase: "What
does [Social Media company of your choice] know about me" into a Search >Engine of your choosing.
Hopefully, the first few results will provide details of not only what
the companies know, but how to obtain a copy of it.
I further invite you to download a copy of your data and peruse it at
your leisure.
You will find, for example, that, not only do they know the car you
drive, but they know when you bought your car and your cycle for
replacing your car along with details of the credit cards you use most >frequently plus an awful lot more. And I really do mean an awful lot more
If you think they can obtain that information without also having a
rough idea of your age, (in the instant case, they only need to know
"under 16", "likely to be under 16", "likely to be 16 or older" and >"definitely over 16"), but they know it much more accurately than this
as it is a key metric upon which they sell advertising which, lest
you've forgotten, is how they actually make money, then it is my sad
duty to inform you that you are very much mistaken.
On 01/12/2024 14:59, David wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:21:38 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories
wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but
Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there,
any chance we can see that here?
About as effective as trying to ban junk food for the under 16s.
Someone will help them evade the restrictions.
The age related restrictions on selling certain items, (e.g. tobacco,
alcohol and knives to name but three), work by placing the
responsibility for enforcement firmly at the door of the vendor.
The Australian legislation operates similarly for Social Media. Under
the legislation, it is the responsibility of Social Media companies to
ensure under-16s are not accessing their platforms using whatever means
and methods they deem appropriate, robust age-verification, (i.e.
something other than a check box that says, "Tick here to confirm you
are over 16"), being one such option with the Social Media companies
facing fines for failing to prevent underage users from accessing their platform.
Children still manage to buy tobacco, alcohol and knives but not in the numbers they would without the legislation in place.
I expect the same
will be true of Social Media use in Australia should the legislation
survive the numerous challenges being launched by the Social Media
companies.
On 01/12/2024 16:54, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/12/2024 14:59, David wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:21:38 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories >>>> wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but
Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there, >>>> any chance we can see that here?
About as effective as trying to ban junk food for the under 16s.
Someone will help them evade the restrictions.
I doubt if they will need any help. I don't see how any social media
platform can reliably establish the age of any potential user, or how
they can possibly guard against misrepresentation as to age.
Assuming you use Social Media, I invite you to plug the phrase: "What
does [Social Media company of your choice] know about me" into a Search Engine of your choosing.
Hopefully, the first few results will provide details of not only what
the companies know, but how to obtain a copy of it.
I further invite you to download a copy of your data and peruse it at
your leisure.
You will find, for example, that, not only do they know the car you
drive, but they know when you bought your car and your cycle for
replacing your car along with details of the credit cards you use most frequently plus an awful lot more. And I really do mean an awful lot more
If you think they can obtain that information without also having a
rough idea of your age, (in the instant case, they only need to know
"under 16", "likely to be under 16", "likely to be 16 or older" and "definitely over 16"), but they know it much more accurately than this
as it is a key metric upon which they sell advertising which, lest
you've forgotten, is how they actually make money, then it is my sad
duty to inform you that you are very much mistaken.
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:50:28 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Facebook employs nearly 3,000 staff in the UK, the majority of which are >>> in sales and marketing (because the tech staff are primarily in the US). >>> They wouldn't be there to begin with if they weren't making money for
the company, so having to sack them all and close the office would be a
significant loss.
Supposed I advanced a suggestion that the aforementioned rocketeer has
demonstrated a clear disregard for the norms of business by allowing
Twitters revenues to fall ?
Also I can't think of a better way to get people to queue up to install
an app than officially banning it.
They can queue all they like, but if it's not available from the
App Stores then 99% of them simply won't be able to install it.
It has always amused me how vocal social media refuseniks totally misunderstand how it works.
Even if you have zero online presence, your existence and details can be quite easily inferred from the existence and details of anyone you know
who *is* on social media.
And with the ability of "AI" to swallow vast amounts of data and perform
some pretty nifty pattern matching, that is only going to intensify.
Back in the wild pre GDPR days of Facebook, when someone signed up, it
was very common for all their contacts to receive an invitation. Which
meant even if an invitee wasn't and didn't sign up, Facebook already knew
who they were, who their friends were and so on.
TL;DR the social media outfits know their "known unknowns" so to speak.
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 18:47:47 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 18:35:14 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:50:28 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Facebook employs nearly 3,000 staff in the UK, the majority of which >>>>> are in sales and marketing (because the tech staff are primarily in
the US).
They wouldn't be there to begin with if they weren't making money for >>>>> the company, so having to sack them all and close the office would be >>>>> a significant loss.
Supposed I advanced a suggestion that the aforementioned rocketeer has >>>> demonstrated a clear disregard for the norms of business by allowing
Twitters revenues to fall ?
Also I can't think of a better way to get people to queue up to
install an app than officially banning it.
They can queue all they like, but if it's not available from the App
Stores then 99% of them simply won't be able to install it.
You're probably right. But a well-funded campaign to subvert a good
proportion of all android phones' OS security by semi-automated online
means could have consequences.
Musk has already suggested donating $100million to Reform.
Just to indicate the possible reaches of opposition.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 18:35:14 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:50:28 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Facebook employs nearly 3,000 staff in the UK, the majority of which
are in sales and marketing (because the tech staff are primarily in
the US).
They wouldn't be there to begin with if they weren't making money for
the company, so having to sack them all and close the office would be
a significant loss.
Supposed I advanced a suggestion that the aforementioned rocketeer has
demonstrated a clear disregard for the norms of business by allowing
Twitters revenues to fall ?
Also I can't think of a better way to get people to queue up to
install an app than officially banning it.
They can queue all they like, but if it's not available from the App
Stores then 99% of them simply won't be able to install it.
You're probably right. But a well-funded campaign to subvert a good proportion of all android phones' OS security by semi-automated online
means could have consequences.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 18:35:14 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:50:28 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Facebook employs nearly 3,000 staff in the UK, the majority of which are >>>> in sales and marketing (because the tech staff are primarily in the US). >>>> They wouldn't be there to begin with if they weren't making money for
the company, so having to sack them all and close the office would be a >>>> significant loss.
Supposed I advanced a suggestion that the aforementioned rocketeer has
demonstrated a clear disregard for the norms of business by allowing
Twitters revenues to fall ?
Also I can't think of a better way to get people to queue up to install
an app than officially banning it.
They can queue all they like, but if it's not available from the
App Stores then 99% of them simply won't be able to install it.
You're probably right. But a well-funded campaign to subvert a good proportion
of all android phones' OS security by semi-automated online means could have consequences.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:44:11 +0000, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
Assuming you use Social Media, I invite you to plug the phrase: "What
does [Social Media company of your choice] know about me" into a Search
Engine of your choosing.
Hopefully, the first few results will provide details of not only what
the companies know, but how to obtain a copy of it.
I further invite you to download a copy of your data and peruse it at
your leisure.
You will find, for example, that, not only do they know the car you
drive, but they know when you bought your car and your cycle for
replacing your car along with details of the credit cards you use most
frequently plus an awful lot more. And I really do mean an awful lot more >>
If you think they can obtain that information without also having a
rough idea of your age, (in the instant case, they only need to know
"under 16", "likely to be under 16", "likely to be 16 or older" and
"definitely over 16"), but they know it much more accurately than this
as it is a key metric upon which they sell advertising which, lest
you've forgotten, is how they actually make money, then it is my sad
duty to inform you that you are very much mistaken.
To be fair, though, they only know most of that about most of us because
most of us either don't care that they know or, at least, have no incentive to prevent them knowing. It is not, however, particularly difficult to set
up a profile using details unrelated to your real life existance, if you
have sufficient wit and determination so to do. That, after all, is one of the reasons why one of the biggest problems on social media is frauds and scams, because the algorithms intended to detect them and their perpetrators are insufficiently reliable.
Having said that, of course, setting up a fake profile isn't going to be
much use if your intention is to connect with real life people such as your friends and family.
Mark
On 02/12/2024 14:44, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/12/2024 16:54, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/12/2024 14:59, David wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:21:38 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories >>>>> wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but >>>>> Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there, >>>>> any chance we can see that here?
About as effective as trying to ban junk food for the under 16s.
Someone will help them evade the restrictions.
I doubt if they will need any help. I don't see how any social media
platform can reliably establish the age of any potential user, or how
they can possibly guard against misrepresentation as to age.
Assuming you use Social Media, I invite you to plug the phrase: "What
does [Social Media company of your choice] know about me" into a Search
Engine of your choosing.
Hopefully, the first few results will provide details of not only what
the companies know, but how to obtain a copy of it.
I further invite you to download a copy of your data and peruse it at
your leisure.
You will find, for example, that, not only do they know the car you
drive, but they know when you bought your car and your cycle for
replacing your car along with details of the credit cards you use most
frequently plus an awful lot more. And I really do mean an awful lot more >>
If you think they can obtain that information without also having a
rough idea of your age, (in the instant case, they only need to know
"under 16", "likely to be under 16", "likely to be 16 or older" and
"definitely over 16"), but they know it much more accurately than this
as it is a key metric upon which they sell advertising which, lest
you've forgotten, is how they actually make money, then it is my sad
duty to inform you that you are very much mistaken.
So, they have or can divine a 'rough idea of your age'. Where exactly
is the line to be drawn between those to be allowed a social media
account and those not?
Is just 'a rough idea' good enough reason to deny someone an account?
What if a person is found to use juvenile playground jibes online for example?
On 02/12/2024 16:25, Jethro_uk wrote:
It has always amused me how vocal social media refuseniks totally
misunderstand how it works.
Even if you have zero online presence, your existence and details
can be
quite easily inferred from the existence and details of anyone you know
who *is* on social media.
And with the ability of "AI" to swallow vast amounts of data and
perform
some pretty nifty pattern matching, that is only going to intensify.
Back in the wild pre GDPR days of Facebook, when someone signed up,
it
was very common for all their contacts to receive an invitation. Which
meant even if an invitee wasn't and didn't sign up, Facebook already knew
who they were, who their friends were and so on.
TL;DR the social media outfits know their "known unknowns" so to
speak.
At best, though, it's still just profiling, like the police sometimes
use to focus on 'likely' criminals when they have no idea.
However:
"The effectiveness of police suspect profiling, also known as criminal >profiling or offender profiling, is a controversial topic.
On the whole the approaches don't really contribute that much to
catching criminals. Pinizotto found that in 192 cases
in which profiles were used, the profile contributed to the
identification of the suspect in only 15 of the cases solved,
suggesting that Offender Profiling isn't effective the majority of the
time."
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/1782/A-Level/Psychology/Discuss-the-ef >fectiveness-of-Offender-Profiling/
You may claim that social media profiling is much more useful and
precise than that, but I remain to be convinced whatever they say.
Many adults behave like children. Many children can pass as adults. >Especially if they lie.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/12/2024 14:44, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/12/2024 16:54, Norman Wells wrote:
On 01/12/2024 14:59, David wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:21:38 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
... in Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
Now this is traditionally seen as a right-wing thing to do (the Tories >>>>>> wanted to do that, but they eventually didn't have los cojones), but >>>>>> Australia has a left-leaning government. If they can do it over there, >>>>>> any chance we can see that here?
About as effective as trying to ban junk food for the under 16s.
Someone will help them evade the restrictions.
I doubt if they will need any help. I don't see how any social media >>>> platform can reliably establish the age of any potential user, or how
they can possibly guard against misrepresentation as to age.
Assuming you use Social Media, I invite you to plug the phrase: "What
does [Social Media company of your choice] know about me" into a Search
Engine of your choosing.
Hopefully, the first few results will provide details of not only what
the companies know, but how to obtain a copy of it.
I further invite you to download a copy of your data and peruse it at
your leisure.
You will find, for example, that, not only do they know the car you
drive, but they know when you bought your car and your cycle for
replacing your car along with details of the credit cards you use most
frequently plus an awful lot more. And I really do mean an awful lot more >>>
If you think they can obtain that information without also having a
rough idea of your age, (in the instant case, they only need to know
"under 16", "likely to be under 16", "likely to be 16 or older" and
"definitely over 16"), but they know it much more accurately than this
as it is a key metric upon which they sell advertising which, lest
you've forgotten, is how they actually make money, then it is my sad
duty to inform you that you are very much mistaken.
So, they have or can divine a 'rough idea of your age'. Where exactly
is the line to be drawn between those to be allowed a social media
account and those not?
Is just 'a rough idea' good enough reason to deny someone an account?
For an account with a private company, why not.
A rough idea is certainly good enough to engage a requirement for
additional evidence of eligibility.
Unless you can establish that a company has an obligation to provide
service I see no reason why they cannot use whatever arbitrary criteria
they like.
What if a person is found to use juvenile playground jibes online for
example?
A company could exclude such people if they wished to.
To be fair, though, they only know most of that about most of us because
most of us either don't care that they know or, at least, have no incentive >to prevent them knowing. It is not, however, particularly difficult to set
up a profile using details unrelated to your real life existance, if you
have sufficient wit and determination so to do. That, after all, is one of >the reasons why one of the biggest problems on social media is frauds and >scams, because the algorithms intended to detect them and their perpetrators >are insufficiently reliable.
Having said that, of course, setting up a fake profile isn't going to be
much use if your intention is to connect with real life people such as your >friends and family.
In message <hflrkj9h4c3k9jvrhq0ho3j3mifvhbuvjs@4ax.com>, at 16:00:39 on
Mon, 2 Dec 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
Having said that, of course, setting up a fake profile isn't going to be
much use if your intention is to connect with real life people such as
your friends and family.
For years I posted on Usenet as "Meldrew from Meldreth", but most people
knew who I was. In addition to the eponymous ones, have similar joke
profiles on Twitter(sic), Facebook, Instagram, Gmail etc. (Yes, I know,
but Gmail is a portal to much more than just email).
I find it quite fun to discover who the person behind online 'handles'
is. For example, and I'm sure he'll forgive me, The Todal.
In message <lr6cu4Flt4iU3@mid.individual.net>, at 18:34:44 on Mon, 2 Dec 2024, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
On 02/12/2024 16:25, Jethro_uk wrote:
It has always amused me how vocal social media refuseniks totally
misunderstand how it works.
Even if you have zero online presence, your existence and details
can be
quite easily inferred from the existence and details of anyone you know
who *is* on social media.
And with the ability of "AI" to swallow vast amounts of data and
perform
some pretty nifty pattern matching, that is only going to intensify.
Back in the wild pre GDPR days of Facebook, when someone signed up, it >>> was very common for all their contacts to receive an invitation. Which
meant even if an invitee wasn't and didn't sign up, Facebook already
knew
who they were, who their friends were and so on.
TL;DR the social media outfits know their "known unknowns" so to
speak.
At best, though, it's still just profiling, like the police sometimes
use to focus on 'likely' criminals when they have no idea.
However:
"The effectiveness of police suspect profiling, also known as criminal
profiling or offender profiling, is a controversial topic.
On the whole the approaches don't really contribute that much to
catching criminals. Pinizotto found that in 192 cases
192.com is indeed a useful tool.
in which profiles were used, the profile contributed to the
identification of the suspect in only 15 of the cases solved,
suggesting that Offender Profiling isn't effective the majority of the
time."
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/1782/A-Level/Psychology/Discuss-the-ef
fectiveness-of-Offender-Profiling/
You may claim that social media profiling is much more useful and
precise than that, but I remain to be convinced whatever they say.
Many adults behave like children.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 21:00:00 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Musk has already suggested donating $100million to Reform.
Just to indicate the possible reaches of opposition.
Aren't their rules about foreign donations to political parties?
On 2 Dec 2024 at 21:00:00 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 18:47:47 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 18:35:14 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:50:28 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Facebook employs nearly 3,000 staff in the UK, the majority of
which are in sales and marketing (because the tech staff are
primarily in the US).
They wouldn't be there to begin with if they weren't making money
for the company, so having to sack them all and close the office
would be a significant loss.
Supposed I advanced a suggestion that the aforementioned rocketeer
has demonstrated a clear disregard for the norms of business by
allowing Twitters revenues to fall ?
Also I can't think of a better way to get people to queue up to
install an app than officially banning it.
They can queue all they like, but if it's not available from the App
Stores then 99% of them simply won't be able to install it.
You're probably right. But a well-funded campaign to subvert a good
proportion of all android phones' OS security by semi-automated online
means could have consequences.
Musk has already suggested donating $100million to Reform.
Just to indicate the possible reaches of opposition.
Aren't their rules about foreign donations to political parties?
That those who want them can and do get them very easily by various
means is proof enough that legislation is ineffective.
On 2024-12-02 18:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 18:35:14 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Also I can't think of a better way to get people to queue up to install >>>> an app than officially banning it.
They can queue all they like, but if it's not available from the
App Stores then 99% of them simply won't be able to install it.
You're probably right. But a well-funded campaign to subvert a good proportion
of all android phones' OS security by semi-automated online means could have >> consequences.
Can you not just turn on the option to allow untrusted apps and download
an APK? Nothing that involves poking too deep.
Le 02/12/2024 à 18:17, Norman Wells a écrit :
That those who want them can and do get them very easily by various
means is proof enough that legislation is ineffective.
You are grossly overestimating today's youth. They are mostly tech-
ignorant. They can't use PCs or laptops (seen this at work), let alone
use a printer or anything mechanical. Best they can do is install an app
from the official store.
If they are intelligent enough to bypass censorship, they deserve to be online on social media, but it's probably 0.001% of the lot.
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 21:09:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't their rules about foreign donations to political parties?
If there are in the UK, then I'm not aware of them.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:59:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_ukloans-great-britain/who-can-you-accept-donations-and-loans
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 21:09:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't their rules about foreign donations to political parties?
If there are in the UK, then I'm not aware of them.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV
Chapter II Restrictions on donations to registered parties:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/part/IV/chapter/II
Helpfully summarised by the Electoral Commission here:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-party-donations-and-
or https://tinyurl.com/cuutuhx4
Put simply, donors have to be UK based in order to be permissible. The
law is drafted so as to create a list of permissible sources, rather
than a list of non-permissible sources.
However, none of this would prevent Musk making a donation to a UK
politician or party, since he can simply direct that it is made by
Twitter UK Ltd (company number 07653064), which is a permissible source.
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 13:19:39 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:59:01 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 21:09:29 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
Aren't their rules about foreign donations to political parties?
If there are in the UK, then I'm not aware of them.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV
Chapter II Restrictions on donations to registered parties:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/part/IV/chapter/II
Helpfully summarised by the Electoral Commission here:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-party-donations-and- >loans-great-britain/who-can-you-accept-donations-and-loans
or https://tinyurl.com/cuutuhx4
Put simply, donors have to be UK based in order to be permissible. The
law is drafted so as to create a list of permissible sources, rather
than a list of non-permissible sources.
However, none of this would prevent Musk making a donation to a UK
politician or party, since he can simply direct that it is made by
Twitter UK Ltd (company number 07653064), which is a permissible source.
There is some amusement in the fact that the previous Tory governments >fudging of reform around dodgy donations (obviously to skew things in
their favour) looks likely to cost them dearly if Musk does bankroll
reform.
On 03/12/2024 10:36, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Le 02/12/2024 à 18:17, Norman Wells a écrit :
That those who want them can and do get them very easily by various
means is proof enough that legislation is ineffective.
You are grossly overestimating today's youth. They are mostly tech-
ignorant. They can't use PCs or laptops (seen this at work), let alone
use a printer or anything mechanical. Best they can do is install an
app from the official store.
If they are intelligent enough to bypass censorship, they deserve to
be online on social media, but it's probably 0.001% of the lot.
Since they spend their entire lives online, that doesn't ring at all true.
While they get what they want, all is well with the world. Start taking
it away and there'll be tantrums and effective conspiracies to get round
any restrictions. They're very connected, far more savvy than you
appear to be giving them credit for, and quite adept at lying about
things like their age. As many parents have discovered over the years.
On 03/12/2024 08:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <hflrkj9h4c3k9jvrhq0ho3j3mifvhbuvjs@4ax.com>, at 16:00:39
on Mon, 2 Dec 2024, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>remarked:
Having said that, of course, setting up a fake profile isn't going
to be much use if your intention is to connect with real life people >>>such as your friends and family.
For years I posted on Usenet as "Meldrew from Meldreth", but most
people knew who I was. In addition to the eponymous ones, have
similar joke profiles on Twitter(sic), Facebook, Instagram, Gmail
etc. (Yes, I know, but Gmail is a portal to much more than just email).
I find it quite fun to discover who the person behind online
'handles' is. For example, and I'm sure he'll forgive me, The Todal.
Isn't that akin to stalking?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:27:29 |
| Calls: | 9,821 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,389 |