Archive: https://archive.is/qeL2G
For background, Ghey was a transgender teenager who was killed by two other teenagers. Both were sentenced last week to life imprisonment with a minimum of 22 and 20 years respectively. They formulated their plans to kill a number of schoolchildren by befriending them and using plans they researched.
Now Ghey's mother has spoken to the BBC (who else?) to denounce the Internet as the "wild west" and calling for the state to restrict what children can view online in a way that would only work by removing access to the Internet and implementing a UK style Intranet. She also claims that it is impossible for parents to parent their children - therefore the state must intervene - by requiring all technology and what citizens see to be restricted by the state.
As we live in a time where people are treated like children by default, you are assumed to be a child by default (the Online Safety Act requires different treatment for content not "safe for kids" as an example), the desire that people need to be protected from themselves and everything must be done "for the children" and "for your own good".
For example, in North Korea, the general public have no access to the Internet. They do have access to Kwangmyong, the heavily restricted Intranet where everything citizens see and the technology used to access it is wholly controlled by the state.
Another case of not letting a tragedy go to waste.
ETA: Education Minister just told the BBC that they will be expanding age verification to all content not "safe for kids", not just pornography. Their preferred option to be introduced by 2025 is both Government Photo ID and live, on-going facial recognition. They're also not ruling out implementing an Intranet and banning the possession of technological devices for children.
Children should be restricted and we've had a tool to do that for centuries that's highly effective: being a parent.
Why was he (I'm assuming it was mtf) given Internet access with no parental controls enabled? Why were they just allowed to go out to meet some unknown people online without an escort? So much of this seems to be incompetent parenting so need the state to come in.
And this is a state where it's police can't HANDLE violent crime so getting it's ass kicked by third worlders regularly and has let actual criminals become police because their checks are pathetic.
Accept responsibility that you got your son killed by your own inadequate parenting, and let actual predators convince him to fall into their trap. This smells like both invested parties trying to push for more control of the Internet (which ironically would lead to less and they'd probably ditch the UK so they'd lose A LOT of Internet related jobs) and someone trying to avoid the guilt of their own failures.
Their argument is more the case of 'we can't control the Internet so lets shut it down (for children - as a start, because it won't end with them) and build a new Intranet with a locked down OS and surveillance for both parents and the state'. If the UK was to do that, we'd join the likes of North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba and Iran in implementing a walled garden ecosystem - in this proposals case, for children - but we all know it won't end there.
And I suspect the BBC is pushing this heavily because that would be a whole swathe of competition gone for eyes, ear and challenges to their narrative.
The BBC has no allies, they're hated by the left for not being as extreme left as them, the right for their huge bias and normies for their shit programming. From what I hear from my UK friends, the licence fee is being more treated as the same as a streaming service fee with people no longer paying it because the service is shit.
A walled garden approach is too late, and I imagine many global actors would actually be scared to encourage that on a Western country. Not for the backlash of this affecting their social media addicted drones but what if other countries that they DON'T have influence on copy it. What if India, Japan or even states like Florida follow suit. It ends with a fragmentation which they don't want since it means their 'global peer pressure' program using social media no longer is effective.
I suspect it would be a hybrid approach if they did follow through on this - Intranet only for the general public with companies being the middleman for any content that needs to be fetched from the Internet, all vetted and licensed by Ofcom. Private companies with Internet usage policies would have restricted Internet access for business. Only Government officials and the three letter agencies would have unregulated and full access to the Internet.
Probably but knowing how shit they are with cyber security we'll be able to easily get round it like a box asking us if we're over 18 on a porn site.
The younger ones might have a problem as thanks to smartphones and the like their tech skills are being dumbed down thanks to the simplicity of it all, which when they are hired for cyber security makes it even worse.
I'm pretty sure the people who killed him were his classmates. I think the mother just wants to shut down criticism of herself and her dead son's degenerate fetish.