| So Alan, I resent ignorant but i'm definitely arrogant enough to tell you when you're misguided. "opt in is a genuine choice"; it all boils down to this, opt in to what exactly? We have no idea and noone is accountable for the list. Given this, it makes no difference whether it's an opt in or an opt out. It should be opposed, loudly. Whether you think these sites are unsuitable for consumption by your kids, it really doesn't matter. Whether you think a tick box on a router is not hard to work out. Whether you think that'd be a reasonable balance (maybe it would). Whether you think the only 2 options are "give me my tick box" or "absolve parental responsibility", it's all by-the-bye; in today's situation. Because there's no accountability for this hidden list. There's no checks or balances. My opinions on list content, like yours, don't mean much in this context. There's a bigger problem to deal with first and it's nothing to do with what sites are on the list. FWIW my personal view, I'm less convinced these days that there even "has to be a balance". The internet is fundamentally a pull medium, not push (despite advertisers best efforts, i can still just drain the battery). So my current thinking leans heavily towards "you can always just choose not to use it". [1] "these sites":
bsdly.net
nuug.no
usenix.org
ukuug.org
flossuk.org
eff.org
amnesty.org.uk
slashdot.org
linuxtoday.com
nostarch.com
blogspot.com
arstechnica.com
openbsd.org
undeadly.org
freebsd.org
geekculture.com
linux.com |