What does any part of this product have to do with discriminating against gay people? This is clearly aimed at parents trying to allow their young children safe access to the internet by blocking adult content. I'm not fan of content blocking in general but you have to concede that parental controls are a very normal in technology and exist for a reason. I find it absurd that some of the comments on this thread are implying that the act of blocking say a 2 year old from stumbling upon pornographic content is abuse.
> What does any part of this product have to do with discriminating against gay people?
It might not discriminate against gay people but it discriminates against child people (including people who have not moved out of their homes yet due to various reasons and are stuck in an ultra-conservative household)
> I find it absurd that some of the comments on this thread are implying that the act of blocking say a 2 year old from stumbling upon pornographic content is abuse.
I am pretty sure that they do not care about 2 year olds. More like they care about 13 or 16 year olds having censored internet access.
I guess it depends on the type of police you interact with.
UK policing is built on community consent. Law enforcement is part of their duty, but so is having a discussion about what the community want’s enforced and how.
It’s not unusual for UK police to kindly ask you to not do something and go home, and only escalate to handcuffs if you continue to ignore them.
I would still disagree with that. Enforcement is part of their role, but not their entire role.
You can absolutely tell a police officer to piss off, and if you’re not doing anything illegal there’s nothing they can or will do.
Police officers don’t just get involved in crimes. They also have a huge role in discouraging asocial (but completely legal) behaviour. The idea that policing can only be done with enforcement and a stick is completely false.
With regards to your point regarding a HN person on the internet. They’re on the internet, not in front of me, that’s a much bigger factor than if they’re a police officer or not.
> With regards to your point regarding a HN person on the internet. They’re on the internet, not in front of me, that’s a much bigger factor than if they’re a police officer or not.
The web context is our context though.
And there is a question about what policing is without enforcement. The reason why police can scare people with mere conversation is because they're not sure about the law in any situation. I presume that an attitude of "I know the law" is a dangerous play anywhere in the world with the police.
Just because American police have become incredibly militarized and rely on violence and the threat of violence to get their way, doesn't mean it has to be that way.
It's also possible to get people to do things because they respect the authority of the officer. "If this cop says I am being an asshat and should stop, maybe I am being an asshat and should stop." This is what people mean when they talk about soft power.
> It's also possible to get people to do things because they respect the authority of the officer. "If this cop says I am being an asshat and should stop, maybe I am being an asshat and should stop." This is what people mean when they talk about soft power.
Blindly following what the authority says is a gateway behaviour to fascism.
Regardless, this does not seem like a soft power and it is going to happen in the police of any counrty. If you do not follow what they said you are going to be in trouble after all. And no matter the country they DO rely on the threat of violence, this is the whole point of the police, their words are backed with a legal (or illegal) threat of violence.
Compare it to some random citizen telling you not to talk loudly because their child is sleeping. They do not have a state-backed ability to cause violence, and if they did try to attack you, you could go to the authorities.
> I thought police were about enforcement, not bilateral conversation with intellectual respect.
If you want to get into semantics, consider that Congress or Parliament (or whatever) are supposed to be that bilateral conversation that formulates policies for police to enforce. So in that respect, you could say they too are "policing" like OP is here.
There is no "enforcement" component to what cloudflare is doing. You can either use it or don't.
Now, you might say children are oppressed when their parents enforce these restrictions on them, but I'd say back that my children live under an oppressive government (me). They don't have the requisite life experience to participate in a high-stakes decision making democracy yet.
> Don’t use it. Problem solved. You’re being a moral policeman too.
I was just talking about you, and what I see as "No, _you_ are the moral policeman." ddevault is going to morally police you? With HN comments? Like having a conversation with the UK police, or Congress making laws?
