Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all...
  • Ace@feddit.ukEnglish
    0·
    8 days ago

    That was their initial response. When a petition reaches 10k signatures, it requires a written response from the gvt. When it hits 100k signatures, it requires a “debate” in parliament. The debates are often shams where the topic is tokenly brought up and then routinely dismissed. But it does at least require that they read the signed text.

    In this case I think the argument is poorly made in the petition text. It does not even mention digital security, and the risk of a data leak for ID collectors.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      7 days ago

      Every time one of these petitions comes up it’s always badly worded. I still think that the stop killing games petition was badly worded and gave them an easy out.

      • Ace@feddit.ukEnglish
        0·
        7 days ago

        tbh the petition owner should be part of the parliament debate. at the very least to give a speech. I think that would be a very reasonable thing to accommodate, and would give a chance for the argument to be prepared and properly made. That would be very democratic.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
          0·
          7 days ago

          At the very least I wish these people would announce the wording of the petition in advance of filing the petition, so that it could be worked on. There are lawyers out there who are interested in this course I’m sure they could help, but unfortunately once the petition is filed that’s the wording you have to go with even if it’s inaccurate and loose in its definition.