@darrengrimes It makes a few parents who have no interest in raising their own kids feel a bit better about the fact that government overreach is supposedly taking the responsibility off their hands.
@writtenoff_mufc If you can’t raise kids without relying on government overreach you’ve failed as a parent.
This is an erosion of freedom that will affect all of us, and a stepping stone to further restrictions, bans, and government surveillance.
@realObinnaJoel@SkyNews@BethRigby The fact he’s received a backhander to omit Bluesky from the ban says all we need to know about the motive behind this, and it’s not protecting children.
@SkyNews@BethRigby It’s so transparently obvious that this has NOTHING to do with the protection of children, I don’t understand how anyone could possibly be happy with this level of government overreach.
If you think this was a necessary step for your children then you’ve failed as a parent.
@Suffragent_ Bluesky is an important tool for nonces to groom children, Starmer would become very unpopular with his close associates and voter base if he included that in the ban.
@AlbonosReds It’s just a stepping stone to eroding the freedom of everyone.
This has nothing to do with protecting children, which is why Starmer has likely been paid off to omit Bluesky from the ban, a degenerate cesspit of a website that is swarming with self proclaimed nonces.
@BasilTheGreat Bluesky is an important tool for nonces, if Starmer banned that he wouldn’t have any friends left.
But I also wouldn’t be at all surprised if he’d received some kind of payoff to not ban it.