Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government. Like maybe Adolescence or basically any mention of the NHS. The crimes they cite like child grooming or terrorism/hate being incited sound pretty terrible too, but I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it.
cs02rm0 · 7h ago
The UK is becoming increasingly authoritarian in ways that feel increasingly antagonistic to the majority of the population, regardless of political party. Taxes are rising (with tax take falling), crimes are going unchecked, just mentioning increased immigration gets a lot of people's backs up, but as GDP per capita continues to stall and even fall, the pressure it puts on services is a factor for many. And we're seeing those with a few quid to rub together leave, but as long as those people leaving are straight, white males, or their families, they're being told "good riddance" regardless of the brain drain and loss of tax income.
On the NHS, I tried for years to push for improvements to switch to digital cancer screening invitations after they missed my mother (offering to build the software for free), which is now happening, but suggesting the NHS isn't perfect is against the religion here. My sister who works in NHS DEI hasn't spoken to me since publishing a book on it.
Every time someone with the finances, vision and ability leaves I think the situation gets a little bit worse, it increases the proportion of people remaining willing to put up with all of it. Anecdotally, many of my friends have already left, some of the older generation want to leave but feel tied in. My flight out is in 6 weeks. Good riddance, no doubt.
areoform · 43m ago
> Taxes are rising (with tax take falling)
> just mentioning increased immigration
One of these seems like the solution to the other.
> as long as those people leaving are straight, white males, or their families, they're being told "good riddance" regardless of the brain drain and loss of tax income
Having UK work experience and having talked to thousands of british folks over a decade, I find this hard to believe.
I started working with folks from the UK right at the start when social media really took off, and I personally think that what ails the UK is the same as what ails the world. Too much social media.
The UK has always been an empire in decline, but the wheels didn't come off until everyone became glued to feeds. It's Garbage In, Garbage Out. If your view of reality is driven by stuff that you see online, it's a distorted lens which then leads to distorted decision making that then leads to authoritarian creep.
Just my 2¢.
Arkhaine_kupo · 5m ago
There is an old irish song called "The man of the daily mail", I think they could use your views to update the song for our times.
mijoharas · 1h ago
> but suggesting the NHS isn't perfect is against the religion here
I don't know anyone that doesn't complain about the state of the NHS. The only time I've heard anyone defending it would be when compared to countries without national healthcare (e.g. America).
ap99 · 44m ago
I'm an American living in London and I'd gladly return to the US just for the healthcare.
Granted I'm in tech so that's steady employment with benefits, but there you go.
scarface_74 · 13m ago
The one country whose healthcare I’ve studied in depth aside from the US is Costa Rica. Our Plan B is to establish permanent residence there and starting next year we will be spending a couple of months there every winter and maybe in July.
Costa Rica has an affordable all inclusive public health care system
(Caja). But you can also pay for extra for private healthcare. Is it the same in the UK?
monkey_monkey · 4m ago
> But you can also pay for extra for private healthcare. Is it the same in the UK?
Yes
mytailorisrich · 1h ago
That's different. Yes, everyone complains about the state of the NHS but the "religion" is that the NHS may not be criticised itself. So it is in a bad state because it does not receive enough money, that's it, nothing else. Any suggestion that the organisation itself might be improved or, god forbid, that patients might pay is indeed usually seen as "blasphemy".
riv991 · 46m ago
> So it is in a bad state because it does not receive enough money, that's it
In real terms the budget is the largest it's ever been, it's a relic of the time when people worked and died shortly (a decade) after retiring, not when they live for 30+ years longer.
jampekka · 46m ago
> god forbid, that patients might pay is indeed usually seen as "blasphemy".
There are policies that are wildly popular. Free public healthcare is one of such policies in many countries, and perhaps for a good reason.
No comments yet
TheOtherHobbes · 24m ago
The UK spends about 18% less per capita on the NHS than the EU14 countries do on their health systems.
A lot of that money has gone on stealth privatisation through inefficient outsourcing of contract staff and PFI of infrastructure.
So the actual standard of care is far lower than the funding suggests. And it has been deliberately run down so a US-style system can be implemented.
So yes, the organisation should be improved, but in the exact opposite direction to the one you're suggesting.
The UK's real problem is that it's run by an out-of-touch inbred aristocracy with vast inherited wealth, working through a political system which prioritises stealth corruption over public service.
They don't see why they should contribute anything to the welfare of the peasants. The obligation is all one way - from the peasants to the gentry.
And there's a layer of middle class professionals who have convinced themselves they're the gentry, even though they can't afford to pay their school fees, never mind maintain a huge estate.
So - private ownership good, public spending bad. More sensible countries don't have this attitude problem, and are proud their public services actually benefit the public.
mytailorisrich · 15m ago
If you go to, say, France, you'll find that healthcare isn't free at the point of use and that the system is much more private that in the UK. I believe this is so in many other European countries, too.
So public/NHS vs private/US system is a false dichotomy, and "free at the point of use" is a red herring.
dmix · 7m ago
Same with Canada, they have public health insurance run by provinces which private hospitals bill to. While the UK has a giant national public hospital system run across an entire country (NHS England, NHS Scotland etc).
agentcoops · 1h ago
I moved to the UK with my family just before the Brexit vote and left last year. I love the country, but the changes I saw over that time period were so stark -- and, similarly, so many of the friends I made in that time had already left the country.
That I could have multiple negative NHS experiences relating to missed cancer diagnoses of friends in that relatively short span of time is suggestive of a real problem. The institution seemed to have less of an issue with elder care (in the US, the phantom menace posed by Obamacare or any governmental involvement in healthcare was meant to be "death panels" deciding the fate of grandparents) than with avoiding at all costs detecting potential long-term problems in the young. It's a 'rational' fear in the sense, as you note, that such cases put tremendous pressure on services, but there's no world where the best health outcome is refusing to screen your working age population.
williamdclt · 1h ago
> suggesting the NHS isn't perfect is against the religion here
That's really not my experience. In fact, almost everyone is surprised when I suggest that despite its many problems, the NHS does better for the people than most modern countries' health systems.
graemep · 53m ago
I am certainly surprised by that suggestion.
No one I know who has lived in France or Germany or any developed country other than the US thinks the NHS is better than the systems in those countries.
scrollop · 1h ago
"suggesting the NHS isn't perfect is against the religion here."
Errr, what? A lot of people complain about the NHS, whilst conceding there are issues that are difficult to address eg staff, lack of investment etc.
everfrustrated · 32s ago
Complaining is the British pastime so complaining about the NHS is grandfathered in. However if you try and offer any suggestion for improvements to the NHS you soon realise you cannot criticise it in any meaningful form and be decried a blasphemous heretic.
alextingle · 44m ago
The UK has a low crime rate, even compared to its peers - other rich northern European countries.
Hysteria about crime is just far right propaganda.
(Obviously keeping crime low is important, and a generally low crime rate doesn't reduce the impact on those who are victims. But pretending that high crime is a pressing problem for the country as a whole is disingenuous)
wsintra2022 · 39m ago
But… you have discrepancies like the town of Middlesbrough , a small North Yorkshire town with crime rates on par with large European cities and rampant poverty and drug abuse with no clear way out because no one seems willing to invest in the once infant Hercules.
nemomarx · 29m ago
I hear about the North turning into a kind of rust belt as the population concentrates around London. I'm not sure how you solve that in a finance centered economy with no local industry - small towns are struggling across the developed world for similar reasons.
oneeyedpigeon · 6h ago
> as long as those people leaving are straight, white males, or their families, they're being told "good riddance"
This is totally untrue. As long as it's selfish, unpatriotic people leaving, I couldn't care less what their skin color or sexual orientation is.
modo_mario · 5h ago
Well if they are you're probably getting a greater amount of other selfish, unpatriotic people to replace them so idk if it's a net gain from your pov.
oneeyedpigeon · 3h ago
I doubt that's the case; people who want to live in a country are usually more patriotic than those who don't want to live in it, in my experience.
hardlianotion · 4m ago
What is your experience of this?
canadiantim · 59m ago
Sounds like you’re actually proving the parents point…
cs02rm0 · 5h ago
Patriotism is the only thing that's kept me here so long, despite what Emily Thornberry thinks of it.
Selfish? I'll take that. I'm choosing to put the future of my children ahead of those who couldn't care less about them in any respect.
ignoramous · 1h ago
> mentioning increased immigration gets a lot of people's backs up
Skilled immigration or the Channel crossing?
cs02rm0 · 1h ago
Either, both.
piker · 6h ago
> Every time someone with the finances, vision and ability leaves I think the situation gets a little bit worse, it increases the proportion of people remaining willing to put up with all of it.
This is the issue.
colinb · 6h ago
I left around the time of Brexit so I have no useful opinion on the recent financial/admin state of the UK, though it seems from afar that austerity has done the place no favours. But...
- this kind of authoritarian nonsense is just what Home Secretaries do. David Blunkett brought in RIP (then, to his very slight credit, changed his mind). Jack 'boot' Straw was famous for his I-AM-THE-LAWing. I don't think the Tories are any better.
- No, criticizing the NHS is not against the religion there. The newspapers are forever getting in digs about long waits, unpopular (but perfectly rational) decision from NICE about what drugs to pay for, and junior doctors and their apparent insistence on being paid properly.
- And with that in mind, having lived in three countries (four if you accept that the NHS in England and Scotland are different) I personally think the NHS is fucking fantastic. Someone close to me was diagnosed with a serious illness and immediately swept up in a production line of modern, effective treatment. Sure, it was somewhat impersonal, the biscuits are rubbish, and they were a widget on the production line, but they're also still alive ten years later, and we still have a house and savings.
- kudos to your sister. The UK is an ethnically diverse place, one of the least racist and divided that I've seen, but - like everywhere else - imperfect. The NHS always seemed to me to be a reflection of what things could be elsewhere with doctors, nurses and cleaners hired from all over the world. [which reminds me that while the right-wing press hates the NHS for being free, the left wing press occasionally hates the NHS for bringing in medical staff from poorer parts of the world. They just can't win]
cs02rm0 · 6h ago
- No, criticizing the NHS is not against the religion there. The newspapers are forever getting in digs about long waits, unpopular (but perfectly rational) decision from NICE about what drugs to pay for, and junior doctors and their apparent insistence on being paid properly.
This is exactly what I'm saying. The NHS are seen as perfect by some. All criticism is digs that are wrong.
I'm pro-NHS. But this perspective that it's infallible is beyond all reality.
vintagedave · 3h ago
> All criticism is digs that are wrong.
Often, when people criticize the NHS they have an ulterior motive, like privatisation. Consider all the political difficulties the NHS has had in the past few years. As such, negative remarks can be read or misread as dogwhistles for other views, so they're something that have to be phrased carefully and within context.
I was unclear: did you publish a book, or did your sister?
In general, for something both as key and as endangered as the NHS is, criticism isn't always useful -- support is. Problems can be recognised and addressed through support.
cs02rm0 · 1h ago
I did.
I'm not anti-NHS, I've no agenda to see it privatised, I just want it to be better. I tried many, many private routes first. I tried NHS England, NHS Digital, the Innovation Service, AHSNs (many sections having since been renamed/reorganised). About 20 different contact points over two or three years, most of which seemed inappropriate but I made sure if anyone told me it was someone else's responsibility I checked with them.
The problems had already been recognised through public inquiries and yet were still ongoing.
I even offered to build the software for free, which, hopefully, for an individual dealing with an organisation with a budget into the hundreds of billions, falls under supportive. But as far as I could see, offering support was getting me nowhere.
I just had people acknowledging the issue and then shrugging their shoulders, pointing fingers at everyone else. So I wrote a book on it, spoke about the issue publicly and within months it was decided to spend tens of millions on sorting it.
afavour · 53m ago
> I even offered to build the software for free, which, hopefully, for an individual dealing with an organisation with a budget into the hundreds of billions, falls under supportive.
I think it's wonderful that you offered to do that but it simply isn't realistic. Who is going to support this software in the long term? How are you handling privacy concerns? What guarantees can you offer about server security? Who is paying for and maintaining the servers in the long term? What happens (to be blunt) if you die the day after the software is delivered?
There's so, so much wrong with the way governments provision software projects from outside parties. But there is good reason to have contracts the length of the Bible. Picking up work from individuals on a whim is courting disaster.
ck425 · 52m ago
As someone who does software for NHS Scotland, I can easily believe the tale of multiple difference directorates/orgs believing it was someone else's remit as the NHS is a super complex organization of organizations. But in your case specifically data protection laws probably made it far worse and that's true of pretty much any tech you build/deploy in the NHS. There are strict information governance rules that have to be followed for any personal information, even just emails, which exist for very good reasons and aren't particularly onerous, but they are strict so in situation like your where it's not clear who would own/be responsible for what you were offering I can could see them getting in the way.
spacebanana7 · 1h ago
> Often, when people criticize the NHS they have an ulterior motive, like privatisation
This kind of political insecurity is toxic for rational conversation. Blindly rejecting the criticisms of our political opponents is just as naive as blindly accepting their criticisms. Either way we handover control of the conversation.
schmidtleonard · 1h ago
Rhetoric exists. Astroturfing exists. Wishful thinking and name-calling do not make them go away. You might not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.
arethuza · 5h ago
"The NHS are seen as perfect by some"
I've never met anyone who thinks that the NHS is perfect - least of all anyone who has used it or anyone who works there.
cs02rm0 · 5h ago
Just read the comment further above to see that there are people who cannot stomach any criticism of it.
Many years ago now my sister turned down the chance to go to an international conference held in the Netherlands, when I asked why, she said it was because the NHS was the best in the world and had nothing to learn from other healthcare systems. I'm still stunned, and she still doesn't know anything about other healthcare systems.
No comments yet
monkey_monkey · 1h ago
> But this perspective that it's infallible is beyond all reality
Very very very few people think the NHS is infallible. What are you even talking about? We all understand the NHS has many many problems, and those of us that have used the NHS understand this even more.
However, we still think it's a lot better than the private healthcare model.
Not sure what you're getting out of this weird strawman argument you're putting forward.
graemep · 51m ago
> However, we still think it's a lot better than the private healthcare model.
What private healthcare mode? WHat they have in the US? Then definitely yes. What they have on France or Germany or Japan or almost every other developed country.? Then No. What they have in Singapore? Still No.
cs02rm0 · 1h ago
I'm afraid there are people who cannot tolerate NHS criticism, you may not be aware of them until you've tried to see a change in the NHS. Some of them would even describe their very existence as a strawman, but it's not a strawman to the people they've blocked from seeing the NHS improve.
Yet private healthcare is a strawman, I've never argued for it.
monkey_monkey · 29s ago
You've moved from saying the NHS is like a religion that no one can criticise, to "some people cannot tolerate NHS criticism". I'm glad you've toned down the ridiculous complaints to something more reasonable.
eterm · 5h ago
> the biscuits are rubbish
This is why I'm pleased that for the ward I visit, biscuits and snacks are provided by a charity, it is the best of both worlds.
Not only I am not bankrupt from medical care, but I also get to enjoy decent snacks and a good coffee machine.
kypro · 1h ago
> just mentioning increased immigration gets a lot of people's backs up
In the UK attending a protest against putting illegal immigrants from Afghanistan in a hotel by your kids school is likely to have you on a watch list or arrested. This might not sound that bad to our European friends, but you guys in the US might be quite surprised to hear this.
It's not just "right-wing" positions which are dealt like this either, I should note for legal reasons that I strongly disagree with the actions and views of "Palestine Action", but arrests of peaceful protestors who simply wish to voice support of them as a group (without actually being part of the group themselves) is in my mind absurd. It's one thing to make membership of the group illegal, but to also make debating that judgement illegal is highly problematic in my mind. For those interested you'll find videos of the police arresting elderly women for terror charges for simply peacefully voicing their opinions on Palestine Action. It's vile.
MangoCoffee · 41m ago
Westerners point fingers at China for its Great Firewall, citing a lack of freedom.
Being a free society comes with both good and bad. This type of law, whether it's good or bad, is akin to China's Great Firewall
graemep · 49m ago
> I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it.
Other countries are moving in the same direction. The EU has repeatedly tried to push things like on device scanning or banning encryption.
> Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government.
Mostly a failure of democracy - we have two major parties that are hard to tell apart.
They are both cynical and scared, and have for decades believed the future of Britain is managed decline. They also strongly believe the hoi polloi have to be forced to do what is good for them - e.g. the sugar tax and other "nudge politics", or the currently Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which is basically about imposing central policy on how children are brought up and educated.
tweetle_beetle · 26m ago
The sugar tax is a strange example to pick as an example of British decline.
As of 2022, the WHO reported on SSB (sugar-sweetened beverages):
> Currently, at least 85 countries implement some type of SBB taxation.
It feels to me like this was a rare step in the opposite direction - recognising that industry is the driving cynical force and pushing back on its over reach where it has failed. Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately to avoid the tax, with what net loss? (The class-targeting comments were a straw man)
In principle I support taxes that disincentivise production of negative externalities (in this case, adverse health effects).
However the way this works out in practice is a reduction in consumer choice, one that I'm reminded of every time I walk into a shop.
> Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately
This is the problem, really. Rather than adding new "low sugar" product lines, in most instances they're modifying existing ones to replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. The "original recipe" is often no longer available to consumers at any price.
As someone who struggles to consume enough calories to stay healthy, this sucks! (Mostly unrelated to pricing, just as a matter of practicality)
Overall I'm quite on the fence about the whole thing, but on a purely emotional level it feels like an instance of government overreach.
altcognito · 44m ago
> Mostly a failure of democracy
Is it though? Are other forms of government more successful while remaining respectful of privacy? Or is it more of a reaction to social or societal changes? Why would these social or societal changes be different than previous changes?
tim333 · 22m ago
If most of the public are in favour of the Online Safety Act, then how is it a failure of democracy to have it? I give you the top FT comment:
>I, for one, am glad that porn is being age-restricted online. It gives young people false ideas. You'll never get a plumber to come around to your house that quickly in real life.
Philpax · 18m ago
that is a joke comment
willvarfar · 6h ago
Its because the popular press has, for a very long time, been pushing a narrative of a country under siege. It sells papers, but to keep selling papers, it has to keep steadily upping the narrative over time.
badpenny · 6h ago
I agree, but isn't that the case in lots of other countries? I think it's a contributing factor, but there's more to it.
nickdothutton · 57m ago
Politicians have not taken action on a wide spectrum of problems (some of which are crime related, other problems in society below the level of crime) for many decades now. While the economy is good, this doesn't occupy the mind of the public too much, life is OK. Now that the economy is not good, and has not been good since at least 2008, the public has begun to notice these things. The public has even started to notice domestic opinion management (nudge unit, 77th Brigade etc). Passing this sort of "manage the symptom not the cause" legislation has become popular. It's easier to do than deal with the cause, it pushes the actions onto 3rd parties, and superficially it sounds good to the general public. At least for a while. To get an idea of how "off target" the state itself is in managing serious crimes look no further than [1] (warning, pretty grim story, but very typical).
Not saying I agree with the legislation, but the UK experienced a lot of pretty bad domestic terrorism in the rememberable past (namely IRA bombs detonating in towns and cities etc, often with devastating impacts). Then there were the tube and bus suicide bombings more recently. And there has also been a constant pitter-patter of "radicalised lone wolf" type things like the Ariana Grande concert bomber, the guy who killed a load of 8 year old girls at a summer camp and so on.
None of this is porn of course, but supposedly a lot of the lone wolf's are radicalised online so it creates a lot of "someone needs to do something!!!!" type attitudes (and no public gun ownership would not work like everyone says it would because the USA had that yet no one lifted a finger when they needed to recently, and now look what's happened), and sadly the older and more little-c conservative population carriers more clout in terms of policies because historically they tend to vote in greater numbers than younger groups. N.b. that 16 and 17 year olds have very recently been given the right to vote so things may change.
Saline9515 · 3h ago
The IRA was active before internet even existed. This is more about controlling the internet discourse, rather than preventing terrorism.
vaylian · 7h ago
> Then there were the tube and bus suicide bombings more recently.
That was 20 years ago. Not really recently.
4ugSWklu · 6h ago
If you read very carefully, you'll see that the word "more" is key in that sentence.
vaylian · 2h ago
Technically true, but also besides the point. These are not recent events.
stuaxo · 20m ago
The government is doing this because it's scared of the press that runs all these scare stories.
elric · 6h ago
And the EU is following suit. Brexit has never looked so stupid. They could have worked on expanding an authoritarian regime together.
It's making me cynical, and I don't know what to do about it.
makingstuffs · 6h ago
In a word, division. The UK is so divided that people are too busy pointing the finger at each other to realise the root cause of the deterioration of our quality of life is entirely generations of mismanagement of the public purse.
Instead of questioning how MPs are entitled to a pay rise while your average person gets made redundant, people are questioning why people fleeing persecution should ‘be paid for with my tax money’.
Brain fatigue and mixed signals combined with destitution and desperation drastically impede the average person’s ability and desire to fact check and extrapolate. We are moving towards a society of down and out people living with no hope serving the elite and those with a bit of money behind them.
My fiancée and I have had enough and are also leaving in October. No idea where to all we know is we have a one way ticket away and will figure the rest out.
rubyAce · 4h ago
> Instead of questioning how MPs are entitled to a pay rise while your average person gets made redundant, people are questioning why people fleeing persecution should ‘be paid for with my tax money’.
Your misstating their concerns. I don't know whether you are misinformed or doing so deliberately.
The migrants on the boats are not people fleeing persecution. Firstly these boats are coming from France. Are you claiming that France is persecuting people?
Secondly. I have a relative that work in social services. They do age assessments. These men claim they are children. It takes time to do these age assessments to take place and process and while that is happening they have to be housed. Since they claim they are children, they have to be put into foster homes. So foster homes are forced to take strange men, while an age assessment is taking place. This is an obvious risk to the actual children housed there.
These migrants talk to each other and have worked out that if register with Counties outside of London it will take longer for them to be found out, because the local authorities in these counties have less resources to process them. One of these men admitted as much over the phone.
Things like this are what people are unhappy about. They don't have an issue with legitimate asylum claims. People aren't divided on this issue BTW.
fennecbutt · 5h ago
>people are questioning why people fleeing persecution
Except many of them are not, they are economic migrants. And some have even realised that claiming that they're persecuted for lgbt reasons is an instant in - there was a case with a guy (with a wife and a bunch of children) that claimed to have written a pro lgbt article and now he's persecuted.
As a gay man the thought of that sickens me, economic migrants using who I am as a shortcut to entry, I have no problem at all with genuinely lgbt individuals seeking refugee status; we're still persecuted in so many places and there's not enough of us to make change happen in those places.
But the economic migrants...all they're doing is ensuring their home country never improves and that a steady stream of migrants continues into Europe. It'll never end.
badgersnake · 6h ago
MPs pay is a drop in a bucket there are many better things to question than that.
makingstuffs · 6h ago
It’s an example, it’s not a mutually exclusive situation. The point is that people are busy pointing the finger at each other instead of the people whom are paid to actually improve their lives.
No comments yet
JdeBP · 6h ago
Don't believe the things that you read. Our newspapers have been openly biased for centuries, and there's some very shoddy journalism at times. See, for example:
Idk I think the main cause of public discontent in the UK isn't what anyone is reading, it's the extremely obvious change in material conditions.
kevinventullo · 8h ago
Neither, they’re just the most convenient excuses for instituting draconian laws.
abxyz · 6h ago
You are approaching this from a uniquely U.S. perspective. The U.K. is pretty middle of the road as far as “surveillance” and while this may offend the freedom-at-all-costs sensibilities, it’s a fairly milquetoast change.
Visiting the Heineken website in the U.S. requires that you assert you are over the age of 21. Texas has instituted I.D. verification for pornography.
Regardless of how you feel about this law, it is not accurate to say the U.K. is unique in implementing it.
Aurornis · 1h ago
> You are approaching this from a uniquely U.S. perspective.
It’s not uniquely U.S. at all
What other countries require ID checks for services like Discord?
The U.K.’s implementation of this law is much more unique than you’re claiming.
abxyz · 45m ago
Discord’s own articles about this change explain that the fundamentals (content filtering) are applied to all accounts owned by teenagers worldwide. The only U.K. specific aspect of all of this is that if you tell Discord you are over 18 you must prove it. That’s a very small difference and not something most people in most countries care about. I’d go as far as to say, I think the majority of people in the majority of the world would be in favour of requiring people to prove they’re over 18 online if they want to claim to be over 18 online.
> The only U.K. specific aspect of all of this is that if you tell Discord you are over 18 you must prove it. That’s a very small difference
Requiring ID verification in one country is not a small difference.
The rest of the world checks a box. People in the U.K. must submit to ID verification.
It’s so strange to see things like this claimed to be small differences.
abxyz · 30m ago
Again, this is a radical internet-libertarian-freedom-at-all-costs view. Normal people do not think that proving you are 18 is notable. We’ve been doing it for decades with credit cards. The system is more mature now but it is not fundamentally different.
Aurornis · 24m ago
> Again, this is a radical internet-libertarian-freedom-at-all-costs view
The current global status quo is “radical” and the U.K. is the only country doing it right?
You were accusing others of being U.S. centric a few posts back, but now you’re pushing the U.K.’s unique laws as the only valid solution.
> We’ve been doing it for decades with credit cards
Age checks for credit cards are required because minors legally couldn’t be forced to pay their debts.
If companies issued credit cards to minors then the minors could spend as much as they want and the bank would have no recourse to collect.
I don’t think you understand these issues if you’re using this as a comparison. Either that or you’re not even trying to have an honest conversation.
abxyz · 14m ago
My position is very simple. I believe that most of the world is fine with age checks on the Internet. I think that the U.S. free speech laws and attitudes are unique and because English speaking internet culture is U.S. culture, these discussions always end up with an assumption that U.S. values are the values shared by the subjects.
I don’t think my view on the law matters, I haven’t shared it. I am speaking specifically about how everyone here is talking as if people in the U.K. care about “draconian” surveillance. People in the U.K. are not people from the U.S. Age verification is not a philosophical issue for U.K. people as it is for people in the U.S. People from the U.K. are not principled free speech absolutists. Ask a person in the U.K. if porn should require age verification and they will not think nor care about the free speech or surveillance implications of voting for such a law.
And people in the U.K. are not unique. People in the U.S. are. Spend any amount of time outside of our U.S. Internet bubble and you’ll discover nobody cares about any of this.
Whether I care and whether you care is not relevant to the British voters. Not the Australian voters. Nor the Swedish voters. Or the Thai voters. Or the Japanese voters…
foldr · 50m ago
You don’t need age verification to access all of Discord, just NSFW servers. You can certainly argue that that’s an unjustifiable interference in people’s freedom to access the internet services that they want to access. But please don’t exaggerate.
Aurornis · 29m ago
> You don’t need age verification to access all of Discord, just NSFW servers.
That’s not correct. The Discord support explains that it’s required to change automatic content filtering or unblur any content that gets caught by the automatic filters.
rubyAce · 5h ago
It his law combined with all the other iffy laws in the UK which make this nefarious. This is the issue about discussing anything about how draconian the UK is. If you compare any single law in isolation, it isn't that different. However if you take how the British authorities and how they operate it, and all the other laws you start to see a more draconian picture.
That is what many people, especially those that do live in the UK don't appreciate.
abxyz · 4h ago
I lived in the U.K. for decades and I have lived in many other countries. I’ll criticise the U.K. government and society endlessly but to describe these changes as notable or remarkable relative to most other countries is nonsense.
From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.
The U.K. is a flawed place going to hell in a hand basket that many U.K. citizens have strong opinions on but outside of us, the freedom loving nerds on the internet, this identity verification law is not a part of the conversation. “Draconian” and “authoritarian” aren’t in the vocabulary of most U.K. citizens. They’re far more concerned about immigration and the economy.
The long-standing “the U.K. has the most cctv cameras per person” meme is further evidence of this. A well-loved fact carted out by freedom-loving anti-surveillance types… that the mainstream of the U.K. could not care less about.
Aurornis · 1h ago
> but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.
This isn’t true at all. Age verification to use services like Discord in the U.K. is very unusual.
The U.K.’s approach to online speech and freedoms is not shared by many countries.
I don’t understand why you’re trying to reduce this to a normal outcome when it’s not normal at all
Saline9515 · 3h ago
It's a "blip in your radar" until you want to say something that is forbidden by the government. Or when someone thinks that you said it, such as with "non-crime hate incidents" where anyone can report "hate speech" to the police, which will be added to your public file.
"until you want to say something that is forbidden by the government."
Please give a few examples. I'm intrigued.
rvnx · 1h ago
Same in France, many things are forbidden to say, most of time censored, sometimes even punished (either socially or by the law). US is way way way more advanced in terms of freedom.
You are allowed to say there is censorship but not allowed to say what is forbidden (and you are not allowed to criticize some laws, without breaking the law). You can really go to jail or have your life ruined, or your business burned because of a TikTok video.
This censorship benefits a lot of bad people, but naming them is a crime by itself.
For example, in France, there is no insecurity in the streets. If you say the opposite and start naming examples, you will get shamed or even physically attacked by some people and be prosecuted for “spreading hate” and other crimes whereas your attackers will have zero issues.
This phenomenon is known as “juges rouges” (the red judges), somewhat similar to USSR
Aurornis · 51m ago
In the U.K. people can be prosecuted for speech found to be offensive.
There have been several high profile cases used as examples, like the guy who was convicted for making a video of his girlfriend’s dog pretending to do a Nazi salute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
Doing anything considered “grossly offensive” online can result in the police knocking on your door and financial penalties. It’s a foreign concept if you’re in a country where making jokes online doesn’t constitute a risk to your freedoms and finances (which is more than just the U.S.)
hofrogs · 10m ago
Every time I see the issue of UK being tyrannical and evil, the example being used is the same one - that white nationalist youtuber sentenced to a ~$1k fine for a nazi joke some 7 years ago. Are there no better/more recent examples? I'm not feeling any sympathy for a white nationalist.
foldr · 42m ago
There’s no such thing as a public police file in the UK. What I assume you’re referring to is that these records are accesible for the purposes of certain kinds of police background checks (which, as in many other countries, are required for certain jobs).
irusensei · 41m ago
Not from US. It’s not a blip in my radar. It’s terrifying and you seem to be dismissing it as “it’s just some Americans”.
rubyAce · 4h ago
> I lived in the U.K. for decades and I have lived in many other countries. I’ll criticise the U.K. government and society endlessly but to describe these changes as notable or remarkable relative to most other countries is nonsense.
I am English. I was born in England, my parents are English, my Grandparents were English, My Great Grandparents were English etc. etc.
I have lived my majority of my life here. So I am English.
You obviously didn't read what I said. I understand that it is nothing special in isolation. However I am not talking about it in isolation. I was talking about the entirety of how the current laws are constructed as well as how the UK state operates.
Also just because other countries have rubbish laws, doesn't mean we should have adopted similar ones.
> From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.
Many people do not like this and are actively seeking work-arounds. These aren't uber nerds like myself BTW.
> The U.K. is a flawed place going to hell in a hand basket that many U.K. citizens have strong opinions on but outside of us, the freedom loving nerds on the internet, this identity verification law is not a part of the conversation.
So you admit there is a problem. But you then pretend that this can't possibly be part of the entire picture because you say so.
Sorry it very much well is part of the problem. You stating it isn't doesn't make it so.
abxyz · 4h ago
Share some examples, then? I just took a look across all major U.K. mainstream news publications and I cannot find any outrage about these changes.
rubyAce · 4h ago
So because it isn't discussed through UK mainstream news and publications that means people aren't concerned about it? A lot of things people are actually concerned about isn't mentioned at all in the mainstream news or publications that is why increasingly fewer people are paying attention to them.
People are talking about these things ironically on places like twitter/X, facebook, whatsapp, discord and in person (shock horror I know). I was at a boys football match this weekend and people were talking about it there.
BTW quite hilariously twitter/X are censoring some footage from the commons as that content has to be age-gated.
abxyz · 3h ago
The myth of things “not being talked about” in the mainstream is a convenient way to excuse being unable to provide any meaningful evidence that a notable portion of the country care about something.
I know it might shock you but people on twitter and discord are not representative of voters. Most voters do not engage with any social media.
People on the internet get so caught up in the international perspective we are exposed to that we forget what national voters actually care about.
> The myth of things “not being talked about” in the mainstream is a convenient way to excuse being unable to provide any meaningful evidence that a notable portion of the country care about something.
If social media wasn't important, politicians, mainstream news publications themselves, and other political activists wouldn't bother with it. So this is patently False.
Pretending this hasn't been a trend now for 15 years is completely asinine and shame on you for attempting to pretend the opposite is true.
> I know it might shock you but people on twitter and discord are not representative of voters. Most voters do not engage with any social media.
False. Almost everyone I know is on social media of some sort. They might not be actively engaging but they do engage regularly in some form or another. Most of them would be called lurkers, or they will check out stuff if some piques their interests.
You conveniently missed out where I said "facebook" and "in person"
> People on the internet get so caught up in the international perspective we are exposed to that we forget what national voters actually care about.
I don't care about the international perspective. I am English (I've already told you this). I care about this issue and I know plenty of other people who are British care about this issue.
The same YouGov polling that had almost every about Brexit issue at 71% vs 29%. Their polling isn't to be trusted.
Even if I took that at face value, that means 1/5 people don't support it. Which isn't an insignificant amount of people. So there are a decent number of people that care about it, even using your own figures. This disproves your statements about it not being cared about and only uber nerds caring about it.
abxyz · 3h ago
You are simply over indexing for your own circle. Your circle (by virtue of being a nerd) is deeply biased towards people heavily influenced by U.S. attitudes towards freedom. I’m an internet nerd too, I know how easy it is to get caught up in this idea that what you see online is representative of the people, but it isn’t. Go out and talk to real people. Go and stand in the street and ask every passer by whether they feel the U.K. is “draconian” or not. You’ll be shocked to discover that almost nobody cares about anything that doesn’t directly impact their day to day life. Look at the rise of Reform, Farage’s embrace of trumpism. That’s authoritarianism, and the people love it. You’re completely out of touch with the common person if you think any of this matters.
You can take a principled stance, you can have strong views, you can believe in freedom, I’m with you, but it’s patently absurd to suggest that any of what you believe is representative of the people. The people, in the U.K. and beyond, simply do not have a single solitary regard for any of this. Porn bad so porn ban good. That’s the entire thought process.
Could more than 5% of the U.K. voting public even define “draconian”? or “authoritarian”?
rubyAce · 3h ago
> You are simply over indexing for your own circle. Your circle (by virtue of being a nerd) is deeply biased towards people heavily influenced by U.S. attitudes towards freedom. I’m an internet nerd too, I know how easy it is to get caught up in this idea that what you see online is representative of the people, but it isn’t.
False. Most of the people I engage with in real life are not nerds. You keep on stating things that you know nothing about as truisms. How about instead of trying to gaslight people about what is real and what isn't, you actually engage in the points being made by your interlocutor?
> Go out and talk to real people. Go and stand in the street and ask every passer by whether they feel the U.K. is “draconian” or not.
I would imagine if someone thought about it, I would get a statement something about all the cameras everywhere or how buying some with a bank transfer is difficult (if you buy something cash like a vehicle it sets off anti-fraud detection in your bank and transactions can be blocked).
They won't talk about it in terms you are familiar with. They will point to stuff like cameras, unfair charges etc and how difficult some of this makes their lives.
All of this normal people have experienced.
> You’ll be shocked to discover that almost nobody cares about anything that doesn’t directly impact their day to day life. Look at the rise of Reform, Farage’s embrace of trumpism. That’s authoritarianism, and the people love it. You’re completely out of touch with the common person if you think any of this matters.
You mentioned all of those. I didn't mention them. You are projecting onto me what your experience is. The irony here is astounding.
abxyz · 32m ago
Shrug. I’m not sure what else to say. I’ve shown you that polling shows the majority support age verification. I have asked you to provide evidence of mainstream objection to this law, which you are unable to provide. You have asserted that polling is wrong because you know people who disagree.
You may not like it and I may not like it but the view of the U.K. voting public is that age verification to look at porn is reasonable and that “protecting” children justifies limiting freedoms.
My exercise for you: decide what evidence is needed to convince you that most British people are happy with this law.
rubyAce · 16m ago
> Shrug. I’m not sure what else to say. I’ve shown you that polling shows the majority support age verification. I have asked you to provide evidence of mainstream objection to this law, which you are unable to provide. You have asserted that polling is wrong because you know people who disagree.
You said it "wasn't part of the conversation" originally. Not what the majority agreed with. You've subtly tried to change what the discussion was about. That is known as moving the goalposts:
Then you asked me to provide evidence of something I can't possibly provide. That quite frankly bullshit.
> You may not like it and I may not like it but the view of the U.K. voting public is that age verification to look at porn is reasonable and that “protecting” children justifies limiting freedoms.
I don't doubt that the majority are OK with it. I am taking issue with the fact that you are pretending only libertarian nerds online care about this. I know that isn't true.
> My exercise for you: decide what evidence is needed to convince you that most British people are happy with this law.
Don't talk to me like a child.
I don't have you provide you with anything. You made the claim that only a few people care about this. When even your own evidence disputes. 20% of a large group of people is still a lot. That isn't "nobody cares" like you pretend is the case.
Anyway I am done with you. Go away!
lucasRW · 27m ago
Do you know of other western countries that send cops to your house because you posted memes on X ?
Saying that illegal migrants should be sent back home can literally land you at the police station. A hotel worker was arrested for testifying to what he saw in his hotels, ie. migrants being hosted, given a phone, meals, and NHS visit once every two weeks.
abxyz · 22m ago
The U.S. is the outlier, not the U.K. Go do a Nazi salute in Germany, or Australia. Burn the Quran in Sweden. So on and so forth.
aa-jv · 5h ago
>The U.K. is pretty middle of the road as far as “surveillance”
Just, no.
5-eyes is the most heinous human-rights-destroying apparatus under the sun, and it wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the British desire to undermine cultures they have deemed inferior.
Steve16384 · 1h ago
It's called 5-eyes because it's not just the UK.
_kb · 6h ago
Australia is doing its best to hardline digital (and more broadly social) authoritarianism too. It’s a sad future we’re accelerating towards.
rich_sasha · 53m ago
Outside of techn journalism, this is a non story in the UK. I think it's hard to say much about the society's attitude when they don't know ow about this, never mind understand.
Average UKian is, IME, surprisingly technologically unsavvy. This might be the root cause of lack of interest or protest.
If I were to guess how this whole thing came to be, it would be thus: the UK government is increasingly dysfunctional and polarised. The attention of government and opposition goes increasingly into futile, high-stakes but always drawn battles. But that means that motivated and organised groups can push through things that look benign from the outside and don't trigger the Great Polarisation. Protecting children from suicide, what's not to like? The Parliament, where this should be shredded to pieces, is too busy trying to reshuffle deckchairs.
Meanwhile this is printed on vellum, welcome to the new reality.
happymellon · 8h ago
Because the media always paints other countries in certain lights, as it helps them build a narrative for their own governments?
> complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government
I disagree with this sentiment, however it does show how bad "democracy" can be when voting for a complete government change results in absolutely no change whatsoever.
MaxPock · 7h ago
Authoritarian CCTV cameras in Shenzhen Vs democratic CCTV cameras in London
Oh wait, Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km. Narrative.
Aurornis · 1h ago
> Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km
You listed extremely dense cities. Of course they have more cameras per square.
This isn’t a narrative violation, it’s basic math.
happymellon · 1h ago
I think its highly relevant when we have people pushing the faulty logic narrative that the UK is China and using CCTV as a measurement for their case.
UK bad because online safety rules, let's ignore US states that already do this.
> Don't mind what we are doing, the UK is worse.
Not defending the UK, but they aren't the first and you dont get the same inflammatory racist language with other countries.
Saline9515 · 3h ago
Paris and Seoul are much denser than London. A better measure is the cameras/habitant or the % of coverage. London has 100% coverage for instance.
happymellon · 2h ago
> better measure is the cameras/habitant
How so? If I have a car lot, I'll have multiple cameras for a tiny area bumping the average camera per person without meaningful results. Sounds like the worst measurement unless you are trying to push a narrative.
varispeed · 1h ago
It's about corporate control - the more regulations like this - the more entrenched the market becomes. Higher barrier to enter for smaller players plus government gets all the surveillance apparatus as a sweetener.
Basically Labour continues taking UK into corporate fascist utopia.
citrin_ru · 5h ago
> I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action
Historically there is no formal constitution in the UK so Parliament is not limited in their power. IHMO it's the main factor why the UK is an outlier.
crimsoneer · 6h ago
While I appreciate the concern, it's worth pointing out that 30 or so years ago "government should mandate id checks for harmful content" was not some radical dystopian notion.
The UK was also one of the first nations to ban indoor smoking and in cars with kids. I think this is very much in that vein (politically).
derelicta · 7h ago
The Bourgeois love to divide the working class, typical divide and conquer. Indigenous worker vs imported worker, men vs women, queer vs straight, old vs young, car user vs bicycle rider. This is important because it weakens existing solidarities and prevent the emergence of class consciousness. It's part of their modus operandi and has been for centuries, only now they master it thanks to algorithms and machine learning. This increased surveillance also happens to be extremely useful at taming future strikes and protests, or rat out future pro-workers groups
mft_ · 6h ago
This view (“the Bourgeois’, etc.) seems to imply there’s a group of very clever manipulators somewhere, overtly planning and executing this (presumably in a dark room with armchairs and cigars). But I just can’t imagine this, in the UK’s example.
What I see instead is the other side of Hanlon’s razor —incompetence— coupled with a political class riven with pockets of self-interest, and very few seemingly with an intellectual hypothesis to explain the UK’s current predicament, or to chart a path out of it.
KineticLensman · 6h ago
Elements of the UK media fulfil this role, continually advancing a corrosive narrative that the country is broken. E.g. frequently using the words ‘lawless’ or ‘tinderbox’ in any headline or op-ed title that also contains the word ‘Britain’
alextingle · 32m ago
Smells like coded antisemitism, in this case.
sapphicsnail · 6h ago
Have you read the Telegraph or pretty much any UK media lately?
rubyAce · 4h ago
> This view (“the Bourgeois’, etc.) seems to imply there’s a group of very clever manipulators somewhere, overtly planning and executing this (presumably in a dark room with armchairs and cigars). But I just can’t imagine this, in the UK’s example.
If you read any history about any daring military action during WW2, a lot of it was done by men thinking up of stuff in dark rooms while smoking cigars. Why is this so unbelievable now?
BTW, The UK ran the world's largest empire and until recently this was in living memory.
> What I see instead is the other side of Hanlon’s razor —incompetence— coupled with a political class riven with pockets of self-interest, and very few seemingly with an intellectual hypothesis to explain the UK’s current predicament, or to chart a path out of it.
Hanlon's razor IMO is nonsense. It is honestly believe it was invented so people could explain away their malice.
Anyone who is relatively intelligent will work at out some point, that if they don't want to do something they can passively aggressively work against the authority while working withing the rules. My father (who builds luxury yachts and is near retirement) was telling me how he maliciously complies with various companies rules to make his superior's life more difficult, this is a way to get back at them for their poor planning.
Even if you accept that Hanlon's razor is mostly true. It cannot be applied when you are dealing with political actors. Political actors, the media and anything related are literally trying to manipulate you. In fact it is a good rule that whatever they tell you that it is, assume the opposite and that is typically true.
aa-jv · 5h ago
>But I just can’t imagine this, in the UK’s example.
No need to imagine it. Read the Wikileaks. Names are named. The class division is real, and it is fomented by those who seek to profit from the subterfuge - and they DO profit, at massive scale.
derelicta · 6h ago
They are not a hivemind, after all they also suffer from intraclass conflict, as seen in the NATO-Russian war. But there are definitely interest groups, and we know since the mid 19th century that the class that controls the economy is also the class that shapes society as a whole. So no, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's sociology and marxism. After all, it's not crazy to think that the handful of capitalists who own the British press also defend their own interests through this same press.
tim333 · 1h ago
>why the UK specifically is taking action
We have a history of trying banning bad stuff. Magna Carta in the 1200s against the right of kings, slavery abolition in the 1800s, now porn being pushed to kids.
I don't think child grooming or hate is particularly bad here but we tend to try to stop that kind of thing. We also had the first modern police force in 1829 and other innovations which have caught on in some other countries.
Some of the US alt right media pushes broken Britain stories because we have some muslim immigrants or something. The majority of the public support the bill https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-ad... I wonder if it's more the US is afraid of the their government that if they say they are promoting online saftey they are really going 1984 on the populace? Here people tend to assume they are in fact promoting what it says on the tin.
Hizonner · 24s ago
Congratulations. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to compare stupid repression like the OSA to the Magna Carta.
giantg2 · 56m ago
"Magna Carta in the 1200s against the right of kings"
Seems like the pendulum has swung back now, doesn't it? Increasing authority/rights of the government instead of a king.
tim333 · 39m ago
~80% in favour of this stuff. Democracy for you.
NoMoreNicksLeft · 21m ago
If opposing a bill could cause you to be put on a watchlist, it's pretty easy to get a "large majority" favoring it.
tim333 · 15m ago
It's not at all like that.
It's more the protect kids from sites 'that carry pornography as well as other “harmful” material that relates to self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.'
I guess other counties are like screw the kids, I'm terrified of being IDd in case my government does bad things?
password54321 · 6h ago
Destroy cultural integrity, national identity, create a low-trust society, become more authoritarian to manage low-trust society, import more immigrants at an exponential rate while house costs rise along with unemployment. The list keeps going. This is why far-right is surging on the polls. The country has completely lost all sense.
12ian34 · 1h ago
UK needs immigrants to increase stagnating productivity. this has been the case for decades and it's why no government has done, or will do anything serious to curb it.
spacebanana7 · 1h ago
Only a small minority of immigrants to the UK come through the skilled visa pathway, even if the health & social care visa numbers were added.
Note that to the best of my knowledge, these numbers don't include the Afghan resettlement scheme which would further lower the proportion of employment driven visas.
12ian34 · 5m ago
what about nurses and cleaners
modo_mario · 1h ago
I don't think that should be the be-all and end-all overriding the natives qualms but regardless.....Is it increasing productivity? In nearby mainland European countries that doesn't appear the case.
arrowsmith · 1h ago
Then why has productivity never been more stagnant even though immigration has never been higher?
We've had the highest levels of immigration ever in the last five years and productivity hasn't increased proportionally or much at all.
12ian34 · 3m ago
maybe it's not working, also maybe it is working but there are other confounding factors.
nindalf · 5h ago
Incredible that you’ve managed to bring this conversation to immigration. In fact, it sounds like you’re saying the root cause of this crappy policy is somehow immigrants.
Far fetched and not cool.
password54321 · 3h ago
None of these problems live in isolation. It all feeds back to the same system that is driving itself into the ground.
The refusal to accept these problems is what is creating a surge in far-right popularity. The very people that oppose them have inadvertently become their biggest cheerleaders.
fennecbutt · 5h ago
It's a valid topic for discussion. Even as a foreigner who was in UK on a visa and eventually got ilr I'm still concerned about it.
The current situation regarding small boats is not sustainable, particularly when it's proven that the majority are not fleeing persecution but are economic migrants. They're taking advantage of a system designed to help people in trouble, how could you defend that?
And when does it end? Will the UK always accept small boats ad infinitum?
I played by the (harsh) rules and got here legitimately. Why should I have bothered.
ifwinterco · 5h ago
Immigration is becoming the #1 political issue in the UK for a reason.
If they didn't want this, they could have just restricted it and it would have largely gone away as a topic of discussion, but current levels makes it inevitable it will become the main thing people think about
No comments yet
rubyAce · 1h ago
One of the reasons they want to make discourse on the internet as painful as possible is because immigration has become an mainstream concern in the UK. Many of the things that are being soft censored is clips about from the British parliament where this and related issues are being discussed.
Just because people like yourself happen to think it is uncouth to discuss, doesn't mean that it isn't part of the equation.
alextingle · 30m ago
> The country has completely lost all sense. This is why far-right is surging on the polls.
Fixed that for you.
HDThoreaun · 4h ago
Very sad to see this from the country that produced some of the most influential pro freedom of speech philosophy the world has ever seen.
Saline9515 · 3h ago
Well they also produced pre-totalitarian authors, such as Thomas Hobbes and his advocacy of authoritarian states.
u_sama · 46m ago
I think this is the most uncharitable reading and understand of Hobbes that exists. The main argument (and context) is that men is evil and can only live in "civilization" by being forced into it by an absolutely powerful state.
The fact this state is a monarchy, a dictatroship or a democracy is not the issue. The fact (in which he is right) a state needs absolute power and monopoly of that power. Modern democracies are a good example, they have the absolute power and thus are more stable and peaceful that warlord controlled pseudo-countries in Africa.
ionwake · 33m ago
Just a reminder “Brexit” happened just a few years ago. Suddenly no British man can be more than 3 months in another European country before being “banned”. You can’t even move to Switzerland and setup a company.
Yes technically it’s possible but I was told my a Swiss accountant “just don’t bother trying unless you can get a European passport - if you can”
This is from personal experience. As odd as it sounds Brexit really affected business ( always thought it was posturing) I can’t imagine what it did to mega corps etc
Just thought I’d share my xp
nemomarx · 31m ago
Is that unexpected? You'd have the same issues immigrating to any country, right?
It seems like British people got very used to being able to move to the continent but how long was that state of affairs around for, I wonder.
ricardobeat · 29m ago
> Suddenly no British man can be more than 3 months in another European country before being “banned”
That’s how visas work in most of the world.
I’m curious now, did you vote for it and not expect this? It doesn’t sound odd at all, it is exactly what everyone said would happen other than people promoting Brexit as some form of nationalism/pride movement.
gorgoiler · 7h ago
The VPN trick potentially won’t last long. We’ve seen it go stale already in the world of intellectual property rights. For at least the last ten years Netflix et al have been well aware of which AS numbers / IP netblocks correspond to people sat at home in front of the TV, and which correspond to servers in a rack somewhere (including those hosting VPN endpoints.)
One tweak to the rules and all of a sudden not only do porn sites have to verify the age of their UK visitors but also anyone connecting from something other than a residential ISP.
The more troubling thing about these laws is enforcement. The threat of fines only works against websites that map to a business entity. For anything else there will surely see a ramp up in the size of The Great British Firewall Ruleset, edited by the courts, and distributed to the Big N (5?) ISPs.
What will become of the smaller ISPs that refuse to block illegal sites?
kelsey98765431 · 43m ago
This is just a cat a mouse game. VPN services will start to offer residential endpoints when enough websites start blocking them enough to damage the value proposition. There is no way on the current internet to verify an ip address means anything at all other than it's an ip address.
ricardobeat · 27m ago
There is no way to offer “residential endpoints” at scale with sufficient bandwidth for anything other than simple browsing of text websites. As shown by the very effective Netflix strategy of blocking VPN addresses, it’s been very hard to slip through for a good four or five years now.
nly · 6h ago
This isn't about illegal sites?
I don't think many people object to blacklisting known sources of child pornography etc.
The fact is you now have to verify your identity (name and photo id) in the UK to access an adult subreddit.
gorgoiler · 6h ago
You need to be able to shut down websites and apps which do not implement age verification.
morkalork · 4m ago
Right, anything that doesn't cooperate with the ID verification is defacto illegal in the UK's eyes?
NoMoreNicksLeft · 18m ago
>For at least the last ten years Netflix et al have been well aware of which AS numbers / IP netblocks correspond to people sat at home in front of the TV, and which correspond to servers in a rack somewhere (including those hosting VPN endpoints.)
If the vpn endpoint is in Rome or New York City, how will the UK government force that non-British vpn service and that non-British porn site to verify the age of anyone using it?
It's easy enough to get a list of IP addresses from those vpn services and just block them if you're Netflix, but to force compliance on anyone traversing the tunnel is another thing entirely. The UK government would have an easier time banning vpns outright.
lucasRW · 25m ago
Can't wait to see socialists explain that VPNs are bad in the UK, but good in China and Iran. :o)
Philpax · 14m ago
Huh?
chrismatheson · 6h ago
is TOR an answer to this ?
firefax · 1m ago
>is TOR an answer to this ?
I've found Tor is mostly useful for reading, not participating. Exit nodes get blocked from registering on most sites. One workaround is to register at a café or library then use the account over Tor, but sometimes even if you're being civil (see my comment history for a a pretty good picture of the style of discussions I have anonymously) sometimes you'll wake up to find the account nuked.
gorgoiler · 5h ago
Tor exit nodes are the _first_ thing they ban! If your origin is not from within one of the top residential ISPs then you can expect to be selected for enhanced screening.
HDThoreaun · 4h ago
It is incredibly easy to tell if someone is using TOR. It would be banned before VPNs
irusensei · 38m ago
Not if you are using bridges
firefax · 32s ago
Bridges don't change your exit node.
sefrost · 9h ago
It is only a matter of time before they attempt to regulate VPN usage. Here is an article written by a British MP hinting at that:
It definitely seems like she’s conflating two issues: access to pornography and child grooming. I don’t see why she thinks regulating VPNs would reduce the latter.
johnisgood · 8h ago
It does not. As I have said before, pedophilia is rampant on Roblox and Discord. Go monitor those platforms, and hold these platforms responsible, not VPNs. Regulating VPNs will not reduce child grooming, and I am sure they are not stupid enough to actually think it does.
Bjartr · 2h ago
Or, to put it another way, in order to protect the most children, focus your efforts on where the most children actually are, not where you're afraid they might end up.
johnisgood · 1h ago
Pretty much.
pydry · 8h ago
She doesnt, she just wants to put in Putin-like levels of control and surveillance for the same reasons Putin does.
userbinator · 8h ago
Jinping is probably a better comparison.
pydry · 2h ago
Jinping would be a better comparison if you wanted to downplay all of this - he's less of a persona non grata.
All 3 like to crack down on free speech and monitor internet traffic for identical reasons though.
derelicta · 7h ago
Xi is fairly popular in China tho, unlike this "labour" govt.
gitremote · 6h ago
How would you know? In countries without free speech where anti-government speech is illegal, the only legal speech is pro-government or neutral.
Immaterial how independent they are because it's completely impossible to get honest opinions of repressive regimes. The people within the regime have no real way to know whether a poll response will make it back to the government or not, so they must assume that it will. When the repercussions for having the wrong opinion are that you disappear or find yourself "volunteered" for the front line, it's best to either lie or say you think the leader is a top bloke.
You can watch Youtube videos of citizens refusing to answer contentious questions quite easily. I believe William Spaniel has produced videos (relating to the Russian General Election) where he points this out, too.
jampekka · 21m ago
When asked in a way where the opinion can't be identified, the support numbers do drop significantly, but the approval is still estimated to be about 50-70%. In western countries governments with clear minority support start to be almost the norm.
UK government approval has surpassed 50% in a handful of polls in over 10 years, and approval peaks are typically immediately after elections before the government starts to implement its policies. The approval is currently 14%.
How can you tell it is a repressive regime? They have elections, a press and they are pretty satisfied about their form of governance, actually much more than their western counterparts.
So let me sum this up. We cannot ask the people. We cannot base ourselves on how their institutions function and how well they perform.
This discussion highlights how westerners suffer from some serious superiority complex where only THEY can experience genuine freedom and democracy(probably due to their superior phenotype or some inane bs), and everything outside of their little group of friends is a masquerade. The issue with that is that westerners disconnect themselves from reality. They are losing ground and it shows.
Lio · 5m ago
LOL, who ran against Xi in his last "election"?
Which "free press" runst stories against Xi?
Where is the other half of the bell curve of public opinion that's critical of the CCP?
Yeah they have elections alright, you can vote for any Xi Jingping you want to.
gitremote · 38m ago
"Elections in the People's Republic of China occur under a one-party authoritarian political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Direct elections, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, occur only at the local level people's congresses and village committees, with all candidate nominations preapproved by the CCP. By law, all elections at all levels must adhere to the leadership of the CCP."
> This discussion highlights how westerners suffer from some serious superiority complex where only THEY can experience genuine freedom and democracy(probably due to their superior phenotype or some inane bs)
There is democracy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Just say, "I'm a tankie and I support Russia's invasion of Ukraine."
derelicta · 10m ago
> Elections in the People's Republic of China occur under a one-party authoritarian political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Direct elections, except in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, occur only at the local level people's congresses and village committees, with all candidate nominations preapproved by the CCP. By law, all elections at all levels must adhere to the leadership of the CCP.
I personally see nothing wrong with this. The word "authoritarian" is virtually meaningless. And those local elections are paramount; Locally elected representatives end up electing MPs on the provincial level, then they chose MPs of the National People's Congress. The rest is common sense: just because we are used to "elect" pedophiles, racists and parasites doesn't mean all other countries should do the same.
> This discussion highlights how westerners suffer from some serious superiority complex where only THEY can experience genuine freedom and democracy(probably due to their superior phenotype or some inane bs)
You are quite literally commenting on a topic where Brits are complaining about our democracy. You will find reams of articles about the problems with western democracies.
However, you're also commenting about countries that quite literally changed our governments in the last year. USA voted in Trump, the UK voted in Labour. Germany just voted in a new party.
China and Russia, the main comparison points, have not changed government since the 90s. This is nothing to do with phenotypes, it's 100% just looking at the facts.
derelicta · 4m ago
Russia is very similar to the rest of western democracies, so I won't comment further on that.
Regarding China, their leading party hasn't switched in 80 years, but their policies have and have plenty actually. Changing parties matters only a little bit in the grand scheme of things. I'd argue, for example, that Japan, that has been ruled by a single party for all of his modern existence, is still considered by many in the west as a functioning democracy.
arccy · 1h ago
if people refuse to answer contentious questions about their regime... it's probably repressive.
Saline9515 · 3h ago
Which is the aim of restricting every information channel and starting the brainwashing in primary school? I'm sure Kim Jong Un is very popular in North Korea, too!
derelicta · 3h ago
This is an insane take. You'd know this if you had ever talked with a Chinese person before instead of believing the silly propaganda they spread in your "free" press.
dkdbejwi383 · 7h ago
Do they regularly poll British political parties for popularity in China?
derelicta · 7h ago
It was obvious to everyone that i was talking about the popularity of these govts in their respective countries.
dkdbejwi383 · 7h ago
What’s your source for the labour government’s unpopularity? Not that I necessarily think you’re wrong, it’s just more indifference towards them that I see, more of the same etc.
"Keir Starmer falls to lowest net favourability rating on record"
"Labour’s popularity hit isn’t merely limited to Keir Starmer, with worst-ever net favourability scores also recorded this month by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner (-31) and home secretary Yvette Cooper (-25), while Rachel Reeves has equalled her -48 net favourability rating recorded in mid-April."
"65% of Britons dislike the Labour Party, the most in the eight years YouGov has been asking the question"
orthoxerox · 6h ago
> Sarah Champion is Labour MP for Rotherham.
Seriously? You can't make this up: she represents the town that did nothing about a massive (and completely offline) child grooming and molestation network for years and she has the gall to say, "think of the children on the Internet"?
ifwinterco · 4h ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, this is a classic YooKay 2025 moment
gg82 · 8h ago
The safety rules are also being used to block content about protests in the UK. How convenient for them.
> “West Yorkshire Police denied any involvement in blocking the footage. X declined to comment, but its AI chatbot, Grok, indicated the clip had been restricted under the Online Safety Act due to violent content.”
I’m not involved with X or with its chatbot. Is its chatbot ordinarily an authoritative source for facts about assumptions like this one, that the law “was used to take down” politically sensitive video?
It’s a bad look either way, but I feel like there are important differences between the law leading to overly conservative automated filtering, vs political actors using it deliberately in specific cases. Bad symptom either way, but different medicines, right?
exodust · 7h ago
> that the law “was used to take down” politically sensitive video?
You've misquoted the chatbot, which is a new one.
The video wasn't "taken down" and Grok never said that. It was blocked for some users in the UK due to the new authoritarian age verification laws which everyone should be concerned about if access to newsworthy content requires "papers please".
portaouflop · 7h ago
Of course LLMs are a rubbish source for facts, one should always verify.
Not possible in this case so I would assume it just made it up
exodust · 7h ago
In this case, Grok is stating the obvious. I'm not sure how you can arrive at any other conclusion. The clip is inaccessible to some users in the UK on the day the act comes online, replaced with a message about local laws and age verification.
crimsoneer · 6h ago
The fact X flags protest videos as adult content is not entirely the fault of the UK government.
nashashmi · 26m ago
This alternative approach is fine. When people use extra money to pay for such services, it boosts economic activity and creates a market-driven filter. If you are economically advanced, you can afford this workaround. If you are not, well you are surrendering to govt safety rules. And thus everything works.
tapoxi · 9h ago
I really don't understand why it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter. Parent sets up the phone and it's enabled by default. Much simpler option for everyone involved.
john01dav · 8h ago
It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. They want online activity tied to real identity as a power grab.
airhangerf15 · 8h ago
Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores.
Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
ByThyGrace · 39m ago
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US
Interesting, since when? I'm curious about how it's turned out in practise. For web services I mean. An for anyone hosting a message board or comment section.
userbinator · 7h ago
One possibly significant difference is that the cultural attitudes in the US tend to lean more rebellious and distrustful of the government, and "it's legal if you don't get caught" is a somewhat popular sentiment.
ls612 · 8h ago
At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.
iamacyborg · 7h ago
> Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
I’m not sure what gun laws have to do with anything but guns are not unreasonably difficult to legally purchase in the UK or EU if you have a specific need for one. It’s a tool and treated as such
rhubarbtree · 7h ago
Probably based on long term concerns that escalating inequality will lead to widespread unrest and violence. Which it will, if unaddressed.
Interesting that decades of government leaves half the country to rot, and their solution is to try to stop that half from rioting about it, rather than - perhaps - making society fairer?
crimsoneer · 6h ago
Because reinforcing a natural monopoly is bad? The law is specifically written to allow a range of different business models etc.
Also, because desktops/different browsers are a thing?
theshackleford · 28m ago
> Also, because desktops/different browsers are a thing?
I mean, i'd think primarily this. They may hold a significant marketshare, but they dont hold all of it.
blitzar · 6h ago
> it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter
I am old enough to remember when Apple proposed client side filtering and everyone absolutely lost their shit.
cakealert · 8h ago
What message does it send when your government tries to impose costs on your preferred behavior while at the same time being unable to do it when you download a single app?
The words that come to mind are malicious and incompetent. The only 'achievement' is to increase contempt towards the government. And the times aren't exactly stable to begin with.
irusensei · 23m ago
Slightly related question. How Matrix, Mastodon, Bsky and Nostr handling this? More specifically the small and personal instances.
justref · 1h ago
I wonder which company is gonna be the first one to leak all of the ID and Selfies. After that, I'm expecting these laws to be lifted off.
Ylpertnodi · 41m ago
> After that, I'm expecting these laws to be lifted off.
Bollocks (nicely).
A shit-load of 'the 1%', just got a free pass.
If anything, after that!, 'I'm expecting these laws to be doubled-down on.'
crossroadsguy · 1h ago
Since it's about VPNs - what are good VPNs for someone looking for safety/privacy but not anonymity or even IP hiding?
Not even for streaming. But for general "safety while on the Internet" when the devices (Mac, iPhone) are mostly on public or not-so-secure WiFi (at the residence or on the go). Plan is to keep it always ON or almost always ON.
Not necessarily for the UK.
(Other than Mullvad)
jnwatson · 1h ago
The best VPN is to host your own. I used Digital Ocean. They have preconfigured droplet images for OpenVPN access server. The droplet even serves a client pre-configured with the connection settings.
It took me all of 10 minutes to set up.
TheDong · 57m ago
In the year of our lord 2025, don't use OpenVPN. Use wireguard.
lan321 · 1h ago
This sounds more like a task for NextDNS than a VPN, tbh. Or are you worried about no TLS?
arccy · 1h ago
if you're on apple... iCloud Private Relay.
though you may need to be more clear on the safety / privacy benefits you expect to gain
spacebanana7 · 23m ago
iCloud Private Relay has the benefit of more accepted by payment processors etc, but the downside is that because it doesn't mask your country of origin the UK censorship rules still apply whilst using it.
I've found that Mullvad generally has the best privacy reputation, but I've also been blocked by a lot of sites whilst using it.
The mainstream consumer VPNs like Nord, Proton etc aren't as great for privacy but I suspect they're less likely to be blocked. I'd love to have more data to justify this though.
dwedge · 1h ago
The obvious stage two being the UK targeting VPNs as technology to get around think-of-the-children laws
ethan_smith · 9h ago
Classic Streisand effect - attempts to restrict content access inevitably lead to widespread adoption of circumvention technologies.
itake · 9h ago
seems to be working in China. While many Chinese use VPN software, many don't bother with the friction and are fine just using rednote and friends.
bapak · 9h ago
Leaving the complexity of attempting to circumvent the great firewall aside, VPN isn't free. Not many are willing to drop £60+/year just to avoid identifying yourself on PH. Easier to find a website that doesn't enforce it.
voidUpdate · 6h ago
In the UK case, TOR seems to happily get around these restrictions for free (I gave it a quick check yesterday). I'd imagine that there might be some kind of crackdown on TOR exit nodes in the future though
crimsoneer · 6h ago
Tor is not an ideal browsing experience.
voidUpdate · 5h ago
nor is submitting your ID to a third party agency to allow you to go to a website
dns_snek · 8h ago
> VPN isn't free. Not many are willing to drop £60+/year
Yes it is, well, the shady ones that make you part of a botnet are. Those are the ones people are going to predominantly use.
winrid · 8h ago
VPNs barely work in China IME. NordVPN didn't work, for example, and my self hosted VPN would often get disconnected.
rtpg · 7h ago
Maybe it's changed recently, but I knew a lot of locals just using the VPN stuff to use the outside internet (though, like a couple other countries, they have a big enough homegrown market to where for most people not having fb or whatever is a no-op)
My experiences in the country using VPN stuff was pretty interesting though... it _really_ felt like depending on where you were physically in the country that you were going through completely different censorship pipes. And things like Apple push notifications would just get through no problem so you could at least receive stuff via push from banned apps.
I wonder what kind of detailed explanations of the mechanics there are, because I don't have a mental model of it that works beyond "censors just tell each regional office of national operaors to do stuff and they all do it slightly differently"
grishka · 6h ago
For a self-hosted VPN, you'll need to use a protocol that is specifically designed to be resilient to censorship. VLESS, for example. Things like WireGuard and OpenVPN are very easily detected.
xdfgh1112 · 7h ago
They work but you have to put in some effort to find the right ones.
lesser-shadow · 8h ago
"Seems to be working in China."
Yeah, let's follow the example of the authoritarian countries just to prove how liberal "democracies" have nothing to do with freedom.
syockit · 8h ago
The parent comment is not about following examples, but rather that the impact Streisand effect is going to be very limited, and the common folk will not bother to circumvent.
grishka · 6h ago
This is how it worked out in Russia. First, around 10 years ago, they adopted very limited laws that required ISPs to block websites. Things like drugs and suicide, with the classic rationale "won't someone please think of the children". Then piracy websites were added to that. Fast forward to now, ISPs were mandated to install black-box "ТСПУ" devices on their networks, "to protect against threats", so now Roskomnadzor doesn't even pretend to care about the law. Half the internet is broken. More if you're on mobile data. Everyone knows what a VPN is. I personally have set up DPI bypass tools for many of my relatives.
In other words, if you censor enough of the internet that your population knows ways around that, your censorship simply ceases being effective.
rdm_blackhole · 2h ago
At least in Russia and in china, the governments don't pretend that what they are doing is to save the children(TM) whereas in the west we like to drape our authoritarian tendencies under such false pretenses.
rightbyte · 6h ago
> Then piracy websites were added to that.
Really? I thought it was de facto no care for piracy from the gov side. Maybe that is just how it looks from the outside.
grishka · 5h ago
The government does care somewhat and does some token gestures, at least because Russia is a WTO member. The people mostly don't care.
chrismatheson · 6h ago
There are a lot of comments and thinking along the demo and gloom lines.
On the "silver lining" side, could be a eye-opener for the population of the UK, that things they take for granted cant get summarily yanked away if they don't actually do something.
And with any luck it will pull up the technical competency of every person using these services (pretty much every adult).
With any luck parents might even be forced to gain the skill their kids already live and breathe and don't think twice about.
:)
reflexco · 55m ago
I used to be optimistic that way, but if you look somewhere similar developments happened before like China: yes, people adapted to circumvent their regime's oppression, but the laws never changed.
Since surveillance is only a 2nd tier issue in terms of mind share (at best), it's untouched by electoral democracy. And because rulers automatically support more surveillance, there are no mechanisms for positive developments on that side, both in the UK and in China.
hkon · 1h ago
Any suggestions?
elitistphoenix · 10h ago
Headline should be edited to put safety in quotes
elric · 6h ago
So, is internet freedom still a thing in any countries? And what's their immigration policy like?
zb3 · 54m ago
Turns out the Great Firewall was ahead of its time and it will soon become the standard in the so called "free" world too.
dottjt · 7h ago
This might be a dumb question, but is it possible for the UK government to ban VPN usage within the UK?
xdfgh1112 · 7h ago
They banned porn with choking in it. They banned toy advertising in the evening. They tried to ban client side encryption for iCloud. Make no mistake they will go for vpns too.
Spivak · 52m ago
Banning porn depicting choking "to protect women from violence" is so funny. You could not ask for a better example of moral panic from people that didn't do their research. Choking is a strongly women preferred kink.
isaacremuant · 6h ago
100%.
Funnily enough. They just need to claim it's "protecting the children" and people fall for it.
The funniest part is that high profile criminal cases go unpunished very visibly. Even if they have minors in their context, because the elite figures in question must be protected from the enforcement of rules.
badpenny · 6h ago
I may well be wrong, but I suspect that the number of people who "fall for" the protect-the-children narrative, at least to the degree where they believe the proposed change is effective enough to justify it, isn't very large.
I'd argue it works because it's a rhetorical tactic that's highly effective at suppressing dissent. Anybody sticking their head above the parapet is going to get painted as somebody who favours pornography over the safety of children, even though this legislation and opposition to it has very little to do with either.
isaacremuant · 3h ago
In my experience, people in real life do absolutely parrot the talking points that are deemed to be good (TM). Whether they do it out of fear or not, ends up being a moot point since they create an environment of apparent cohesion.
0x264 · 7h ago
No they can't. Myself, and quite a few other people, need it for work.
b800h · 7h ago
They could force you to provide ID in order to use it though.
lan321 · 4h ago
Encryption with the only private key allowed being your SSN equivalent. :)
adammarples · 6h ago
Do you think that will stop them? They tried to ban encryption for petes sake.
crimsoneer · 6h ago
I mean, it's a sovereign state. The government can legislate for the sky to be purple if it wants to (though obviously that won't affect actual reality).
oliwarner · 6h ago
I don't care for the framing: users evading the law.
First, this is a law limiting the actions of service providers not users.
But by using a VPN, I'm making my own safety choices. I wish there was an easier opt-out (like an ISP account-level flag), but it I want to present to service providers as (eg) Swedish, so what? I'm an adult, the "safety" laws do nothing for my safety.
The truth is service providers and ISPs have done next to nothing to stop children signing up for (eg) Snapchat, despite a plethora of laws. Of course the parents are to blame, but fixing shitty parenting is hard.
kelseydh · 10h ago
Australia is set to adopt these rules in December, it's going to be another boom for VPN providers.
OutOfHere · 7h ago
UK and Australia are slowly going the way of China in their blocking, and the eventual end effect could be that they will get their citizens cut off from the internet.
It's just that Australia and UK tend to lead the way when it comes to authoritarianism and then it becomes "this has always been like this, you conspiracy theorist".
exodust · 7h ago
They're coming for AI tools next. Here in Australia they're rolling out the academic socialist activists on the public broadcaster. These experts know how to keep us safe apparently.
This morning it was all about "think of the children" in the context of banning AI tools that could potentially be used to make AI generated CSAM. Even adult nudity is in the firing line. Ban the lot was the advice from the expert. Not just banning access, but making it a crime to even possess the tools.
What next? Ban paint brushes because someone might use them to paint offensive images?
userbinator · 11h ago
This was an entirely predictable outcome.
arrowsmith · 10h ago
As is the next step: a slow but steady expansion of what's considered "unsafe" or "harmful" used to justify ever-increasing restrictions and censorship.
lisbbb · 9h ago
As a student of 1930s and 1940s history, I can say for sure that the most terrifying aspect of what took place wasn't the "Gestapo" and all the open terror, it was the propaganda that fooled so many people and the censorship that kept the lies alive. Humanity still has not fully come to terms with the layers upon layers of lies that took place before and during WWII.
wkat4242 · 9h ago
And VPNs will probably end up in that category too :(
lucasRW · 32m ago
It baffles me that some people vote for socialists and are then surprised to have soviet-style laws.
Doctor_Fegg · 24m ago
The Online Safety Bill was introduced by the previous Conservative government.
sixothree · 9h ago
I went on a weekend vacation with three guys. I was asked what I thought a good VPN was. They all have VPNs on their phones apparently. Here I am thinking they are technologically adept, maybe a little bit security conscious. Or maybe misled by advertisements.
It wasn't until after I got home I realized it was because of adult content.
blitzar · 6h ago
> They all have VPNs on their phones apparently
They listen to podcasts and watch youtube. They know that a good VPN will stop their internet banking details being stolen, protect their family in their home and add 2-4 inches to their manhood.
Use code "Grifter Affiliate Marketing" for 10% off at checkout, thats code "Grifter Affiliate Marketing" for 10% off at checkout. Protect your privacy today.
xdfgh1112 · 7h ago
Until like a week ago there was no age checking system for porn and no reason to use a VPN really. Although your friends could have been into some very strange stuff.
lisbbb · 9h ago
Whatever it is for, let freedom ring. These puritanical laws do nothing but empower government with the end goal of totally controlling online speech.
aydyn · 6h ago
Gee, maybe Trump isnt so bad
renegat0x0 · 7h ago
We all know how people in position of power, governments like kids. Trump also likes kids. They do it for kids, sure.
If not for kids, then why they introduce data-gathering solutions? I wonder why...
thdhhghgbhy · 8h ago
The new online safety rules are already being used to shut down government criticism. How it works is their new elite protection squad, if someone is deigned an influential critic of government policy, trawls through your social media posts until they find something against the laws. A lot of government critique is coming from the working class here now, who have virtually no political representation in the UK. As you can imagine, some of these social media posters don't mince their words, and end up getting caught out and arrested.
ChrisKnott · 8h ago
Do you have any examples of people being arrested for criticising a law?
Most of the time these dystopian descriptions of the UK turn out to be completely overblown nonsense when you look into them properly.
rubyAce · 46m ago
There are discussions in parliament about grooming gangs on X. These are soft-censored (you can't see it without passing the the age verification). Few people will be bothered to make an account to see a post and pass age verification. Therefore it slows the sharing of information.
It isn't about outright banning the discussion, because that will cause considerable push-back by the public. So you dress up a policy as doing one thing knowing that the effect will be another. I don't take anything the British State says at face value. If you do, you are simply being naive.
dkdbejwi383 · 7h ago
Yup, along the same lines as the “sharia no go zones” and “get stabbed six ways to Sunday every time you go outside” myths
b800h · 7h ago
Our town has been abandoned by police and is overrun with violent criminals on unlicensed motorbikes. So make of that what you will.
dkdbejwi383 · 6h ago
Which town? I’d be interested in reading about this if you could share some sources please
b800h · 7h ago
I suppose the most recent example are the people from Palestine Action being arrested en masse at protests.
Lio · 5h ago
They're not really being arrested for criticising a law though.
They're arrested for supporting a group that's been banned for causing around £30 million's worth of damage to our national defences at a time of hightened national security.
There's the implication that Palastinian Action are going to continue attacking us.
If they just stuck to protesting they would have been fine.
Devilspawn6666 · 7h ago
Look up the videos "blackbeltbarrister" on YouTube. He's doing a good job of explaining the law as it is and how it's really being applied in the UK.
On the NHS, I tried for years to push for improvements to switch to digital cancer screening invitations after they missed my mother (offering to build the software for free), which is now happening, but suggesting the NHS isn't perfect is against the religion here. My sister who works in NHS DEI hasn't spoken to me since publishing a book on it.
Every time someone with the finances, vision and ability leaves I think the situation gets a little bit worse, it increases the proportion of people remaining willing to put up with all of it. Anecdotally, many of my friends have already left, some of the older generation want to leave but feel tied in. My flight out is in 6 weeks. Good riddance, no doubt.
> just mentioning increased immigration
One of these seems like the solution to the other.
> as long as those people leaving are straight, white males, or their families, they're being told "good riddance" regardless of the brain drain and loss of tax income
Having UK work experience and having talked to thousands of british folks over a decade, I find this hard to believe.
I started working with folks from the UK right at the start when social media really took off, and I personally think that what ails the UK is the same as what ails the world. Too much social media.
The UK has always been an empire in decline, but the wheels didn't come off until everyone became glued to feeds. It's Garbage In, Garbage Out. If your view of reality is driven by stuff that you see online, it's a distorted lens which then leads to distorted decision making that then leads to authoritarian creep.
Just my 2¢.
I don't know anyone that doesn't complain about the state of the NHS. The only time I've heard anyone defending it would be when compared to countries without national healthcare (e.g. America).
Granted I'm in tech so that's steady employment with benefits, but there you go.
Costa Rica has an affordable all inclusive public health care system (Caja). But you can also pay for extra for private healthcare. Is it the same in the UK?
Yes
In real terms the budget is the largest it's ever been, it's a relic of the time when people worked and died shortly (a decade) after retiring, not when they live for 30+ years longer.
There are policies that are wildly popular. Free public healthcare is one of such policies in many countries, and perhaps for a good reason.
No comments yet
A lot of that money has gone on stealth privatisation through inefficient outsourcing of contract staff and PFI of infrastructure.
So the actual standard of care is far lower than the funding suggests. And it has been deliberately run down so a US-style system can be implemented.
So yes, the organisation should be improved, but in the exact opposite direction to the one you're suggesting.
The UK's real problem is that it's run by an out-of-touch inbred aristocracy with vast inherited wealth, working through a political system which prioritises stealth corruption over public service.
They don't see why they should contribute anything to the welfare of the peasants. The obligation is all one way - from the peasants to the gentry.
And there's a layer of middle class professionals who have convinced themselves they're the gentry, even though they can't afford to pay their school fees, never mind maintain a huge estate.
So - private ownership good, public spending bad. More sensible countries don't have this attitude problem, and are proud their public services actually benefit the public.
So public/NHS vs private/US system is a false dichotomy, and "free at the point of use" is a red herring.
That I could have multiple negative NHS experiences relating to missed cancer diagnoses of friends in that relatively short span of time is suggestive of a real problem. The institution seemed to have less of an issue with elder care (in the US, the phantom menace posed by Obamacare or any governmental involvement in healthcare was meant to be "death panels" deciding the fate of grandparents) than with avoiding at all costs detecting potential long-term problems in the young. It's a 'rational' fear in the sense, as you note, that such cases put tremendous pressure on services, but there's no world where the best health outcome is refusing to screen your working age population.
That's really not my experience. In fact, almost everyone is surprised when I suggest that despite its many problems, the NHS does better for the people than most modern countries' health systems.
No one I know who has lived in France or Germany or any developed country other than the US thinks the NHS is better than the systems in those countries.
Errr, what? A lot of people complain about the NHS, whilst conceding there are issues that are difficult to address eg staff, lack of investment etc.
Hysteria about crime is just far right propaganda.
(Obviously keeping crime low is important, and a generally low crime rate doesn't reduce the impact on those who are victims. But pretending that high crime is a pressing problem for the country as a whole is disingenuous)
This is totally untrue. As long as it's selfish, unpatriotic people leaving, I couldn't care less what their skin color or sexual orientation is.
Selfish? I'll take that. I'm choosing to put the future of my children ahead of those who couldn't care less about them in any respect.
Skilled immigration or the Channel crossing?
This is the issue.
- this kind of authoritarian nonsense is just what Home Secretaries do. David Blunkett brought in RIP (then, to his very slight credit, changed his mind). Jack 'boot' Straw was famous for his I-AM-THE-LAWing. I don't think the Tories are any better.
- No, criticizing the NHS is not against the religion there. The newspapers are forever getting in digs about long waits, unpopular (but perfectly rational) decision from NICE about what drugs to pay for, and junior doctors and their apparent insistence on being paid properly.
- And with that in mind, having lived in three countries (four if you accept that the NHS in England and Scotland are different) I personally think the NHS is fucking fantastic. Someone close to me was diagnosed with a serious illness and immediately swept up in a production line of modern, effective treatment. Sure, it was somewhat impersonal, the biscuits are rubbish, and they were a widget on the production line, but they're also still alive ten years later, and we still have a house and savings.
- kudos to your sister. The UK is an ethnically diverse place, one of the least racist and divided that I've seen, but - like everywhere else - imperfect. The NHS always seemed to me to be a reflection of what things could be elsewhere with doctors, nurses and cleaners hired from all over the world. [which reminds me that while the right-wing press hates the NHS for being free, the left wing press occasionally hates the NHS for bringing in medical staff from poorer parts of the world. They just can't win]
This is exactly what I'm saying. The NHS are seen as perfect by some. All criticism is digs that are wrong.
I'm pro-NHS. But this perspective that it's infallible is beyond all reality.
Often, when people criticize the NHS they have an ulterior motive, like privatisation. Consider all the political difficulties the NHS has had in the past few years. As such, negative remarks can be read or misread as dogwhistles for other views, so they're something that have to be phrased carefully and within context.
I was unclear: did you publish a book, or did your sister?
In general, for something both as key and as endangered as the NHS is, criticism isn't always useful -- support is. Problems can be recognised and addressed through support.
I'm not anti-NHS, I've no agenda to see it privatised, I just want it to be better. I tried many, many private routes first. I tried NHS England, NHS Digital, the Innovation Service, AHSNs (many sections having since been renamed/reorganised). About 20 different contact points over two or three years, most of which seemed inappropriate but I made sure if anyone told me it was someone else's responsibility I checked with them.
The problems had already been recognised through public inquiries and yet were still ongoing.
I even offered to build the software for free, which, hopefully, for an individual dealing with an organisation with a budget into the hundreds of billions, falls under supportive. But as far as I could see, offering support was getting me nowhere.
I just had people acknowledging the issue and then shrugging their shoulders, pointing fingers at everyone else. So I wrote a book on it, spoke about the issue publicly and within months it was decided to spend tens of millions on sorting it.
I think it's wonderful that you offered to do that but it simply isn't realistic. Who is going to support this software in the long term? How are you handling privacy concerns? What guarantees can you offer about server security? Who is paying for and maintaining the servers in the long term? What happens (to be blunt) if you die the day after the software is delivered?
There's so, so much wrong with the way governments provision software projects from outside parties. But there is good reason to have contracts the length of the Bible. Picking up work from individuals on a whim is courting disaster.
This kind of political insecurity is toxic for rational conversation. Blindly rejecting the criticisms of our political opponents is just as naive as blindly accepting their criticisms. Either way we handover control of the conversation.
I've never met anyone who thinks that the NHS is perfect - least of all anyone who has used it or anyone who works there.
Many years ago now my sister turned down the chance to go to an international conference held in the Netherlands, when I asked why, she said it was because the NHS was the best in the world and had nothing to learn from other healthcare systems. I'm still stunned, and she still doesn't know anything about other healthcare systems.
No comments yet
Very very very few people think the NHS is infallible. What are you even talking about? We all understand the NHS has many many problems, and those of us that have used the NHS understand this even more.
However, we still think it's a lot better than the private healthcare model.
Not sure what you're getting out of this weird strawman argument you're putting forward.
What private healthcare mode? WHat they have in the US? Then definitely yes. What they have on France or Germany or Japan or almost every other developed country.? Then No. What they have in Singapore? Still No.
Yet private healthcare is a strawman, I've never argued for it.
This is why I'm pleased that for the ward I visit, biscuits and snacks are provided by a charity, it is the best of both worlds.
Not only I am not bankrupt from medical care, but I also get to enjoy decent snacks and a good coffee machine.
This significantly underplays the situation here. The UK state views "anti-migrant" views as extreme: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/26/elite-police...
In the UK attending a protest against putting illegal immigrants from Afghanistan in a hotel by your kids school is likely to have you on a watch list or arrested. This might not sound that bad to our European friends, but you guys in the US might be quite surprised to hear this.
It's not just "right-wing" positions which are dealt like this either, I should note for legal reasons that I strongly disagree with the actions and views of "Palestine Action", but arrests of peaceful protestors who simply wish to voice support of them as a group (without actually being part of the group themselves) is in my mind absurd. It's one thing to make membership of the group illegal, but to also make debating that judgement illegal is highly problematic in my mind. For those interested you'll find videos of the police arresting elderly women for terror charges for simply peacefully voicing their opinions on Palestine Action. It's vile.
Being a free society comes with both good and bad. This type of law, whether it's good or bad, is akin to China's Great Firewall
Other countries are moving in the same direction. The EU has repeatedly tried to push things like on device scanning or banning encryption.
> Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government.
Mostly a failure of democracy - we have two major parties that are hard to tell apart.
They are both cynical and scared, and have for decades believed the future of Britain is managed decline. They also strongly believe the hoi polloi have to be forced to do what is good for them - e.g. the sugar tax and other "nudge politics", or the currently Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which is basically about imposing central policy on how children are brought up and educated.
As of 2022, the WHO reported on SSB (sugar-sweetened beverages):
> Currently, at least 85 countries implement some type of SBB taxation.
It feels to me like this was a rare step in the opposite direction - recognising that industry is the driving cynical force and pushing back on its over reach where it has failed. Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately to avoid the tax, with what net loss? (The class-targeting comments were a straw man)
https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2022-who-calls-on-countr...
However the way this works out in practice is a reduction in consumer choice, one that I'm reminded of every time I walk into a shop.
> Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately
This is the problem, really. Rather than adding new "low sugar" product lines, in most instances they're modifying existing ones to replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. The "original recipe" is often no longer available to consumers at any price.
As someone who struggles to consume enough calories to stay healthy, this sucks! (Mostly unrelated to pricing, just as a matter of practicality)
Overall I'm quite on the fence about the whole thing, but on a purely emotional level it feels like an instance of government overreach.
Is it though? Are other forms of government more successful while remaining respectful of privacy? Or is it more of a reaction to social or societal changes? Why would these social or societal changes be different than previous changes?
>I, for one, am glad that porn is being age-restricted online. It gives young people false ideas. You'll never get a plumber to come around to your house that quickly in real life.
[1]. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o
Edited for typo.
None of this is porn of course, but supposedly a lot of the lone wolf's are radicalised online so it creates a lot of "someone needs to do something!!!!" type attitudes (and no public gun ownership would not work like everyone says it would because the USA had that yet no one lifted a finger when they needed to recently, and now look what's happened), and sadly the older and more little-c conservative population carriers more clout in terms of policies because historically they tend to vote in greater numbers than younger groups. N.b. that 16 and 17 year olds have very recently been given the right to vote so things may change.
That was 20 years ago. Not really recently.
It's making me cynical, and I don't know what to do about it.
Instead of questioning how MPs are entitled to a pay rise while your average person gets made redundant, people are questioning why people fleeing persecution should ‘be paid for with my tax money’.
Brain fatigue and mixed signals combined with destitution and desperation drastically impede the average person’s ability and desire to fact check and extrapolate. We are moving towards a society of down and out people living with no hope serving the elite and those with a bit of money behind them.
My fiancée and I have had enough and are also leaving in October. No idea where to all we know is we have a one way ticket away and will figure the rest out.
Your misstating their concerns. I don't know whether you are misinformed or doing so deliberately.
The migrants on the boats are not people fleeing persecution. Firstly these boats are coming from France. Are you claiming that France is persecuting people?
Secondly. I have a relative that work in social services. They do age assessments. These men claim they are children. It takes time to do these age assessments to take place and process and while that is happening they have to be housed. Since they claim they are children, they have to be put into foster homes. So foster homes are forced to take strange men, while an age assessment is taking place. This is an obvious risk to the actual children housed there.
These migrants talk to each other and have worked out that if register with Counties outside of London it will take longer for them to be found out, because the local authorities in these counties have less resources to process them. One of these men admitted as much over the phone.
Things like this are what people are unhappy about. They don't have an issue with legitimate asylum claims. People aren't divided on this issue BTW.
Except many of them are not, they are economic migrants. And some have even realised that claiming that they're persecuted for lgbt reasons is an instant in - there was a case with a guy (with a wife and a bunch of children) that claimed to have written a pro lgbt article and now he's persecuted.
As a gay man the thought of that sickens me, economic migrants using who I am as a shortcut to entry, I have no problem at all with genuinely lgbt individuals seeking refugee status; we're still persecuted in so many places and there's not enough of us to make change happen in those places.
But the economic migrants...all they're doing is ensuring their home country never improves and that a steady stream of migrants continues into Europe. It'll never end.
No comments yet
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091
Visiting the Heineken website in the U.S. requires that you assert you are over the age of 21. Texas has instituted I.D. verification for pornography.
Regardless of how you feel about this law, it is not accurate to say the U.K. is unique in implementing it.
It’s not uniquely U.S. at all
What other countries require ID checks for services like Discord?
The U.K.’s implementation of this law is much more unique than you’re claiming.
https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/33362401287959...
Requiring ID verification in one country is not a small difference.
The rest of the world checks a box. People in the U.K. must submit to ID verification.
It’s so strange to see things like this claimed to be small differences.
The current global status quo is “radical” and the U.K. is the only country doing it right?
You were accusing others of being U.S. centric a few posts back, but now you’re pushing the U.K.’s unique laws as the only valid solution.
> We’ve been doing it for decades with credit cards
Age checks for credit cards are required because minors legally couldn’t be forced to pay their debts.
If companies issued credit cards to minors then the minors could spend as much as they want and the bank would have no recourse to collect.
I don’t think you understand these issues if you’re using this as a comparison. Either that or you’re not even trying to have an honest conversation.
I don’t think my view on the law matters, I haven’t shared it. I am speaking specifically about how everyone here is talking as if people in the U.K. care about “draconian” surveillance. People in the U.K. are not people from the U.S. Age verification is not a philosophical issue for U.K. people as it is for people in the U.S. People from the U.K. are not principled free speech absolutists. Ask a person in the U.K. if porn should require age verification and they will not think nor care about the free speech or surveillance implications of voting for such a law.
And people in the U.K. are not unique. People in the U.S. are. Spend any amount of time outside of our U.S. Internet bubble and you’ll discover nobody cares about any of this.
Whether I care and whether you care is not relevant to the British voters. Not the Australian voters. Nor the Swedish voters. Or the Thai voters. Or the Japanese voters…
That’s not correct. The Discord support explains that it’s required to change automatic content filtering or unblur any content that gets caught by the automatic filters.
That is what many people, especially those that do live in the UK don't appreciate.
From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.
The U.K. is a flawed place going to hell in a hand basket that many U.K. citizens have strong opinions on but outside of us, the freedom loving nerds on the internet, this identity verification law is not a part of the conversation. “Draconian” and “authoritarian” aren’t in the vocabulary of most U.K. citizens. They’re far more concerned about immigration and the economy.
The long-standing “the U.K. has the most cctv cameras per person” meme is further evidence of this. A well-loved fact carted out by freedom-loving anti-surveillance types… that the mainstream of the U.K. could not care less about.
This isn’t true at all. Age verification to use services like Discord in the U.K. is very unusual.
The U.K.’s approach to online speech and freedoms is not shared by many countries.
I don’t understand why you’re trying to reduce this to a normal outcome when it’s not normal at all
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-crime_hate_incident
Please give a few examples. I'm intrigued.
You are allowed to say there is censorship but not allowed to say what is forbidden (and you are not allowed to criticize some laws, without breaking the law). You can really go to jail or have your life ruined, or your business burned because of a TikTok video.
This censorship benefits a lot of bad people, but naming them is a crime by itself.
For example, in France, there is no insecurity in the streets. If you say the opposite and start naming examples, you will get shamed or even physically attacked by some people and be prosecuted for “spreading hate” and other crimes whereas your attackers will have zero issues.
This phenomenon is known as “juges rouges” (the red judges), somewhat similar to USSR
There have been several high profile cases used as examples, like the guy who was convicted for making a video of his girlfriend’s dog pretending to do a Nazi salute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
Doing anything considered “grossly offensive” online can result in the police knocking on your door and financial penalties. It’s a foreign concept if you’re in a country where making jokes online doesn’t constitute a risk to your freedoms and finances (which is more than just the U.S.)
I am English. I was born in England, my parents are English, my Grandparents were English, My Great Grandparents were English etc. etc.
I have lived my majority of my life here. So I am English.
You obviously didn't read what I said. I understand that it is nothing special in isolation. However I am not talking about it in isolation. I was talking about the entirety of how the current laws are constructed as well as how the UK state operates.
Also just because other countries have rubbish laws, doesn't mean we should have adopted similar ones.
> From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.
Many people do not like this and are actively seeking work-arounds. These aren't uber nerds like myself BTW.
> The U.K. is a flawed place going to hell in a hand basket that many U.K. citizens have strong opinions on but outside of us, the freedom loving nerds on the internet, this identity verification law is not a part of the conversation.
So you admit there is a problem. But you then pretend that this can't possibly be part of the entire picture because you say so.
Sorry it very much well is part of the problem. You stating it isn't doesn't make it so.
People are talking about these things ironically on places like twitter/X, facebook, whatsapp, discord and in person (shock horror I know). I was at a boys football match this weekend and people were talking about it there.
BTW quite hilariously twitter/X are censoring some footage from the commons as that content has to be age-gated.
I know it might shock you but people on twitter and discord are not representative of voters. Most voters do not engage with any social media.
People on the internet get so caught up in the international perspective we are exposed to that we forget what national voters actually care about.
Go look at polling about this law for a real insight, 80% of people support it: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...
If social media wasn't important, politicians, mainstream news publications themselves, and other political activists wouldn't bother with it. So this is patently False.
Pretending this hasn't been a trend now for 15 years is completely asinine and shame on you for attempting to pretend the opposite is true.
> I know it might shock you but people on twitter and discord are not representative of voters. Most voters do not engage with any social media.
False. Almost everyone I know is on social media of some sort. They might not be actively engaging but they do engage regularly in some form or another. Most of them would be called lurkers, or they will check out stuff if some piques their interests.
You conveniently missed out where I said "facebook" and "in person"
> People on the internet get so caught up in the international perspective we are exposed to that we forget what national voters actually care about.
I don't care about the international perspective. I am English (I've already told you this). I care about this issue and I know plenty of other people who are British care about this issue.
> Go look at polling about this law for a real insight, 80% of people support it: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...
The same YouGov polling that had almost every about Brexit issue at 71% vs 29%. Their polling isn't to be trusted.
Even if I took that at face value, that means 1/5 people don't support it. Which isn't an insignificant amount of people. So there are a decent number of people that care about it, even using your own figures. This disproves your statements about it not being cared about and only uber nerds caring about it.
You can take a principled stance, you can have strong views, you can believe in freedom, I’m with you, but it’s patently absurd to suggest that any of what you believe is representative of the people. The people, in the U.K. and beyond, simply do not have a single solitary regard for any of this. Porn bad so porn ban good. That’s the entire thought process.
Could more than 5% of the U.K. voting public even define “draconian”? or “authoritarian”?
False. Most of the people I engage with in real life are not nerds. You keep on stating things that you know nothing about as truisms. How about instead of trying to gaslight people about what is real and what isn't, you actually engage in the points being made by your interlocutor?
> Go out and talk to real people. Go and stand in the street and ask every passer by whether they feel the U.K. is “draconian” or not.
I would imagine if someone thought about it, I would get a statement something about all the cameras everywhere or how buying some with a bank transfer is difficult (if you buy something cash like a vehicle it sets off anti-fraud detection in your bank and transactions can be blocked).
They won't talk about it in terms you are familiar with. They will point to stuff like cameras, unfair charges etc and how difficult some of this makes their lives.
All of this normal people have experienced.
> You’ll be shocked to discover that almost nobody cares about anything that doesn’t directly impact their day to day life. Look at the rise of Reform, Farage’s embrace of trumpism. That’s authoritarianism, and the people love it. You’re completely out of touch with the common person if you think any of this matters.
You mentioned all of those. I didn't mention them. You are projecting onto me what your experience is. The irony here is astounding.
You may not like it and I may not like it but the view of the U.K. voting public is that age verification to look at porn is reasonable and that “protecting” children justifies limiting freedoms.
My exercise for you: decide what evidence is needed to convince you that most British people are happy with this law.
You said it "wasn't part of the conversation" originally. Not what the majority agreed with. You've subtly tried to change what the discussion was about. That is known as moving the goalposts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Then you asked me to provide evidence of something I can't possibly provide. That quite frankly bullshit.
> You may not like it and I may not like it but the view of the U.K. voting public is that age verification to look at porn is reasonable and that “protecting” children justifies limiting freedoms.
I don't doubt that the majority are OK with it. I am taking issue with the fact that you are pretending only libertarian nerds online care about this. I know that isn't true.
> My exercise for you: decide what evidence is needed to convince you that most British people are happy with this law.
Don't talk to me like a child.
I don't have you provide you with anything. You made the claim that only a few people care about this. When even your own evidence disputes. 20% of a large group of people is still a lot. That isn't "nobody cares" like you pretend is the case.
Anyway I am done with you. Go away!
Saying that illegal migrants should be sent back home can literally land you at the police station. A hotel worker was arrested for testifying to what he saw in his hotels, ie. migrants being hosted, given a phone, meals, and NHS visit once every two weeks.
Just, no.
5-eyes is the most heinous human-rights-destroying apparatus under the sun, and it wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the British desire to undermine cultures they have deemed inferior.
Average UKian is, IME, surprisingly technologically unsavvy. This might be the root cause of lack of interest or protest.
If I were to guess how this whole thing came to be, it would be thus: the UK government is increasingly dysfunctional and polarised. The attention of government and opposition goes increasingly into futile, high-stakes but always drawn battles. But that means that motivated and organised groups can push through things that look benign from the outside and don't trigger the Great Polarisation. Protecting children from suicide, what's not to like? The Parliament, where this should be shredded to pieces, is too busy trying to reshuffle deckchairs.
Meanwhile this is printed on vellum, welcome to the new reality.
> complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government
I disagree with this sentiment, however it does show how bad "democracy" can be when voting for a complete government change results in absolutely no change whatsoever.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-prevalence-cctv-cameras-...
Oh wait, Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km. Narrative.
You listed extremely dense cities. Of course they have more cameras per square.
This isn’t a narrative violation, it’s basic math.
UK bad because online safety rules, let's ignore US states that already do this.
> Don't mind what we are doing, the UK is worse.
Not defending the UK, but they aren't the first and you dont get the same inflammatory racist language with other countries.
How so? If I have a car lot, I'll have multiple cameras for a tiny area bumping the average camera per person without meaningful results. Sounds like the worst measurement unless you are trying to push a narrative.
Basically Labour continues taking UK into corporate fascist utopia.
Historically there is no formal constitution in the UK so Parliament is not limited in their power. IHMO it's the main factor why the UK is an outlier.
The UK was also one of the first nations to ban indoor smoking and in cars with kids. I think this is very much in that vein (politically).
What I see instead is the other side of Hanlon’s razor —incompetence— coupled with a political class riven with pockets of self-interest, and very few seemingly with an intellectual hypothesis to explain the UK’s current predicament, or to chart a path out of it.
If you read any history about any daring military action during WW2, a lot of it was done by men thinking up of stuff in dark rooms while smoking cigars. Why is this so unbelievable now?
BTW, The UK ran the world's largest empire and until recently this was in living memory.
> What I see instead is the other side of Hanlon’s razor —incompetence— coupled with a political class riven with pockets of self-interest, and very few seemingly with an intellectual hypothesis to explain the UK’s current predicament, or to chart a path out of it.
Hanlon's razor IMO is nonsense. It is honestly believe it was invented so people could explain away their malice.
Anyone who is relatively intelligent will work at out some point, that if they don't want to do something they can passively aggressively work against the authority while working withing the rules. My father (who builds luxury yachts and is near retirement) was telling me how he maliciously complies with various companies rules to make his superior's life more difficult, this is a way to get back at them for their poor planning.
Even if you accept that Hanlon's razor is mostly true. It cannot be applied when you are dealing with political actors. Political actors, the media and anything related are literally trying to manipulate you. In fact it is a good rule that whatever they tell you that it is, assume the opposite and that is typically true.
No need to imagine it. Read the Wikileaks. Names are named. The class division is real, and it is fomented by those who seek to profit from the subterfuge - and they DO profit, at massive scale.
We have a history of trying banning bad stuff. Magna Carta in the 1200s against the right of kings, slavery abolition in the 1800s, now porn being pushed to kids.
I don't think child grooming or hate is particularly bad here but we tend to try to stop that kind of thing. We also had the first modern police force in 1829 and other innovations which have caught on in some other countries.
Some of the US alt right media pushes broken Britain stories because we have some muslim immigrants or something. The majority of the public support the bill https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-ad... I wonder if it's more the US is afraid of the their government that if they say they are promoting online saftey they are really going 1984 on the populace? Here people tend to assume they are in fact promoting what it says on the tin.
Seems like the pendulum has swung back now, doesn't it? Increasing authority/rights of the government instead of a king.
It's more the protect kids from sites 'that carry pornography as well as other “harmful” material that relates to self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.'
I guess other counties are like screw the kids, I'm terrified of being IDd in case my government does bad things?
See figure 1.3a - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-advisor...
Note that to the best of my knowledge, these numbers don't include the Afghan resettlement scheme which would further lower the proportion of employment driven visas.
https://niesr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/JC760-NIESR-O...
Far fetched and not cool.
The refusal to accept these problems is what is creating a surge in far-right popularity. The very people that oppose them have inadvertently become their biggest cheerleaders.
The current situation regarding small boats is not sustainable, particularly when it's proven that the majority are not fleeing persecution but are economic migrants. They're taking advantage of a system designed to help people in trouble, how could you defend that?
And when does it end? Will the UK always accept small boats ad infinitum?
I played by the (harsh) rules and got here legitimately. Why should I have bothered.
If they didn't want this, they could have just restricted it and it would have largely gone away as a topic of discussion, but current levels makes it inevitable it will become the main thing people think about
No comments yet
Just because people like yourself happen to think it is uncouth to discuss, doesn't mean that it isn't part of the equation.
Fixed that for you.
Yes technically it’s possible but I was told my a Swiss accountant “just don’t bother trying unless you can get a European passport - if you can”
This is from personal experience. As odd as it sounds Brexit really affected business ( always thought it was posturing) I can’t imagine what it did to mega corps etc
Just thought I’d share my xp
It seems like British people got very used to being able to move to the continent but how long was that state of affairs around for, I wonder.
That’s how visas work in most of the world.
I’m curious now, did you vote for it and not expect this? It doesn’t sound odd at all, it is exactly what everyone said would happen other than people promoting Brexit as some form of nationalism/pride movement.
One tweak to the rules and all of a sudden not only do porn sites have to verify the age of their UK visitors but also anyone connecting from something other than a residential ISP.
The more troubling thing about these laws is enforcement. The threat of fines only works against websites that map to a business entity. For anything else there will surely see a ramp up in the size of The Great British Firewall Ruleset, edited by the courts, and distributed to the Big N (5?) ISPs.
What will become of the smaller ISPs that refuse to block illegal sites?
I don't think many people object to blacklisting known sources of child pornography etc.
The fact is you now have to verify your identity (name and photo id) in the UK to access an adult subreddit.
If the vpn endpoint is in Rome or New York City, how will the UK government force that non-British vpn service and that non-British porn site to verify the age of anyone using it?
It's easy enough to get a list of IP addresses from those vpn services and just block them if you're Netflix, but to force compliance on anyone traversing the tunnel is another thing entirely. The UK government would have an easier time banning vpns outright.
I've found Tor is mostly useful for reading, not participating. Exit nodes get blocked from registering on most sites. One workaround is to register at a café or library then use the account over Tor, but sometimes even if you're being civil (see my comment history for a a pretty good picture of the style of discussions I have anonymously) sometimes you'll wake up to find the account nuked.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/onli...
All 3 like to crack down on free speech and monitor internet traffic for identical reasons though.
You can watch Youtube videos of citizens refusing to answer contentious questions quite easily. I believe William Spaniel has produced videos (relating to the Russian General Election) where he points this out, too.
UK government approval has surpassed 50% in a handful of polls in over 10 years, and approval peaks are typically immediately after elections before the government starts to implement its policies. The approval is currently 14%.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/government-app...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti...
So let me sum this up. We cannot ask the people. We cannot base ourselves on how their institutions function and how well they perform.
This discussion highlights how westerners suffer from some serious superiority complex where only THEY can experience genuine freedom and democracy(probably due to their superior phenotype or some inane bs), and everything outside of their little group of friends is a masquerade. The issue with that is that westerners disconnect themselves from reality. They are losing ground and it shows.
Which "free press" runst stories against Xi?
Where is the other half of the bell curve of public opinion that's critical of the CCP?
Yeah they have elections alright, you can vote for any Xi Jingping you want to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
> This discussion highlights how westerners suffer from some serious superiority complex where only THEY can experience genuine freedom and democracy(probably due to their superior phenotype or some inane bs)
There is democracy in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Just say, "I'm a tankie and I support Russia's invasion of Ukraine."
I personally see nothing wrong with this. The word "authoritarian" is virtually meaningless. And those local elections are paramount; Locally elected representatives end up electing MPs on the provincial level, then they chose MPs of the National People's Congress. The rest is common sense: just because we are used to "elect" pedophiles, racists and parasites doesn't mean all other countries should do the same.
> This discussion highlights how westerners suffer from some serious superiority complex where only THEY can experience genuine freedom and democracy(probably due to their superior phenotype or some inane bs)
You are quite literally commenting on a topic where Brits are complaining about our democracy. You will find reams of articles about the problems with western democracies.
However, you're also commenting about countries that quite literally changed our governments in the last year. USA voted in Trump, the UK voted in Labour. Germany just voted in a new party.
China and Russia, the main comparison points, have not changed government since the 90s. This is nothing to do with phenotypes, it's 100% just looking at the facts.
Regarding China, their leading party hasn't switched in 80 years, but their policies have and have plenty actually. Changing parties matters only a little bit in the grand scheme of things. I'd argue, for example, that Japan, that has been ruled by a single party for all of his modern existence, is still considered by many in the west as a functioning democracy.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52187-political-favou...
"Keir Starmer falls to lowest net favourability rating on record"
"Labour’s popularity hit isn’t merely limited to Keir Starmer, with worst-ever net favourability scores also recorded this month by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner (-31) and home secretary Yvette Cooper (-25), while Rachel Reeves has equalled her -48 net favourability rating recorded in mid-April."
"65% of Britons dislike the Labour Party, the most in the eight years YouGov has been asking the question"
Seriously? You can't make this up: she represents the town that did nothing about a massive (and completely offline) child grooming and molestation network for years and she has the gall to say, "think of the children on the Internet"?
https://freespeechunion.org/protest-footage-blocked-as-onlin...
I’m not involved with X or with its chatbot. Is its chatbot ordinarily an authoritative source for facts about assumptions like this one, that the law “was used to take down” politically sensitive video?
It’s a bad look either way, but I feel like there are important differences between the law leading to overly conservative automated filtering, vs political actors using it deliberately in specific cases. Bad symptom either way, but different medicines, right?
You've misquoted the chatbot, which is a new one.
The video wasn't "taken down" and Grok never said that. It was blocked for some users in the UK due to the new authoritarian age verification laws which everyone should be concerned about if access to newsworthy content requires "papers please".
Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.
Interesting, since when? I'm curious about how it's turned out in practise. For web services I mean. An for anyone hosting a message board or comment section.
I’m not sure what gun laws have to do with anything but guns are not unreasonably difficult to legally purchase in the UK or EU if you have a specific need for one. It’s a tool and treated as such
Interesting that decades of government leaves half the country to rot, and their solution is to try to stop that half from rioting about it, rather than - perhaps - making society fairer?
Also, because desktops/different browsers are a thing?
I mean, i'd think primarily this. They may hold a significant marketshare, but they dont hold all of it.
I am old enough to remember when Apple proposed client side filtering and everyone absolutely lost their shit.
The words that come to mind are malicious and incompetent. The only 'achievement' is to increase contempt towards the government. And the times aren't exactly stable to begin with.
Bollocks (nicely). A shit-load of 'the 1%', just got a free pass. If anything, after that!, 'I'm expecting these laws to be doubled-down on.'
Not even for streaming. But for general "safety while on the Internet" when the devices (Mac, iPhone) are mostly on public or not-so-secure WiFi (at the residence or on the go). Plan is to keep it always ON or almost always ON.
Not necessarily for the UK.
(Other than Mullvad)
It took me all of 10 minutes to set up.
though you may need to be more clear on the safety / privacy benefits you expect to gain
I've found that Mullvad generally has the best privacy reputation, but I've also been blocked by a lot of sites whilst using it.
The mainstream consumer VPNs like Nord, Proton etc aren't as great for privacy but I suspect they're less likely to be blocked. I'd love to have more data to justify this though.
Yes it is, well, the shady ones that make you part of a botnet are. Those are the ones people are going to predominantly use.
My experiences in the country using VPN stuff was pretty interesting though... it _really_ felt like depending on where you were physically in the country that you were going through completely different censorship pipes. And things like Apple push notifications would just get through no problem so you could at least receive stuff via push from banned apps.
I wonder what kind of detailed explanations of the mechanics there are, because I don't have a mental model of it that works beyond "censors just tell each regional office of national operaors to do stuff and they all do it slightly differently"
In other words, if you censor enough of the internet that your population knows ways around that, your censorship simply ceases being effective.
Really? I thought it was de facto no care for piracy from the gov side. Maybe that is just how it looks from the outside.
On the "silver lining" side, could be a eye-opener for the population of the UK, that things they take for granted cant get summarily yanked away if they don't actually do something.
And with any luck it will pull up the technical competency of every person using these services (pretty much every adult).
With any luck parents might even be forced to gain the skill their kids already live and breathe and don't think twice about.
:)
Since surveillance is only a 2nd tier issue in terms of mind share (at best), it's untouched by electoral democracy. And because rulers automatically support more surveillance, there are no mechanisms for positive developments on that side, both in the UK and in China.
Funnily enough. They just need to claim it's "protecting the children" and people fall for it.
The funniest part is that high profile criminal cases go unpunished very visibly. Even if they have minors in their context, because the elite figures in question must be protected from the enforcement of rules.
I'd argue it works because it's a rhetorical tactic that's highly effective at suppressing dissent. Anybody sticking their head above the parapet is going to get painted as somebody who favours pornography over the safety of children, even though this legislation and opposition to it has very little to do with either.
First, this is a law limiting the actions of service providers not users.
But by using a VPN, I'm making my own safety choices. I wish there was an easier opt-out (like an ISP account-level flag), but it I want to present to service providers as (eg) Swedish, so what? I'm an adult, the "safety" laws do nothing for my safety.
The truth is service providers and ISPs have done next to nothing to stop children signing up for (eg) Snapchat, despite a plethora of laws. Of course the parents are to blame, but fixing shitty parenting is hard.
It's just that Australia and UK tend to lead the way when it comes to authoritarianism and then it becomes "this has always been like this, you conspiracy theorist".
This morning it was all about "think of the children" in the context of banning AI tools that could potentially be used to make AI generated CSAM. Even adult nudity is in the firing line. Ban the lot was the advice from the expert. Not just banning access, but making it a crime to even possess the tools.
What next? Ban paint brushes because someone might use them to paint offensive images?
It wasn't until after I got home I realized it was because of adult content.
They listen to podcasts and watch youtube. They know that a good VPN will stop their internet banking details being stolen, protect their family in their home and add 2-4 inches to their manhood.
Use code "Grifter Affiliate Marketing" for 10% off at checkout, thats code "Grifter Affiliate Marketing" for 10% off at checkout. Protect your privacy today.
If not for kids, then why they introduce data-gathering solutions? I wonder why...
Most of the time these dystopian descriptions of the UK turn out to be completely overblown nonsense when you look into them properly.
It isn't about outright banning the discussion, because that will cause considerable push-back by the public. So you dress up a policy as doing one thing knowing that the effect will be another. I don't take anything the British State says at face value. If you do, you are simply being naive.
They're arrested for supporting a group that's been banned for causing around £30 million's worth of damage to our national defences at a time of hightened national security.
There's the implication that Palastinian Action are going to continue attacking us.
If they just stuck to protesting they would have been fine.
Tons of people are arrested and charged every day for thought crimes in Britain.
It sounds like there was harrasment involved, but it is scant on details.