> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats,
I am sure threats of violence are already illegal. If those people are in the UK, they should be prosecuted. If they are not in the UK they is not threat. I don't believe any if these online threats BTW are credible.
What these MPs do is frequently make outlandish statements, which then gets them a bunch of hate (Jess Phillips has done this her entire political career) and useful idiots will shout their mouth off online. These MPs then point to all the "hate" they are getting. There is even a meme demonstrating this very effect:
I believe the individual was deemed at risk of radicalisation.
> You and I have the luxury that we can just not be on Twitter - but when you're an MP, unless you're in a very safe seat you've got to meet voters where they are, not where you'd like them to be.
They don't need to be on Twitter. Twitter isn't their local constituents. They have surgeries for this very reason. Very few people on Twitter are relevant to what happens on election day in their constituency.
> So from an MP's perspective? In one hand they've got a report about revenge porn, cyber-bullying, 4chan /pol/ and pro-anorexia facebook groups. In the other hand they've got their phone where someone's just told them to kill themselves.
Even if that is true that doesn't mean we restrict everyone's rights because a minority are engaging in illegal/immoral acts.
> They believe in these "illegal harms" because they've got a front row seat, and experience them on a daily basis.
That is what they say to sell the narrative that they need to censor social media. If you look over the last 20 years. It is as if nobody has learned anything from the early 2000s and the war on terror. They will exploit (or create) any crisis.
> “I’m not a sandwich person, I don’t think sandwiches are a real food, it’s what you have for breakfast.” The Tory leader went on to confirm that she “will not touch bread if it’s moist.
The headline is clickbait. She didn't say that sandwiches are not real. She is saying that she doesn't believe it is a proper lunch/meal.
For all the deliberate rage-baiting that Kemi Badenoch and other present-day Tories engage in, the 'controversy' about sandwiches is entirely constructed by journalists. The Politico article that parent linked to even says as much:
"The Spectator asked the Tory leader — elected to the head of the U.K. opposition party in November — if she ever took a lunch break."
The Spectator are using their press privileges to ask party leaders about their personal lifestyle rather than asking about anything relevant to policy - and although the Spectator might be forgiven for that, it is indefensible for 'serious' newspapers such as the Guardian and the Telegraph to be giving this story front-page status.
There are lots of politicians for us to be embarrassed about, but perhaps even more journalists.
The person that I replied to tried to pretend that Kemi Badenoch had seriously disputed the existence of a sandwiches. I am not sure we deserve better politicians and journalists.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of journalists are simply stenographers. I wouldn't expect them to do their job. Unfortunately you have do piece together the truth for yourself.
I used to frequent the forum about 15 or so years ago. This guy is very level headed and has been around the block a lot. Therefore I don't believe this is purely performative.
I left and came back because I was homesick. I deeply regret it. Thinking of moving away again but I miss my family enough as it is living in another part of the country. I was hoping for some positive change (even though unlikely), but that isn’t going to happen.
The online communities don't exist within the borders of a nation state. They have their own social norms and rules. You can see this on forums, message boards, online games etc. Therefore a nation state trying to enforce its will on those communities is completely asinine.
I don't like that it that American companies enforces it language policing on UK residents, I also don't like that fact that the UK wants to force it language policing world wide (the UK state acts as if it has an empire).
The reason people are unwilling to consider an alternative viewpoint, is that in the past they have been more moderate and what has happened has been a complete erosion of civil liberties under the guise of "stopping the terrorists". I was arguing the same thing I am arguing essentially over 20 years ago.
Ironically many of those groups that we went to war to stop (Al-queda/ISIS) are now being presented as moderate because foreign policy has shifted again.
Social media does not cause harm in of itself. People can use social media in a way that can be harmful, but you can say that about absolutely anything. Plenty of people that are not tech people manage to use social media to promote themselves, their business etc. People use it as a place of business. It is a mixed bag, like most things are.
You are (like the government) pre-supposing that is the case and basing your whole argument upon that.
As for Offense speech/Free speech. What constitutes what is and isn't offensive is subjective. That is why people argue for a free speech standard. Pretending that it is right to restrict unpopular speech (this is what is really meant by offensive) because the majority agree is completely asinine, as things that were offensive in the past may not be offensive in the future and vice versa.
The reason we don't have a decent tech industry in the UK (the tech industry here sucks) is because we don't have things like a Section 230 protections. Imposing legal responsibility will make it more difficult for anyone to make anything interesting in the UK.
> I don't recall the Online Safety Act regulating the financial industry - could you point out which parts of the legislation relate to that? I do, however, agree that we do have excessive restrictions on access to certain financial services.
You completely misunderstood the point. The point is that we can predict from similar laws in another industry (somewhat related industry) what the effect maybe.
The best cultural difference analogy I’ve heard — two ends of “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. One side genuinely believes that statement, the other thinks without guns there would be less death.
Same applies to social media and web as well. Yes, it is people ruining each other’s lives, but using an intermediary tool. Whether you think that way will depend on your preexisting conceptions and beliefs. I don’t think there is a wrong way of thinking of this, and every government will handle it differently depended on their goals and needs.
I had an issue with alcohol for many years. That doesn't mean that drinking is inherently bad. There are plenty of people that can enjoy a few drinks responsibly. I am not one of those people. Therefore I abstain from alcohol as a result. I don't ask that alcohol to be banned.
Alcohol sales and laws are fairly draconian in North America, compared to equivalents in Europe and Asia. Once again, I don't think there is right or wrong approach to it, and all the discussions will stem from cultural beliefs and predispositions. Your "freedom" and my "freedom" will always be conceptually different as well, the interpretation of the idea and making policies around it is the job of the government. By the way, I'm actually on your side when it comes to this specific topic, but growing up in different continents, I can understand why different policy makers approach it through different lenses.
‘No section 230’ might be the reason why there’s no social media tech scene. I’d like to think that HN cares about things other than social media too - maybe Brits could do something that actually adds some value.
But in any case, original point also brings up the question: why is the UK allowing foreign companies to violate laws that it would prosecute British businesses for violating?
If you allow a foreign domiciled business to break laws in your country, then how the heck do you expect to ever have domestic industry? It’s strictly less risky to always be foreign domiciled.
This bill aims to stop that regulatory arbitrage and as such is hopefully a leveling of the playing field for the UK tech scene.
I don't really understand how many people on here (I've been lurking for a while), essentially pretend everything is backwards. You don't level the playing field by making it more difficult to do business, you make it easier.
BTW, I get btw a threat letter from another UK quango (I forget the name), which basically says "if you have any user data you need to pay us £60 a year". Yes you need to pay a levy for a database in the UK. It is basically a TV license for a database. I did work as a freelancer in the UK (made impossible now because of IR-35 regulation) and have a dormant company because freelance/contract is dead, so I have to inform them I don't have user data. It is just another thing to worry about when creating an online app.
> But in any case, original point also brings up the question: why is the UK allowing foreign companies to violate laws that it would prosecute British businesses for violating?
Because then we don't have any alternatives and people already use it. I also don't think the laws should exist in the first place, so I don't care if a US company is violating them.
I would love the UK to actually require IP blocks of twitter/Facebook etc, because it might actually force people to think about the issues.
> If you allow a foreign domiciled business to break laws in your country, then how the heck do you expect to ever have domestic industry? It’s strictly less risky to always be foreign domiciled.
You don't make it more difficult to do business. Many of the US tech successes were people starting up in a garage. The UK micro business did extremely well (until PC/Macs came on the scene) and that had almost no regulation or gov interference (other than standard stuff for electronics).
> This bill aims to stop that regulatory arbitrage and as such is hopefully a leveling of the playing field for the UK tech scene.
No. It is to try to censor the internet. It been going in this direction for ages. I am quite honestly fed up of people telling me that it is nothing to worry about. The UK politicians complained about replies to their tweets, after one of their colleagues had been stabbed to death. I found it honestly sickening. There is no crisis they won't use as an opportunity.
>I get btw a threat letter from another UK quango (I forget the name), which basically says "if you have any user data you need to pay us £60 a year".
The Information Commissioners Office. Just tell them you are not storing any data and they will go away.
> I did work as a freelancer in the UK (made impossible now because of IR-35 regulation)
Freelancers were never covered by IR35. IR35 covers employees masquerading as contractors. If you work for multiple companies on specific projects that won't cover you
My comment around IR-35 is that it has caused a lot of confusion and thus made contracting a lot more difficult as a result. A lot of freelancers and contractors have been affected by this.
Contracting made a bit more difficult, freelancing totally unaffected. It was always pretty easy to check at below. Every contractor I have ever met seems to know about umbrella companies...
It was not a great regulation, and seemed to affect government contractors the most, which was a bit of an own goal. But it never affected Freelancers
> Contracting made a bit more difficult, freelancing totally unaffected.
That isn't true. It has made contracting a lot more difficult. I am in a number of freelancer groups and it has affected them. I have heard the same from recruiters, from freelancers, from people that run job boards.
> Every contractor I have ever met seems to know about umbrella companies
Most contractors run their own private LTD (like I did). They don't use umbrella companies because you are put on PAYE and you end up paying through the nose in tax.
Typically you get a third party to check a contract for you to see whether it falls under IR-35. I could do it myself, but I would rather pay someone to check it for me.
Many contracts will require you to have IR-35 "insurance" which feels like a scam, but it is required a lot of the time by the contract. This is in addition to PL and PI insurances.
I am a software engineer in the UK. One of the reasons I want to move from the UK is because so many of our populace has attitudes such as yours. The online safety act won't solve the problems you think it will and will create a whole new host of issues.
What is amusing is that you even admit that you solved the problem of online scammers with your grandparents through education (I've seen the videos you mentioned as well). This is how people stay "safe" is to be educated on the dangers, not for overbearing regulation.
> To anyone who thinks that regulating social media is some sort of prelude to a totalitarian state, I suggest you watch Britons at a traffic-light-controlled pedestrian crossing.
The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related offences (I guarantee it is more now). I've seen videos of the police arresting disabled pensioners over spicy tweets, journalists have their homes raided in the UK regularly if they criticise UK foreign policy over Israel (doesn't get reported on btw). We are already in a form of a soft totalitarianism. You just haven't noticed because you haven't been looking.
I clearly didn't mean that (and I think you know that btw).
I said "found out about it via social media". I then did my own research to find the original post by the person that had their home raided. I have been duped before by social media and I like to find the actual source (if possible).
> The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related offences (I guarantee it is more now).
So the claim is that the UK is prosecuting a minimum of some 2,555 speech offenses a year (or as few as 1,820 if it's 7 a day each day of a five day working week in a year with 52 working weeks).
Yes. I remember seeing the statistic a number of years ago. I cannot find the source easily. The last time I checked was ~2018. I never claimed "daily raids on journalists". I did say "regularly", which is incorrect, I should have said "an alarming number of". But that if people are going to hold me up on that they are nitpicking.
In the UK there were 11,767 prosecutions (referred by police, whether or not a conviction was found) in the past year flagged as "Hate Crime" (the category that a speech prosecution would fall under?)
Of those many were robbery, homicide, assault, etc .. not simply "speech".
Here is a link to an online sevice to mount by URL those spreadsheets onine (showing the UK Prosecution Crime Type Data Tables Q4 23-24)
"an alarming number of" is entirely relative to the population size and general referral levels, at seems unlikely that just pure "speech" alone and no other action forms 20% of the Hate Crime flagged prosecutions - that would take some legwork to verify I suspect.
When I said “alarming number of” I was specifically referring to journalists being harassed by the UK state. I am aware of at least 3 or 4 this year.
Non-speech related offences I don’t care about in relation to this topic. I believe the 3000 a year number was banded about for speech offences. I do think it is likely that this number is roughly correct as it matches up with what I previously heard.
I btw believe one person being prosecuted for speech related offences is too many. IMO it shouldn’t happen at all.
Moreover I am quite tired of people telling me it isn’t happening after I can distinctly remember a large number of cases over the years where this does happen.
I'm not telling you it isn't happening - I linked to the current UK summaries of all the cases referred by police to the CPS for prosocution.
The 7 cases a day to which you referred to above will be in there and quite likly flagged as Hate Crime related.
> I believe the 3000 a year number was banded about for speech offences.
( Bandied ? ) Sure, I dare say it was, the real question was that a reliable bit of infomation or something spread about?
If you're interested in pursuing the matter then I dare say you can contact the civil servents that maintain the UK CPS stats pages and ask them for speech prosecution numbers.
My stance on such things is that almost all figures "bandied about" with respect to contraversial subjects ( crime, immigration, free speech, climate, et al ) are forms of iterative improv by vested parties. *
I'm genuinely interested in actual figures from authorative sources for all manner of things in the world.
I appreciate you wasn’t but a lot of the discussion about these issues follows the same pattern of people pretending there isn’t an issue, then pretending that it isn’t as bad and then arguing over the minutia.
This convo thread the same route of someone disputing the fact the journalists were having their homes raided, I couldn’t remember the name of the journalist or the exact time, so when someone does find it, we then have a discussion on the exact language and numbers. Ignoring the fact that what I said was largely correct.
The number seems reasonable considering the data we have. TBH, It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 or 3000. It is too much either way IMO.
This isn’t a right or left "team sports" issue either. I deliberately avoid talking in those terms yet people seem to assign a team to you.
You were vindicated in this thread. It's insane that the U.K. is throwing thousands in people a year in jail for speech "crimes". I remember ten years ago when free speech was a sacred value in the West; as soon as non-institutionally-connected people got a platform with social media elites changed their mind though.
They're estimates but I've seen some numbers that suggest the U.K. is imprisoning more people (per capita and absolute) for speech crimes than Russia.
The whole above thread is litigating the number of people in the U.K. arrested for speech crimes. It's hard to put an exact number on it but it seems like low single digit thousands (1k-5k).
Both by equating the number "imprisoned" (which suggests an actual conviction and jail term) with the number simply "arrested". The distinction is important, because when I did check a source, it suggested that the vast majority of convictions under existing statutes resulted in fines rather than jail sentences.
And then by conflating the UK's legislation (which, whatever you make of it, is essential non-political, and covers forms of communication that most people would agree are basically "harmful" even though they would be opposed to a ban on them) with the restrictions in Russia, which are of course highly political (as indicated by the article you linked to), and not related to protecting anyone from harm in any meaningful sense.
That is: the UK's idea of harmful speech is that which promotes "terror, hate, fraud, child sexual abuse and assisting or encouraging suicide". Whereas in Russia, per one of your articles, it's stuff like this:
Anastasia Bubeyeva shows a screenshot on her computer of a picture of a toothpaste tube with the words: “Squeeze Russia out of yourself!” For sharing this picture on a social media site with his 12 friends, her husband was sentenced this month to more than two years in prison.
Do you not see a major, categorical distinction here?
The point is that Russia is supposed to be a "totalitarian state". The UK is supposed to be a modern Western democracy with "freedom of expression" (which isn't freedom of speech). The whole point is that there really shouldn't be any speech related offences at all. These arrests should not happen in the first place. Many of these arrests do end up with prosecutions as well.
> And then by conflating the UK's legislation (which, whatever you make of it, is essential non-political, and covers forms of communication that most people would agree are basically "harmful" even though they would be opposed to a ban on them) with the restrictions in Russia, which are of course highly political (as indicated by the article you linked to), and not related to protecting anyone from harm in any meaningful sense.
They specifically say that certain forms of speech are prohibited, that includes political speech that you and I might find detestable. That speech you may find offence but it is still political speech. Some of it includes opposition against Israel's military campaigns in Palestine.
What most people agree is "harmful" isn't objective measure.
> That is: the UK's idea of harmful speech is that which promotes "terror, hate, fraud, child sexual abuse and assisting or encouraging suicide"
Terror and hate are nebulous terms that are entirely subjective. Pretending that they are somehow objective is what everyone does when they side with the UK government on this issue and they use the same nebulous terminology as the UK government such as "harmful". Speech cannot be harmful in itself. The vast majority of adults outside of mentally disabled have their own agency. People choose how to react to speech.
Also notice you also groped speech related offences with things that should be banned like CSAM material and things that are already illegal (fraud).
> Anastasia Bubeyeva shows a screenshot on her computer of a picture of a toothpaste tube with the words: “Squeeze Russia out of yourself!” For sharing this picture on a social media site with his 12 friends, her husband was sentenced this month to more than two years in prison.
That isn't actually fundamentally different to what happens in the UK. So no I don't see the difference. It so funny that you think it is a gotcha and it really isn't.
Some of it includes opposition against Israel's military campaigns in Palestine.
First off, this is in regard to an entirely different piece of legislation (the Terrorism Act of 2000). But more importantly, you are making a very significant distortion here.
No, people do not get arrested under this Act for holding up signs saying "IDF bad". Or otherwise for "opposing Israel's military campaigns" like you are describing.
Instead they get arrested for things like making statements which seem to indicate support for groups like Hamas, or for "Palestinian resistance" generally. Per the actual language of the act, "expressing a belief in support of a proscribed organistion."
You can be opposed to the Terrorism Act if you want to, and I would happen to agree with you - it is a horrible piece of legislation.
But the bigger point (for now) is -- the actual situation, in terms of what the Act prohibits, is very different from what you're describing.
I'm not saying you're lying. More likely you've ingested some news articles which either intentionally omitted (or never bothered to investigate) key aspects of these cases. It actually takes some digging to find the various people arrested under this Act (folks like Sarah Wilkinson and Richard Medhurst) were actually charged for.
But invariably (at least in the cases I've looked at) it turns out that, lo and behold, these people actually did make statements online that were clearly "in support of proscribed organisations". In the Medhurst's case, for example:
”Hamas are fighting the same war of national liberation against an occupying power. It is their moral and legal right.”
Which is rather different from simply indicating "opposition against Israel's military campaigns in Palestine".
Your response is chock full of weird distortions like this -- way too many to unpack and patiently analyze.
Point being: if this is how the truth gets mangled and distorted inside your own head; or you simply choose not to vet and fact-check your sources, at least once in a while -- then that's a situation which you've created for yourself. Not the doing of some totalitarian government, or any other kind of external bully.
> Your response is chock full of weird distortions like this -- way too many to unpack and patiently analyze.
No it isn't. If you can't explain what the issue is with my logic then what you are saying is utterly unconvincing. I was largely correct about everything I have claimed. I will grant you I may get minutia wrong, but that doesn't take away from the general point that I am making.
> Point being: if this is how the truth gets mangled and distorted inside your own head; or you simply choose not to vet and fact-check your sources, at least once in a while -- then that's a situation which you've created for yourself. Not the doing of some totalitarian government, or any other kind of external bully.
What you are essentially trying to convince me that I am crazy. I am quite familiar with this form argumentation and I don't appreciate it.
I will redirect you back to the point that was being discussed, because you made several accusations towards me that just aren't true and I am not going bother to address them after you tried gas-lighting me. All I am going to tell you is that I actively avoid news sites these days as I agree they omit information to suit a narrative.
The point being discussed was whether people an alarming number of people were being imprisoned for speech in the UK. Some people have compared Russia and the UK. Russia is ran essentially by a dictator, the UK is a constitution Monarchy and is considered to be modern democracy. The UK is supposed to be better in regards to Russia in a vast number of things, one of those being human rights.
There are three simple facts:
* People in the UK can be and have been punished for speech.
* People in Russia can be and have been punished for speech.
* There is evidence that there are less people per capita being arrested and prosecuted in the Russia for speech than the UK. This has been reported on by a number of news sources which looks like it has come from official numbers.
It does not matter to me what rationale is used for justify that punishment is, I don't believe people should be punished for speech outside of very specific criteria e.g. direct calls for violence (that quote your provided from Richard Medhurst wouldn't fall under that btw) or defamation.
What exact bullshit legislation people have been charged under is something I don't care about. I don't make the distinction. I believe it is to create a chilling effect, and allow the two major parties to prosecute their political rivals.
e.g. There was even talk of prosecuting Nigel Farage (one of the eternal boogiemen) shortly after this year election as the media were trying to pretend he was somehow the cause of the riots earlier this year. I don't like him, but he didn't cause the riots.
Which kills any sort of online anonymity as all social media posts will be directly linked to your ID. This will make it much easier to go after anyone that is a dissident in the UK.
Many these awful laws such as one being discussed are sold to us under the guise of protecting the children. The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related crimes in the UK (and I checked a while ago).
Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage.
I think laws and regulations can be put in place that, while imperfect, would highly discourage the use of social media by minors.
I wouldn't want every user to validate their age with government ID.
But we can say schools should ban kids from using phones. We can say that large social media platforms need to whitelist content/creators that children are allowed to access. We can insist that social media companies throttle the ability for minors to scroll through videos at a dopamine addiction pace.
More generally and more applicable to the discussion, I think regulations for social media need to be applied proportional to the userbase and centralization of a platform, and target viral algorithms.
Old school message boards should be safe from government interference, broadly.
It may be time to research simpleX chat and Briar if we will maintain the ability to communicate without government filtering.
> I wouldn't want every user to validate their age with government ID.
Well that is what will be required or a credit card.
> But we can say schools should ban kids from using phones. We can say that large social media platforms need to whitelist content/creators that children are allowed to access. We can insist that social media companies throttle the ability for minors to scroll through videos at a dopamine addiction pace.
Every argument around regulation around social media to protect children ignores that fact that parents are the ones closest to their children and their children is their responsibility. Some parents inability to control their children shouldn't infringe my rights as an adult.
> More generally and more applicable to the discussion, I think regulations for social media need to be applied proportional to the userbase and centralization of a platform, and target viral algorithms.
If I don't like how particular algorithms act on social media, I can simply opt out of using it. As an adult I have agency. I found that I was spending a disproportionate of my time using Twitter/X and as a result I deleted my account. I had problem with alcohol years ago, I stopped drinking after I accepted I had a problem. I have my own agency.
> It may be time to research simpleX chat and Briar if we will maintain the ability to communicate without government filtering.
The issue is that the vast majority of people I wish to talk to aren't tech savvy and are unwilling to use anything other than mainstream platforms. So you end up essentially walling yourself from everyone else. That isn't ideal.
>Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage.
I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_)
And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_)
etc.
It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way.
Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention.
The card you might have paid with is though. I can’t remember any instances of a card hack revealing transactions of customers though (I might be wrong, just doesn’t ring a bell).
It’s not a given that digital record must lead to compromise.
> I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_)
> And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_)
Yes and yes. These measures are completely ineffective anyway. Who hasn't been drinking / watching porn underage? Smoking is less prevalent where I'm from but it's not for lack of availability of elf sticks etc.
Underage people have been exposed to (normal adult) porn for decades. And it hasn't caused any issues with our society. If anything it makes sexual morale more free and lets people discover themselves without moral judgement.
If I choose to buy alcohol or cigarettes and I look over 25 in the UK I do not have to show any ID. If I do need to show ID, it doesn't get tracked by the government. It is only seen by the whoever is serving me at the checkout. I don't honestly believe that you don't understand how this is different.
> It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way.
I believe that the only way to stop enforcement is to make it impossible to enforce. This would require new software that is easy to use by the majority of people. I don't see this happening in the near term.
> Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The fact is that some sort of government ID will be required or a credit card and that would be directly linked to any accounts you may have. Simply this is a bad idea for my own security, I don't want to be giving my government ID to some social media company in the first place or a third party that I maybe unfamiliar with. That before we get into any other wider reaching concerns.
The problem is you’re simultaneously arguing two points and relying on whichever point gives you the most leverage at each juncture.
If .gov == bad guy then you’re screwed whether or not you leave a digital trail on social media because you’re already leaving one anyway (unless you’re a marginal outlier that isn’t worth considering for this “problem”). If that’s your threat model then you’re either super-important or I worry you’ve been sold a scary story by social media algorithms.
On the other hand, the idea that this is an impossible tech problem to solve is also disingenuous. My point is that it could be solved. And quickly and easily too. If the incentive model were there. And whilst I’ve not given the solution a huge amount of thought (I’m not actually that interested in solving it) I’m certain that an authenticated assertion could be made that wasn’t directly attributable to an individual - i.e., a mechanism could be developed that would solve for both problems.
Which brings us back to the fundamental point here: the people who would need to implement the solution have no incentive model in place to motivate them to do so.
> The problem is you’re simultaneously arguing two points and relying on whichever point gives you the most leverage at each juncture.
No I am not.
> If .gov == bad guy then you’re screwed whether or not you leave a digital trail on social media because you’re already leaving one anyway (unless you’re a marginal outlier that isn’t worth considering for this “problem”). If that’s your threat model then you’re either super-important or I worry you’ve been sold a scary story by social media algorithms.
You are pretending as if one would need perfect op-sec (which is impossible). If you have a throwaway email, a sim paid for via cash and a VPN/Tor will make you much more difficult to track down and most of this can be learned via watching a few YouTube videos. You don't even have to do the more crazy stuff like running Tails.
Having an ID requirement will make it much more difficult as I suspect other regions will soon follow suite in implementing something similar.
There are also benefits to pseudo-anonymity. I want to keep my online life and my real life separate. This will mean that they can never be separate.
> On the other hand, the idea that this is an impossible tech problem to solve is also disingenuous. My point is that it could be solved. And quickly and easily too. If the incentive model were there. And whilst I’ve not given the solution a huge amount of thought (I’m not actually that interested in solving it) I’m certain that an authenticated assertion could be made that wasn’t directly attributable to an individual - i.e., a mechanism could be developed that would solve for both problems.
I never said that the tech problem was impossible to resolve. Again that is your assertion. I simply stated what I believe is most likely to happen in the near to medium term.
Ok but UK is not an oppresive regime, so that we talk about "dissidents" in UK. As anywhere, the freedom of speech is regulated. But even if you spout racist or other nonsense, you are not a dissident, you are just breaking the law, to which I agree, hate speech, racism should not be openly promoted.
The definition of hate speech used to be centered around terrorism and was initially sold to the UK public as stopping "Islamic hate preachers and stopping terrorism". This has now expanded far past that and people are being investigated and arrested for simply opposing immigration (which is often conflated with racism disingenuously), or criticising the actions of Israel, teenagers posting rap lyrics on facebook, and numerous others that I have forgotten about.
If you are not bothered by the expansion of these powers because some people have said things you disapprove of there is nothing I can say to convince you.
It's not that hard to create privacy friendly age verification. Have a system like Sign in with Apple vouch that you're over 18. Go to Apple store to flash your ID and they just set a flag on your account. Apple doesn't give the site any personal info when you use Sign in with Apple. Apple isn't giving the government any of your details without a warrant. No Apple store nearby? It doesn't have to be Apple, licence it out to a few companies.
I don't want to use Apple anything, or Google anything anymore. I want to be able to make an account with my email and not give my ID to any third party. I've spent the last 8 years removing my dependence on big-tech (I self host, run a Linux desktop and use Graphene OS).
People say as a pithy answer and it is very frustrating. Unfortunately it is utterly unrealistic that voting will solve this situation.
1) The majority of the UK's populace are onboard with the vast majority of these laws. Even if all the people that opposed this voted for another party, due to how the constituencies work, your vote will be effectively made moot.
2) Both major UK parties essentially agree that these laws should be implemented. The only solution to any problem that UK government can envisage is banning something. You can look into the Lotus Carlton ram raids of 40RR, they were singing the same tune back in the late 80s/early 90s.
3) There is no realistic pro-liberty / anti-censorship movement at all in the UK
This has been going for longer than I have been alive in the UK (I am now in my early 40s). I am not an anarchist, but I've heard the phrase repeated by anarchists of "You cannot vote yourself free". The only way to resist such laws is to subvert them via technology.
I am sure threats of violence are already illegal. If those people are in the UK, they should be prosecuted. If they are not in the UK they is not threat. I don't believe any if these online threats BTW are credible.
What these MPs do is frequently make outlandish statements, which then gets them a bunch of hate (Jess Phillips has done this her entire political career) and useful idiots will shout their mouth off online. These MPs then point to all the "hate" they are getting. There is even a meme demonstrating this very effect:
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/960/143/d7a...
> with two MPs murdered in the last decade.
The murder of David Amess had nothing to do with Social Media. The killer said it was to do with religion when asked by Police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Amess#Investig...
I believe the individual was deemed at risk of radicalisation.
> You and I have the luxury that we can just not be on Twitter - but when you're an MP, unless you're in a very safe seat you've got to meet voters where they are, not where you'd like them to be.
They don't need to be on Twitter. Twitter isn't their local constituents. They have surgeries for this very reason. Very few people on Twitter are relevant to what happens on election day in their constituency.
> So from an MP's perspective? In one hand they've got a report about revenge porn, cyber-bullying, 4chan /pol/ and pro-anorexia facebook groups. In the other hand they've got their phone where someone's just told them to kill themselves.
Even if that is true that doesn't mean we restrict everyone's rights because a minority are engaging in illegal/immoral acts.
> They believe in these "illegal harms" because they've got a front row seat, and experience them on a daily basis.
That is what they say to sell the narrative that they need to censor social media. If you look over the last 20 years. It is as if nobody has learned anything from the early 2000s and the war on terror. They will exploit (or create) any crisis.