FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998 protects Freedom of Expression, with Freedom of Speech being one of them. It is of course not absolute, never has been and never shall/should be. I have not heard any discussion to even to change this law from anywhere, certainly not politicians. What has happened, and I can only think this is what has prompted this post to be written - happy to be corrected if I assume incorrectly - is there have been some highly publicised cases of people being charged and convicted for things they have said. These have in the main been down to people threatening to kill other people which of course is a crime. Many of these convictions have been under Section 16 of the Offences Against The Persons Act which, the papers/news "forget" to remind readers/viewers has been an active law in the UK since 1861. " that is not the reason. But thank you for your input. A very informative and factual piece | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If there are consequences to what you could say then surely that is a limited freedom?" My freedom to say anything I want exists in the uk. It's limited by my desire to stay clear of the consequences. If I prod an enormous bloke with a sharp stick and continuously insult him, the consequence is like to be a sock in the kisser. So I avoid doing that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If there are consequences to what you could say then surely that is a limited freedom? My freedom to say anything I want exists in the uk. It's limited by my desire to stay clear of the consequences. If I prod an enormous bloke with a sharp stick and continuously insult him, the consequence is like to be a sock in the kisser. So I avoid doing that" every action has a consequence. That is just cause and effect. What a person needs to ask themselves is are they prepared to pay the consequences of said action. This is were a moral compass comes into effect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If there are consequences to what you could say then surely that is a limited freedom? My freedom to say anything I want exists in the uk. It's limited by my desire to stay clear of the consequences. If I prod an enormous bloke with a sharp stick and continuously insult him, the consequence is like to be a sock in the kisser. So I avoid doing that every action has a consequence. That is just cause and effect. What a person needs to ask themselves is are they prepared to pay the consequences of said action. This is were a moral compass comes into effect " It is cause and effect. That's what the consequences of one's actions are. I think throughout history have been prepared to face the consequences of speaking out for their principles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'history people have' ^" yes and often faced persecution for doing so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'history people have' ^ yes and often faced persecution for doing so" I don't think I've said they haven't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Article 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998 protects Freedom of Expression, with Freedom of Speech being one of them. It is of course not absolute, never has been and never shall/should be. I have not heard any discussion to even to change this law from anywhere, certainly not politicians. What has happened, and I can only think this is what has prompted this post to be written - happy to be corrected if I assume incorrectly - is there have been some highly publicised cases of people being charged and convicted for things they have said. These have in the main been down to people threatening to kill other people which of course is a crime. Many of these convictions have been under Section 16 of the Offences Against The Persons Act which, the papers/news "forget" to remind readers/viewers has been an active law in the UK since 1861. that is not the reason. But thank you for your input. A very informative and factual piece "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people think if they are offended by something someone has said then that person must have broken the law. But the right to offend has been ruled on in the high court so there is precedent. As Ricky Jervais says in response to someone being offended by one of his jokes, “so what” But that hasn’t stoped none crime hate incidents being recorded. And this is what makes some people quite angry when the police seem to devote a lot of attention and resources to stuff that isn’t criminal but when crimes such as phone theft, burglary or car theft are recorded they don’t have the resources to investigate. Seem to have hundreds of spare coppers to stand around at protests tho. " exactly. Also look at people like mahatma grandiose, Joan of arc, and Nelson Mandela. Incarcerated and persecuted because they spoke out about injustice, oppression, and questioned authority | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored." Who gets to decide whether their speech is irresponsible nonsense, or inspired insight? And who gets to do the censoring? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored. Who gets to decide whether their speech is irresponsible nonsense, or inspired insight? And who gets to do the censoring?" Yes, it's a fair point, but the worst offenders could be rooted out by clear rules on published content, and media companies required to verify stories. It might be possible for AI to do this in real time by cross referencing and give stories a 'truth' score 8/10. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored. Who gets to decide whether their speech is irresponsible nonsense, or inspired insight? And who gets to do the censoring? Yes, it's a fair point, but the worst offenders could be rooted out by clear rules on published content, and media companies required to verify stories. It might be possible for AI to do this in real time by cross referencing and give stories a 'truth' score 8/10." So doesn't a set of Rules and regulations suggest a limitation? And like one of the other posters has said who gets to decide these? Like for instance 'independent fact checkers' that may or may not have a vested interest or narrative to adhere to becauseof where the funding for this group or organisation comes from? (Which also touches upon freedom of information). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored." I think any censoring is potently dangerous, if people are spouting rubbish let them rant most people will rightly ignore them, once you start censoring them they can say "the government is trying to hide the truth" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored. I think any censoring is potently dangerous, if people are spouting rubbish let them rant most people will rightly ignore them, once you start censoring them they can say "the government is trying to hide the truth" " But what about those who aren't sensible? The young, vulnerable and impressionable? A responsible society shelters those that might be harmed. The internet has a mass of vile stuff that needs some controls imo. As AI progresses, it's even more important to filter out the crap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored. Who gets to decide whether their speech is irresponsible nonsense, or inspired insight? And who gets to do the censoring? Yes, it's a fair point, but the worst offenders could be rooted out by clear rules on published content, and media companies required to verify stories. It might be possible for AI to do this in real time by cross referencing and give stories a 'truth' score 8/10. So doesn't a set of Rules and regulations suggest a limitation? And like one of the other posters has said who gets to decide these? Like for instance 'independent fact checkers' that may or may not have a vested interest or narrative to adhere to becauseof where the funding for this group or organisation comes from? (Which also touches upon freedom of information)." Yes, it's a balance of trusting your censors versus uncontrolled, uncensored content. What is the lesser of the evils? We have a duty to protect the young and vulnerable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored. I think any censoring is potently dangerous, if people are spouting rubbish let them rant most people will rightly ignore them, once you start censoring them they can say "the government is trying to hide the truth" But what about those who aren't sensible? The young, vulnerable and impressionable? A responsible society shelters those that might be harmed. The internet has a mass of vile stuff that needs some controls imo. As AI progresses, it's even more important to filter out the crap." Giving the government powers to control that has historically never ended well. End of the day, politicians are power-hungry fucks who relish the opportunity to control people. They never cared about the well-being of people. It's only a matter of time before their definitions of what speech is "harmful" and "misinformation" aren't aligned with the wider population. Imagine your least favourite political party in power. Imagine them deciding what speech is harmful. Would you be fine with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored." so isn't this taking away from the individual their right to decide for themselves. To make their own mind up? This is telling what to think, not how to think. Therefore now reducing their freewill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, it's a balance of trusting your censors versus uncontrolled, uncensored content. What is the lesser of the evils? We have a duty to protect the young and vulnerable." If they really cared about protecting the young and vulnerable, do you know what they would have done? Ban smartphones for the young and fine the parents who give them smartphones. Porn isn't the only thing on the internet that's affecting the young. Everything from social media, cameras to shoot everything they do, spending most of their days looking at phone screens affect the young. If the politicians legit cared about the young, they would have just banned smartphones. Asking everyone to submit their ID proofs to watch porn to protect the young is like drinking poison to cure hiccups. They just saw an opportunity to control people and they took it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored. so isn't this taking away from the individual their right to decide for themselves. To make their own mind up? This is telling what to think, not how to think. Therefore now reducing their freewill." You can think what you like, that's not at risk. However, depending what those thoughts are, if you speak them out loud or act on them, or both, there could be consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, it's a balance of trusting your censors versus uncontrolled, uncensored content. What is the lesser of the evils? We have a duty to protect the young and vulnerable." But are we protecting the young? Or are we taking away very important psychological decision making tools that will hinder their development into responsible and mature adults. We are already starting to see this in society children that are growing up without understanding the consequences of their actions because chastisement of children was limited. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it dying? Is it dead? Is it being censored? Is it alive and well? And is it necessary for the future of Democracy?" Move to North Korea and try posting the same question,this will give you your answer very quickly and make you appreciate your ability to be able to do this here. I thought there's a difference between freedom of speech and people thinking they can post any old hateful nonsense they want that will incite violence and hatred be it aimed at a race or certain people,sexuality or religion e even treasonous words. There has to be a certain amount of order in society otherwise we will just have anarchy and if that means curtailing extreme views then so be it. I would say that the amount of anti establishment/government nonsense posted in this forum and others borders on fanatical at times. There's individuals who definitely have an agenda, having a discussion
Being trolled by political activists 👎 no thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it dying? Is it dead? Is it being censored? Is it alive and well? And is it necessary for the future of Democracy? Move to North Korea and try posting the same question,this will give you your answer very quickly and make you appreciate your ability to be able to do this here. I thought there's a difference between freedom of speech and people thinking they can post any old hateful nonsense they want that will incite violence and hatred be it aimed at a race or certain people,sexuality or religion e even treasonous words. There has to be a certain amount of order in society otherwise we will just have anarchy and if that means curtailing extreme views then so be it. I would say that the amount of anti establishment/government nonsense posted in this forum and others borders on fanatical at times. There's individuals who definitely have an agenda, having a discussion
Being trolled by political activists 👎 no thanks "The whole reason why "freedom of speech" is a political thing is because people should have the right to say something that's offensive to others. If all of us are going to speak only things that are nice and sweet, freedom of speech wouldn't be a matter at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The right of free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. If people spout irresponsible nonsense, it's right they are censored. so isn't this taking away from the individual their right to decide for themselves. To make their own mind up? This is telling what to think, not how to think. Therefore now reducing their freewill. You can think what you like, that's not at risk. However, depending what those thoughts are, if you speak them out loud or act on them, or both, there could be consequences. " If there are legal consequences, it means it's not freedom of speech. It's like saying "You have the right to be gay. You can have sex with your gay partner. But there could be consequences to it". Well if there are legal or any kind of violent consequences, there is no freedom to be gay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, it's a balance of trusting your censors versus uncontrolled, uncensored content. What is the lesser of the evils? We have a duty to protect the young and vulnerable. But are we protecting the young? Or are we taking away very important psychological decision making tools that will hinder their development into responsible and mature adults. We are already starting to see this in society children that are growing up without understanding the consequences of their actions because chastisement of children was limited." I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but yes we are protecting children if we shield them from the worst excesses of lies, distortions, incitement and adult content. That's what I'd want for my kids anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it dying? Is it dead? Is it being censored? Is it alive and well? And is it necessary for the future of Democracy? Move to North Korea and try posting the same question,this will give you your answer very quickly and make you appreciate your ability to be able to do this here. I thought there's a difference between freedom of speech and people thinking they can post any old hateful nonsense they want that will incite violence and hatred be it aimed at a race or certain people,sexuality or religion e even treasonous words. There has to be a certain amount of order in society otherwise we will just have anarchy and if that means curtailing extreme views then so be it. I would say that the amount of anti establishment/government nonsense posted in this forum and others borders on fanatical at times. There's individuals who definitely have an agenda, having a discussion
Being trolled by political activists 👎 no thanks
The whole reason why "freedom of speech" is a political thing is because people should have the right to say something that's offensive to others. If all of us are going to speak only things that are nice and sweet, freedom of speech wouldn't be a matter at all. "Nope. There's a massive difference between freedom of speech and literally trolling everything possible to make a point. This is why I've taken a step back from this forum because it's getting tiresome having the same people peddling their views as the only views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it dying? Is it dead? Is it being censored? Is it alive and well? And is it necessary for the future of Democracy? Move to North Korea and try posting the same question,this will give you your answer very quickly and make you appreciate your ability to be able to do this here. I thought there's a difference between freedom of speech and people thinking they can post any old hateful nonsense they want that will incite violence and hatred be it aimed at a race or certain people,sexuality or religion e even treasonous words. There has to be a certain amount of order in society otherwise we will just have anarchy and if that means curtailing extreme views then so be it. I would say that the amount of anti establishment/government nonsense posted in this forum and others borders on fanatical at times. There's individuals who definitely have an agenda, having a discussion
Being trolled by political activists 👎 no thanks
The whole reason why "freedom of speech" is a political thing is because people should have the right to say something that's offensive to others. If all of us are going to speak only things that are nice and sweet, freedom of speech wouldn't be a matter at all.
Nope.
There's a massive difference between freedom of speech and literally trolling everything possible to make a point.
This is why I've taken a step back from this forum because it's getting tiresome having the same people peddling their views as the only views.
""Freedom" is the ability to do something without legal consequences. The more types of speech you make illegal, the less you have freedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but yes we are protecting children if we shield them from the worst excesses of lies, distortions, incitement and adult content. That's what I'd want for my kids anyway." And that's the problem. You want to curtail other people's freedom so that you don't have to put any effort into protecting your children. That obviously makes sense to you, and it equally obviously doesn't make sense to everyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but yes we are protecting children if we shield them from the worst excesses of lies, distortions, incitement and adult content. That's what I'd want for my kids anyway. And that's the problem. You want to curtail other people's freedom so that you don't have to put any effort into protecting your children. That obviously makes sense to you, and it equally obviously doesn't make sense to everyone else." Where on earth are they saying they want to put no effort into protecting their children!? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it dying? Is it dead? Is it being censored? Is it alive and well? And is it necessary for the future of Democracy? Move to North Korea and try posting the same question,this will give you your answer very quickly and make you appreciate your ability to be able to do this here. I thought there's a difference between freedom of speech and people thinking they can post any old hateful nonsense they want that will incite violence and hatred be it aimed at a race or certain people,sexuality or religion e even treasonous words. There has to be a certain amount of order in society otherwise we will just have anarchy and if that means curtailing extreme views then so be it. I would say that the amount of anti establishment/government nonsense posted in this forum and others borders on fanatical at times. There's individuals who definitely have an agenda, having a discussion
Being trolled by political activists 👎 no thanks
The whole reason why "freedom of speech" is a political thing is because people should have the right to say something that's offensive to others. If all of us are going to speak only things that are nice and sweet, freedom of speech wouldn't be a matter at all.
Nope.
There's a massive difference between freedom of speech and literally trolling everything possible to make a point.
This is why I've taken a step back from this forum because it's getting tiresome having the same people peddling their views as the only views.
"I actually like reading other people’s views. To think my own view is the only one or the only valid one is just pure arrogance. But I do agree that there are some people on here that can come across as a propaganda machine. To think that saying whatever you want and there never be any consequences is naive. The Lucy Connolly incident is a good example. Inciting violence against any group of people shouldn’t go unpunished. But the punishment should be proportional. Did anyone actually follow through with what she said should happen? She acted in the heat of the moment and nobody got hurt. A labour MP acts in the heat of the moment and a man get assaulted, but the MP gets away with it. And yes I’d be saying exactly the same if he was a Tory. The current migrant situation is making a lot of people angry and those people need to be careful what they say. Triggering others to commit violent acts should be illegal and should be punished. But what if the words are to organise a peaceful protest that ends up turning violent? The violence wouldn’t have happened if the protestors were t there, so did the words cause the violence? These are the “grey areas” that people worry about. Attending a peaceful protest that turns violent but you yourself are not violent, but get arrested anyway. Taring all protesters with the same brush is all too easy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What exactly do people think they are being stopped from saying? " In many anonymous spaces like twitter and Reddit, the line between "adult" content and non-adult content is very blurred. The platforms, to protect their own ass enforce ID proofs requirements for all of them. So you end up losing your anonymity. As with most laws passes by European politicians, they also managed to sneak in some hidden laws against free speech. You should read section 179 of the online safety act about sending false messages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For some context, according to the free speech union, there are about 12,000 arrests made every year for online posts. Why are police making so much arrests? Tony Blair passed the communications act in 2003 that made posting anything "grossly offensive" illegal. That's such a vague term to use and can be interpreted in so many ways. Are the Tories any better? They were crying about "woke policing" when they were in power for over a decade but did not touch the 2003 communications act that gave police the power to do these things. Why? Because politicians hate people's freedom. The Tories pretended like they are supportive of freedom of speech but they were happy with the status quo. The online safety bill was also started by the Tories. Now Labour are in charge and are strictly pushing for it. All these politicians are authoritarian frauds. They deceive people to pass these laws under the guise of "protecting children", "for your own safety", etc. Truth is that they don't give a fuck about the people. They saw an opportunity to take away your rights and they went for it." Playing devils advocate for a moment. I can say I dislike someone online and in real life, it is no illegal for me to do so. I can step it up and say I hate someone, it is still not illegal. If I then escalate that language to include sex, race etc I have now stepped over a line of socially acceptable and I have broken the law. Are people saying they do not have freedom of speech because they want to be beyond hateful, or are there specific things we can't talk about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For some context, according to the free speech union, there are about 12,000 arrests made every year for online posts. Why are police making so much arrests? Tony Blair passed the communications act in 2003 that made posting anything "grossly offensive" illegal. That's such a vague term to use and can be interpreted in so many ways. Are the Tories any better? They were crying about "woke policing" when they were in power for over a decade but did not touch the 2003 communications act that gave police the power to do these things. Why? Because politicians hate people's freedom. The Tories pretended like they are supportive of freedom of speech but they were happy with the status quo. The online safety bill was also started by the Tories. Now Labour are in charge and are strictly pushing for it. All these politicians are authoritarian frauds. They deceive people to pass these laws under the guise of "protecting children", "for your own safety", etc. Truth is that they don't give a fuck about the people. They saw an opportunity to take away your rights and they went for it." What did these posts say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What exactly do people think they are being stopped from saying? In many anonymous spaces like twitter and Reddit, the line between "adult" content and non-adult content is very blurred. The platforms, to protect their own ass enforce ID proofs requirements for all of them. So you end up losing your anonymity. As with most laws passes by European politicians, they also managed to sneak in some hidden laws against free speech. You should read section 179 of the online safety act about sending false messages." Ah I see. This is about online content censorship? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What exactly do people think they are being stopped from saying? In many anonymous spaces like twitter and Reddit, the line between "adult" content and non-adult content is very blurred. The platforms, to protect their own ass enforce ID proofs requirements for all of them. So you end up losing your anonymity. As with most laws passes by European politicians, they also managed to sneak in some hidden laws against free speech. You should read section 179 of the online safety act about sending false messages."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For some context, according to the free speech union, there are about 12,000 arrests made every year for online posts. Why are police making so much arrests? Tony Blair passed the communications act in 2003 that made posting anything "grossly offensive" illegal. That's such a vague term to use and can be interpreted in so many ways. Are the Tories any better? They were crying about "woke policing" when they were in power for over a decade but did not touch the 2003 communications act that gave police the power to do these things. Why? Because politicians hate people's freedom. The Tories pretended like they are supportive of freedom of speech but they were happy with the status quo. The online safety bill was also started by the Tories. Now Labour are in charge and are strictly pushing for it. All these politicians are authoritarian frauds. They deceive people to pass these laws under the guise of "protecting children", "for your own safety", etc. Truth is that they don't give a fuck about the people. They saw an opportunity to take away your rights and they went for it. Playing devils advocate for a moment. I can say I dislike someone online and in real life, it is no illegal for me to do so. I can step it up and say I hate someone, it is still not illegal. If I then escalate that language to include sex, race etc I have now stepped over a line of socially acceptable and I have broken the law. Are people saying they do not have freedom of speech because they want to be beyond hateful, or are there specific things we can't talk about? " The level of freedom of speech is usually on a spectrum. No country has absolute freedom of speech. The American first amendment is probably the most any country has erred towards freedom of speech. Their exceptions to freedom of speech are direct calls for violence and libel. Even that has some problems. The examples you give are basically moving on the spectrum of what's socially acceptable. You say that hating a group of people based on race, sex, etc isn't socially acceptable and should be treated as illegal. I have seen lots of women say "I hate men". Should that be made illegal? There are lots of grey areas that people do not wish to discuss here. From a politician's point, they don't care about these nuances. They are getting power to arrest people over things they say and politicians would gladly take it. It's the people who should be wary of these laws. We aren't gaining anything by banning speech. People's thoughts and opinions aren't going to change by banning them from talking about it. At least when they have freedom of speech, you know what is actually going on in their minds. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What exactly do people think they are being stopped from saying? In many anonymous spaces like twitter and Reddit, the line between "adult" content and non-adult content is very blurred. The platforms, to protect their own ass enforce ID proofs requirements for all of them. So you end up losing your anonymity. As with most laws passes by European politicians, they also managed to sneak in some hidden laws against free speech. You should read section 179 of the online safety act about sending false messages. Ah I see. This is about online content censorship?" Yes. But given the legal aspects of it, one might even get arrested for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Section 179 of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 establishes a new criminal offence for sending false communications. This is a key provision aimed at tackling the deliberate spread of harmful disinformation and misinformation. The offense is committed if a person: * Sends a message that conveys information they know to be false. * Intends the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a "likely audience." * Has no reasonable excuse for sending the message. A "likely audience" is defined broadly to include anyone who could reasonably be foreseen to encounter the original message or a subsequent message that forwards or shares its content. This provision is an update to existing laws, such as parts of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, and is specifically designed to address the challenges of online communication and the rapid spread of information on social media. The penalty for this offense can include imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both. News publishers and broadcasters are exempt from this offense. " Who decides what is truth? How do you know if someone knew whether it was truth or false when they sent it? Reminds me of a line from the Seinfeld show - It's not a lie if you believe it 
The outcome of these vague laws is that the police will always over enforce these laws. Sure you could hire a judge to get out. But you would have already suffered enough. This is how authoritarianism works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Section 179 of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 establishes a new criminal offence for sending false communications. This is a key provision aimed at tackling the deliberate spread of harmful disinformation and misinformation. The offense is committed if a person: * Sends a message that conveys information they know to be false. * Intends the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a "likely audience." * Has no reasonable excuse for sending the message. A "likely audience" is defined broadly to include anyone who could reasonably be foreseen to encounter the original message or a subsequent message that forwards or shares its content. This provision is an update to existing laws, such as parts of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, and is specifically designed to address the challenges of online communication and the rapid spread of information on social media. The penalty for this offense can include imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both. News publishers and broadcasters are exempt from this offense. Who decides what is truth? How do you know if someone knew whether it was truth or false when they sent it? Reminds me of a line from the Seinfeld show - It's not a lie if you believe it
The outcome of these vague laws is that the police will always over enforce these laws. Sure you could hire a judge to get out. But you would have already suffered enough. This is how authoritarianism works. "this just sounds like nuevo wokery now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Section 179 of the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 establishes a new criminal offence for sending false communications. This is a key provision aimed at tackling the deliberate spread of harmful disinformation and misinformation. The offense is committed if a person: * Sends a message that conveys information they know to be false. * Intends the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a "likely audience." * Has no reasonable excuse for sending the message. A "likely audience" is defined broadly to include anyone who could reasonably be foreseen to encounter the original message or a subsequent message that forwards or shares its content. This provision is an update to existing laws, such as parts of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, and is specifically designed to address the challenges of online communication and the rapid spread of information on social media. The penalty for this offense can include imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both. News publishers and broadcasters are exempt from this offense. Who decides what is truth? How do you know if someone knew whether it was truth or false when they sent it? Reminds me of a line from the Seinfeld show - It's not a lie if you believe it
The outcome of these vague laws is that the police will always over enforce these laws. Sure you could hire a judge to get out. But you would have already suffered enough. This is how authoritarianism works. "There's no decision to be made about truth by other people, it clearly says 'that *they* know to be false' I agree an awful lot of people believe what they're saying even in the face of irrefutable evidence. I don't know what you do about that. I don't agree with your last paragraph. People complain that the police do nothing...until the police do something to them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law?" People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law? People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you?" Yes I did. I was reading it a couple of days ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who decides what is truth? How do you know if someone knew whether it was truth or false when they sent it? Reminds me of a line from the Seinfeld show - It's not a lie if you believe it
The outcome of these vague laws is that the police will always over enforce these laws. Sure you could hire a judge to get out. But you would have already suffered enough. This is how authoritarianism works.
There's no decision to be made about truth by other people, it clearly says 'that *they* know to be false'
I agree an awful lot of people believe what they're saying even in the face of irrefutable evidence. I don't know what you do about that.
"You can't do anything about it. That's the point. As I said above, such vague laws are useful for the police and politicians to over-enforce and create fear in minds of people. This is textbook authoritarianism and people are falling for it. " I don't agree with your last paragraph. People complain that the police do nothing...until the police do something to them " If the police don't have time to visit serious crimes like burglaries but are spending time arresting about 30 people per day over online posts, I think people have reasons to complain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law? People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you? Yes I did. I was reading it a couple of days ago. " What % of people talking about the Online safety law do you think are aware of this section. I also found it two days back when someone on this forum pointed it. The government and media are busy distracting the conversation towards porn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law? People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you? Yes I did. I was reading it a couple of days ago. What % of people talking about the Online safety law do you think are aware of this section. I also found it two days back when someone on this forum pointed it. The government and media are busy distracting the conversation towards porn." And people are blindly following along 🤷. However in the course of discussion their attention is being directed towards this but *still* they're more concerned that they can't watch porn without proving their age. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but yes we are protecting children if we shield them from the worst excesses of lies, distortions, incitement and adult content. That's what I'd want for my kids anyway. And that's the problem. You want to curtail other people's freedom so that you don't have to put any effort into protecting your children. That obviously makes sense to you, and it equally obviously doesn't make sense to everyone else." You are wrong. In fact there is widespread public support (69%) for the new rules (YouGov /Research). So it makes sense to the majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but yes we are protecting children if we shield them from the worst excesses of lies, distortions, incitement and adult content. That's what I'd want for my kids anyway. And that's the problem. You want to curtail other people's freedom so that you don't have to put any effort into protecting your children. That obviously makes sense to you, and it equally obviously doesn't make sense to everyone else. You are wrong. In fact there is widespread public support (69%) for the new rules (YouGov /Research). So it makes sense to the majority." Because most people don't understand the real implications of it. Simple question. If the goal is to protect the kids, why isn't the government just banning smartphones for kids instead of passing this ridiculous law? Also, do you think people are aware of section 179 of the act? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law? People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you? Yes I did. I was reading it a couple of days ago. What % of people talking about the Online safety law do you think are aware of this section. I also found it two days back when someone on this forum pointed it. The government and media are busy distracting the conversation towards porn. And people are blindly following along 🤷. However in the course of discussion their attention is being directed towards this but *still* they're more concerned that they can't watch porn without proving their age. " People are worried about having to share their ID proofs for random shit they do on the internet. Remember that this law was originally proposed by the Tories and the Labour is happily enforcing it without any concerns. When was the last time they just agreed with each other on such a huge bill? They do agree now because both the parties are run by authoritarian frauds and are glad about the fact that they can track people better and they have got another legal framework that they can use to arrest people who doesn't tow the party line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uk apple users don't have ADP anymore due to the uk government seeking access to apple user data, so apple have removed the protection for uk users freedom of speech and privacy are being eroded in the uk." Don't worry though. The government is doing it for people's safety and security. To be honest, all the people who support these laws totally deserve an authoritarian dictatorship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law? People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you? Yes I did. I was reading it a couple of days ago. What % of people talking about the Online safety law do you think are aware of this section. I also found it two days back when someone on this forum pointed it. The government and media are busy distracting the conversation towards porn. And people are blindly following along 🤷. However in the course of discussion their attention is being directed towards this but *still* they're more concerned that they can't watch porn without proving their age. People are worried about having to share their ID proofs for random shit they do on the internet. Remember that this law was originally proposed by the Tories and the Labour is happily enforcing it without any concerns. When was the last time they just agreed with each other on such a huge bill? They do agree now because both the parties are run by authoritarian frauds and are glad about the fact that they can track people better and they have got another legal framework that they can use to arrest people who doesn't tow the party line." I am concerned about certain things such as the so far, ineffective efforts to stop end to end encryption on certain platforms but *personally* I can't see a problem with section 176 of this bill because I don't want to knowingly lie on line or cause anyone psychological damage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uk apple users don't have ADP anymore due to the uk government seeking access to apple user data, so apple have removed the protection for uk users freedom of speech and privacy are being eroded in the uk. Don't worry though. The government is doing it for people's safety and security. To be honest, all the people who support these laws totally deserve an authoritarian dictatorship." Have you ever got a mobile phone and agreed to terms and conditions? A car, broadband, TV subscription........... The list is endless. I think there's a fine line between being educated and paranoia many currently up in arm's have definitely crossed the line to paranoid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uk apple users don't have ADP anymore due to the uk government seeking access to apple user data, so apple have removed the protection for uk users freedom of speech and privacy are being eroded in the uk. Don't worry though. The government is doing it for people's safety and security. To be honest, all the people who support these laws totally deserve an authoritarian dictatorship. Have you ever got a mobile phone and agreed to terms and conditions? A car, broadband, TV subscription........... The list is endless. I think there's a fine line between being educated and paranoia many currently up in arm's have definitely crossed the line to paranoid." You even have to agree not to be horrible to join a Facebook group | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law? People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you? Yes I did. I was reading it a couple of days ago. What % of people talking about the Online safety law do you think are aware of this section. I also found it two days back when someone on this forum pointed it. The government and media are busy distracting the conversation towards porn. And people are blindly following along 🤷. However in the course of discussion their attention is being directed towards this but *still* they're more concerned that they can't watch porn without proving their age. People are worried about having to share their ID proofs for random shit they do on the internet. Remember that this law was originally proposed by the Tories and the Labour is happily enforcing it without any concerns. When was the last time they just agreed with each other on such a huge bill? They do agree now because both the parties are run by authoritarian frauds and are glad about the fact that they can track people better and they have got another legal framework that they can use to arrest people who doesn't tow the party line. I am concerned about certain things such as the so far, ineffective efforts to stop end to end encryption on certain platforms but *personally* I can't see a problem with section 176 of this bill because I don't want to knowingly lie on line or cause anyone psychological damage. " You can personally believe you aren't telling lies. But if the police believe that you did and try to charge you, what option have you got? Get a lawyer to fight for you. Sure if the justice system works fine, you can get out. But by then, you have already had enough thrash with your life that you will avoid speaking about the topic even if you think that's the truth. Such laws which are vague and are hard to prove serve only one purpose - Give power to the police and politicians to control the rhetoric. There is enough room for interpretation to take action on anyone. Today you feel that this law isn't going to affect you and are supportive of it. Tomorrow another law against free speech that you will find yourself at odds with but the majority of the population wouldn't. Maybe they will say swinging is unhealthy for the society. The majority of the population are monogamous and will say "Oh it doesn't affect me anyway". And you will be at the receiving end of such laws. Hence the beautiful saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? " Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uk apple users don't have ADP anymore due to the uk government seeking access to apple user data, so apple have removed the protection for uk users freedom of speech and privacy are being eroded in the uk. Don't worry though. The government is doing it for people's safety and security. To be honest, all the people who support these laws totally deserve an authoritarian dictatorship. Have you ever got a mobile phone and agreed to terms and conditions? A car, broadband, TV subscription........... The list is endless. I think there's a fine line between being educated and paranoia many currently up in arm's have definitely crossed the line to paranoid." Why do you think the government doesn't want end to end encryption? Especially when they are passing "privacy laws" left and right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law? People's conversations around this law has mostly been around verification for porn. Did you know that this section existed before I told you? Yes I did. I was reading it a couple of days ago. What % of people talking about the Online safety law do you think are aware of this section. I also found it two days back when someone on this forum pointed it. The government and media are busy distracting the conversation towards porn. And people are blindly following along 🤷. However in the course of discussion their attention is being directed towards this but *still* they're more concerned that they can't watch porn without proving their age. People are worried about having to share their ID proofs for random shit they do on the internet. Remember that this law was originally proposed by the Tories and the Labour is happily enforcing it without any concerns. When was the last time they just agreed with each other on such a huge bill? They do agree now because both the parties are run by authoritarian frauds and are glad about the fact that they can track people better and they have got another legal framework that they can use to arrest people who doesn't tow the party line. I am concerned about certain things such as the so far, ineffective efforts to stop end to end encryption on certain platforms but *personally* I can't see a problem with section 176 of this bill because I don't want to knowingly lie on line or cause anyone psychological damage. You can personally believe you aren't telling lies. But if the police believe that you did and try to charge you, what option have you got? Get a lawyer to fight for you. Sure if the justice system works fine, you can get out. But by then, you have already had enough thrash with your life that you will avoid speaking about the topic even if you think that's the truth. Such laws which are vague and are hard to prove serve only one purpose - Give power to the police and politicians to control the rhetoric. There is enough room for interpretation to take action on anyone. Today you feel that this law isn't going to affect you and are supportive of it. Tomorrow another law against free speech that you will find yourself at odds with but the majority of the population wouldn't. Maybe they will say swinging is unhealthy for the society. The majority of the population are monogamous and will say "Oh it doesn't affect me anyway". And you will be at the receiving end of such laws. Hence the beautiful saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"" The law can also be interpreted in favour of the accused too. I have always said that these things are all fine and dandy until the definition of fine and dandy is changed. Until last week I could have spread lies about you or anyone on the net and only been subject to a civil action (this was pointed out to me in the forum, maybe even by you), now I could be subject to legal action too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For some context, according to the free speech union, there are about 12,000 arrests made every year for online posts. Why are police making so much arrests? Tony Blair passed the communications act in 2003 that made posting anything "grossly offensive" illegal. That's such a vague term to use and can be interpreted in so many ways. Are the Tories any better? They were crying about "woke policing" when they were in power for over a decade but did not touch the 2003 communications act that gave police the power to do these things. Why? Because politicians hate people's freedom. The Tories pretended like they are supportive of freedom of speech but they were happy with the status quo. The online safety bill was also started by the Tories. Now Labour are in charge and are strictly pushing for it. All these politicians are authoritarian frauds. They deceive people to pass these laws under the guise of "protecting children", "for your own safety", etc. Truth is that they don't give a fuck about the people. They saw an opportunity to take away your rights and they went for it. Playing devils advocate for a moment. I can say I dislike someone online and in real life, it is no illegal for me to do so. I can step it up and say I hate someone, it is still not illegal. If I then escalate that language to include sex, race etc I have now stepped over a line of socially acceptable and I have broken the law. Are people saying they do not have freedom of speech because they want to be beyond hateful, or are there specific things we can't talk about? The level of freedom of speech is usually on a spectrum. No country has absolute freedom of speech. The American first amendment is probably the most any country has erred towards freedom of speech. Their exceptions to freedom of speech are direct calls for violence and libel. Even that has some problems. The examples you give are basically moving on the spectrum of what's socially acceptable. You say that hating a group of people based on race, sex, etc isn't socially acceptable and should be treated as illegal. I have seen lots of women say "I hate men". Should that be made illegal? There are lots of grey areas that people do not wish to discuss here. From a politician's point, they don't care about these nuances. They are getting power to arrest people over things they say and politicians would gladly take it. It's the people who should be wary of these laws. We aren't gaining anything by banning speech. People's thoughts and opinions aren't going to change by banning them from talking about it. At least when they have freedom of speech, you know what is actually going on in their minds. " If I use words with consideration, I can present a point on any subject without causing purposeful offence. I could trigger someone to feel offended but that is not the same as purposefully causing offence or stoking hatred based on known lies. I literally can't think of a anything I can't discuss, if you have an example that you think I have missed let me know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179" What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For some context, according to the free speech union, there are about 12,000 arrests made every year for online posts. Why are police making so much arrests? Tony Blair passed the communications act in 2003 that made posting anything "grossly offensive" illegal. That's such a vague term to use and can be interpreted in so many ways. Are the Tories any better? They were crying about "woke policing" when they were in power for over a decade but did not touch the 2003 communications act that gave police the power to do these things. Why? Because politicians hate people's freedom. The Tories pretended like they are supportive of freedom of speech but they were happy with the status quo. The online safety bill was also started by the Tories. Now Labour are in charge and are strictly pushing for it. All these politicians are authoritarian frauds. They deceive people to pass these laws under the guise of "protecting children", "for your own safety", etc. Truth is that they don't give a fuck about the people. They saw an opportunity to take away your rights and they went for it. Playing devils advocate for a moment. I can say I dislike someone online and in real life, it is no illegal for me to do so. I can step it up and say I hate someone, it is still not illegal. If I then escalate that language to include sex, race etc I have now stepped over a line of socially acceptable and I have broken the law. Are people saying they do not have freedom of speech because they want to be beyond hateful, or are there specific things we can't talk about? The level of freedom of speech is usually on a spectrum. No country has absolute freedom of speech. The American first amendment is probably the most any country has erred towards freedom of speech. Their exceptions to freedom of speech are direct calls for violence and libel. Even that has some problems. The examples you give are basically moving on the spectrum of what's socially acceptable. You say that hating a group of people based on race, sex, etc isn't socially acceptable and should be treated as illegal. I have seen lots of women say "I hate men". Should that be made illegal? There are lots of grey areas that people do not wish to discuss here. From a politician's point, they don't care about these nuances. They are getting power to arrest people over things they say and politicians would gladly take it. It's the people who should be wary of these laws. We aren't gaining anything by banning speech. People's thoughts and opinions aren't going to change by banning them from talking about it. At least when they have freedom of speech, you know what is actually going on in their minds. If I use words with consideration, I can present a point on any subject without causing purposeful offence. I could trigger someone to feel offended but that is not the same as purposefully causing offence or stoking hatred based on known lies. I literally can't think of a anything I can't discuss, if you have an example that you think I have missed let me know. " Lol you probably hot the target  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pretty naive saying that “we have free speech but certain things you say are against the law and have consequences”. I’m sure the North Korean government would say the same thing. " I don't know their constitution but each country will have limits to what is permissable behaviour, including speech. The recent UK internet changes to help to protect children, are not limited to porn but include other things that could harm them. Some of the loudest complainers are people like Musk, who has to invest in his platform, to ensure that children are better protected. I'm unsure if the biggest drivers of complaints are people who must pay some money to ensure that they simply have to protect wellbeing of others. Societies for a long time have restricted what people can do, without facing consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s pretty naive saying that “we have free speech but certain things you say are against the law and have consequences”. I’m sure the North Korean government would say the same thing. I don't know their constitution but each country will have limits to what is permissable behaviour, including speech. The recent UK internet changes to help to protect children, are not limited to porn but include other things that could harm them. Some of the loudest complainers are people like Musk, who has to invest in his platform, to ensure that children are better protected. I'm unsure if the biggest drivers of complaints are people who must pay some money to ensure that they simply have to protect wellbeing of others. Societies for a long time have restricted what people can do, without facing consequences. " Mp's parliamentary privilege speeches are now age restricted and censored so 16 17 Yr olds can not make informed decision when they vote in 2029. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I found the above very easily. Where's the sneaky, hidden law?" It’s the vagueness of the wording and that its all but unenforceable is what I personally have an issue with. It’s all but impossible to prove what someone knows at any given time. Let’s use this example… I read a post on FB from let’s say GB News (could just as easily be the guardian) that contains a statistic about how many of the child r@pe gangs were from a certain country. Turns out the statistic was not accurate for whatever reason. (But from what I understand, journalists can’t be held liable?) Someone from that country reads that post and claims psychological harm from reading it. The police get involved and ask me if I knew the stats were false and if I have any ill feeling towards people from that country. First off I have the right to remain silent. And my silence can not be taken to imply guilt unless I later try to use information in court that I don’t mention when questioned. So how does this ever get to court? And if i genuinely didn’t know the stat was false, end of story as i understand it. Sounds logical to me that the best course of action to save your own ass is to just say you didn’t know it was false. How can the police prove otherwise. Even if you knew previously, people forget stuff all the time. How many times do we hear public figures say “I have no recollection of that incident”. It’s all but admitting you may have known but didn’t know at the time because you forgot. So all this clause is doing is creating unsolvable cases for the police to waste time on when they could be doing something more productive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The law can also be interpreted in favour of the accused too. " The first interpretation of the law is done by the police. You still have to go through a lot of pain before you can prove that you didn't break the law. " I have always said that these things are all fine and dandy until the definition of fine and dandy is changed. Until last week I could have spread lies about you or anyone on the net and only been subject to a civil action (this was pointed out to me in the forum, maybe even by you), now I could be subject to legal action too. " Remember that no one has an answer to the question "Who decides what is truth?" If no one can decide what's the truth, why exactly should we have a law that punishes people for falsehood? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda" If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't know their constitution but each country will have limits to what is permissable behaviour, including speech. The recent UK internet changes to help to protect children, are not limited to porn but include other things that could harm them. " They don't. Why do you believe they are asking anyone to submit ID proof when they have a much easier solution in hand - Ban smartphones for kids? Because it has been proven that social media too has detrimental effects on children. Children being addicted to their phones has resulted in lack of social skills for many. There are numerous other problems when kids are using smartphones. Why have the Tories and Labour chosen least effective solution "to protect the kids"? " Some of the loudest complainers are people like Musk, who has to invest in his platform, to ensure that children are better protected. I'm unsure if the biggest drivers of complaints are people who must pay some money to ensure that they simply have to protect wellbeing of others. " And some of the loudest supporters of this bill are the Tories. Does that change your opinion? " Societies for a long time have restricted what people can do, without facing consequences. " We all know that. The question is how far do you want to go. We are effectively getting closer and closer to China in this aspect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If I use words with consideration, I can present a point on any subject without causing purposeful offence. I could trigger someone to feel offended but that is not the same as purposefully causing offence or stoking hatred based on known lies. I literally can't think of a anything I can't discuss, if you have an example that you think I have missed let me know. " The problem is that the decision of what is "intentional" and not intentional is made by the police first. You can prove your real intentions later. Let's say that you are wrongly arrested and you had to get a lawyer to prove you aren't guilty. Would you talk about controversial topics again? About 12,000 people are arrested in UK every year over social media activity. That number is huge. Do you think that the police are applying the laws correctly? Most of that is based on the 2003 communications act that says you shouldn't be posting anything "grossly offensive". Can you define what's grossly offensive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up." Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation." If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night" Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope." Other than accessing porn and other adult material without proving age, what else ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law?" Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope." Your minds made up, enjoy your paranoia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ?" The obvious problem is that porn companies are not known for their strict adherence to laws and regulations. I'll bet a whole load of them will be promising to delete your personal information, but won't actually do so. It's inevitable that one of these sites will be hacked, IDs taken, and people will start receiving extortion emails. This might be a worthwhile risk to take if it actually stopped kids from seeing porn. But it doesn't. Parents are too lax with their passwords, kids can steal their parents' ID from the family computer, and every kid in the country knows how to use a VPN. Forcing porn sites to verify users won't stop a single kid from seeing porn, but it will put a lot of people at risk of having their private life made public. It's a stupid law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? The obvious problem is that porn companies are not known for their strict adherence to laws and regulations. I'll bet a whole load of them will be promising to delete your personal information, but won't actually do so. It's inevitable that one of these sites will be hacked, IDs taken, and people will start receiving extortion emails. This might be a worthwhile risk to take if it actually stopped kids from seeing porn. But it doesn't. Parents are too lax with their passwords, kids can steal their parents' ID from the family computer, and every kid in the country knows how to use a VPN. Forcing porn sites to verify users won't stop a single kid from seeing porn, but it will put a lot of people at risk of having their private life made public. It's a stupid law." This! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? The obvious problem is that porn companies are not known for their strict adherence to laws and regulations. I'll bet a whole load of them will be promising to delete your personal information, but won't actually do so. It's inevitable that one of these sites will be hacked, IDs taken, and people will start receiving extortion emails. This might be a worthwhile risk to take if it actually stopped kids from seeing porn. But it doesn't. Parents are too lax with their passwords, kids can steal their parents' ID from the family computer, and every kid in the country knows how to use a VPN. Forcing porn sites to verify users won't stop a single kid from seeing porn, but it will put a lot of people at risk of having their private life made public. It's a stupid law." Nonsense, we banned drink driving, some people still do it but the fast majority refrain because of the law. Anything that curtains a 11 year old boys access to some of these porn sites is a good idea. Every law get broken, basically your saying ban all laws? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? The obvious problem is that porn companies are not known for their strict adherence to laws and regulations. I'll bet a whole load of them will be promising to delete your personal information, but won't actually do so. It's inevitable that one of these sites will be hacked, IDs taken, and people will start receiving extortion emails. This might be a worthwhile risk to take if it actually stopped kids from seeing porn. But it doesn't. Parents are too lax with their passwords, kids can steal their parents' ID from the family computer, and every kid in the country knows how to use a VPN. Forcing porn sites to verify users won't stop a single kid from seeing porn, but it will put a lot of people at risk of having their private life made public. It's a stupid law." Can you prove that not one single under 18 will be prevented from seeing porn. I'm sure everyone on the country knows about VPN now, because it's being talked about so much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? The obvious problem is that porn companies are not known for their strict adherence to laws and regulations. I'll bet a whole load of them will be promising to delete your personal information, but won't actually do so. It's inevitable that one of these sites will be hacked, IDs taken, and people will start receiving extortion emails. This might be a worthwhile risk to take if it actually stopped kids from seeing porn. But it doesn't. Parents are too lax with their passwords, kids can steal their parents' ID from the family computer, and every kid in the country knows how to use a VPN. Forcing porn sites to verify users won't stop a single kid from seeing porn, but it will put a lot of people at risk of having their private life made public. It's a stupid law. Nonsense, we banned drink driving, some people still do it but the fast majority refrain because of the law. Anything that curtains a 11 year old boys access to some of these porn sites is a good idea. Every law get broken, basically your saying ban all laws? " Drink driving has declined because it became socially unacceptable, not because of the law. The age restriction on most teenagers phones that’s put in place by service providers will stop far more than these age restrictions will. I’m not against the new age restrictions, I think they are a good thing. I just think they are very easy to get around. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Your minds made up, enjoy your paranoia." When it comes to judging the actions of politicians, you can never be paranoid enough. The online safety law about porn and "misinformation" clearly doesn't solve the problems they claim to solve. In fact, the "kids watching porn" problem has much better solutions which don't affect people's privacy. And yet, both Tories and Labour are happily passing this law.People who aren't paranoid about it deserve an authoritarian dictatorship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Other than accessing porn and other adult material without proving age, what else ?" It's not about "proving age", it's about losing anonymity by submitting ID proof. And as I mentioned above, check the section 179 of the law. Before this? 2003 communications act. 2006 religious hatred act. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them." You aren't answering the question. Will you be supportive of a similar law that reform passes the way you are supportive of it now. Reform will choose what is misinformation. Reform will keep track of adult websites you are visiting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Your minds made up, enjoy your paranoia. When it comes to judging the actions of politicians, you can never be paranoid enough. The online safety law about porn and "misinformation" clearly doesn't solve the problems they claim to solve. In fact, the "kids watching porn" problem has much better solutions which don't affect people's privacy. And yet, both Tories and Labour are happily passing this law.People who aren't paranoid about it deserve an authoritarian dictatorship." You're gonna drive yourself to an early grave. What could you be doing that would be so bad to get you in trouble with the internet police now or in the future | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them. You aren't answering the question. Will you be supportive of a similar law that reform passes the way you are supportive of it now. Reform will choose what is misinformation. Reform will keep track of adult websites you are visiting." I won't be supporting anything reform do, but if others are stupid enough to elect them then I won't have a say. Will I ? No point getting yourself all stressed about shit you can't fix, worry about stuff you control | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them. You aren't answering the question. Will you be supportive of a similar law that reform passes the way you are supportive of it now. Reform will choose what is misinformation. Reform will keep track of adult websites you are visiting." And if worrying about who knew what sites I was visiting worried me I'd stop visiting them to be honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Other than accessing porn and other adult material without proving age, what else ? It's not about "proving age", it's about losing anonymity by submitting ID proof. And as I mentioned above, check the section 179 of the law. Before this? 2003 communications act. 2006 religious hatred act. " I won't be worried about section 179 or any other sections. If you're really worried about privacy and liability I'd log off now and never use the internet again because if "they" want to track you down it'll take them minutes no matter how anonymously you think your surfing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Other than accessing porn and other adult material without proving age, what else ? It's not about "proving age", it's about losing anonymity by submitting ID proof. And as I mentioned above, check the section 179 of the law. Before this? 2003 communications act. 2006 religious hatred act. " I won't be worried about section 179 or any other sections. If you're really worried about privacy and liability I'd log off now and never use the internet again because if "they" want to track you down it'll take them minutes no matter how anonymously you think your surfing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them. You aren't answering the question. Will you be supportive of a similar law that reform passes the way you are supportive of it now. Reform will choose what is misinformation. Reform will keep track of adult websites you are visiting. I won't be supporting anything reform do, but if others are stupid enough to elect them then I won't have a say. Will I ? No point getting yourself all stressed about shit you can't fix, worry about stuff you control " Again, you are dodging the question. You are out here defending a law saying that's it's all good. I am asking that if the law is good, would it still be good if Reform passes it or even if Labour passes it but reform takes over and enforces it? Most people who are against free speech are under the naive belief that the law wouldn't affect them and it will affect only their political opponents. One fine day, your political opponents will win elections and use the same laws against you and you won't be enjoying it. This is why we should be paranoid about giving up our freedom of speech to power hungry politicians even if they are on your side no matter what reason they cook up to hide their authoritarianism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Other than accessing porn and other adult material without proving age, what else ? It's not about "proving age", it's about losing anonymity by submitting ID proof. And as I mentioned above, check the section 179 of the law. Before this? 2003 communications act. 2006 religious hatred act. I won't be worried about section 179 or any other sections. If you're really worried about privacy and liability I'd log off now and never use the internet again because if "they" want to track you down it'll take them minutes no matter how anonymously you think your surfing" Section 179 is about "truth". Who decides what is truth? Would you be happy with Reform deciding what is truth? In case you don't know, this is exactly how Chinese censorship operates. The government censors everything that they deem to be not true. If you don't care about privacy because they will track it anyway, then why do you have to hide your faces? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them. You aren't answering the question. Will you be supportive of a similar law that reform passes the way you are supportive of it now. Reform will choose what is misinformation. Reform will keep track of adult websites you are visiting. I won't be supporting anything reform do, but if others are stupid enough to elect them then I won't have a say. Will I ? No point getting yourself all stressed about shit you can't fix, worry about stuff you control Again, you are dodging the question. You are out here defending a law saying that's it's all good. I am asking that if the law is good, would it still be good if Reform passes it or even if Labour passes it but reform takes over and enforces it? Most people who are against free speech are under the naive belief that the law wouldn't affect them and it will affect only their political opponents. One fine day, your political opponents will win elections and use the same laws against you and you won't be enjoying it. This is why we should be paranoid about giving up our freedom of speech to power hungry politicians even if they are on your side no matter what reason they cook up to hide their authoritarianism " Let me make it perfectly clear for you. I'm not defending a law, I'm saying it doesn't matter to me, I don't give a fuck about it and nobody has given me an answer as to why I personally should give a fuck about it. If you're up to something dodgy then shit your pants, I'm happy with my life xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Other than accessing porn and other adult material without proving age, what else ? It's not about "proving age", it's about losing anonymity by submitting ID proof. And as I mentioned above, check the section 179 of the law. Before this? 2003 communications act. 2006 religious hatred act. I won't be worried about section 179 or any other sections. If you're really worried about privacy and liability I'd log off now and never use the internet again because if "they" want to track you down it'll take them minutes no matter how anonymously you think your surfing Section 179 is about "truth". Who decides what is truth? Would you be happy with Reform deciding what is truth? In case you don't know, this is exactly how Chinese censorship operates. The government censors everything that they deem to be not true. If you don't care about privacy because they will track it anyway, then why do you have to hide your faces?" By the way, you made an excellent choice of profile name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them. You aren't answering the question. Will you be supportive of a similar law that reform passes the way you are supportive of it now. Reform will choose what is misinformation. Reform will keep track of adult websites you are visiting. I won't be supporting anything reform do, but if others are stupid enough to elect them then I won't have a say. Will I ? No point getting yourself all stressed about shit you can't fix, worry about stuff you control Again, you are dodging the question. You are out here defending a law saying that's it's all good. I am asking that if the law is good, would it still be good if Reform passes it or even if Labour passes it but reform takes over and enforces it? Most people who are against free speech are under the naive belief that the law wouldn't affect them and it will affect only their political opponents. One fine day, your political opponents will win elections and use the same laws against you and you won't be enjoying it. This is why we should be paranoid about giving up our freedom of speech to power hungry politicians even if they are on your side no matter what reason they cook up to hide their authoritarianism Let me make it perfectly clear for you. I'm not defending a law, I'm saying it doesn't matter to me, I don't give a fuck about it and nobody has given me an answer as to why I personally should give a fuck about it. If you're up to something dodgy then shit your pants, I'm happy with my life xx " I have given you the answer. The laws can be used to invade your privacy. The wordings of some sections are vague enough that you can basically arrested anytime the politicians and police want to arrest you. If you don't give a fuck about it, why are you even in this thread? People who feel strongly about it will argue about it. People who don't give a fuck would just stay out of the conversation. And yet here you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bu virtue of the fact we are discussing it, means freedom of speech is well and truly alive. Some people though get freedom of speech and gobshite mixed up. Do you think freedom of speech is completely taken away one fine day? It's a step by step process. We are well and truly going down the slippery slope. Other than accessing porn and other adult material without proving age, what else ? It's not about "proving age", it's about losing anonymity by submitting ID proof. And as I mentioned above, check the section 179 of the law. Before this? 2003 communications act. 2006 religious hatred act. I won't be worried about section 179 or any other sections. If you're really worried about privacy and liability I'd log off now and never use the internet again because if "they" want to track you down it'll take them minutes no matter how anonymously you think your surfing Section 179 is about "truth". Who decides what is truth? Would you be happy with Reform deciding what is truth? In case you don't know, this is exactly how Chinese censorship operates. The government censors everything that they deem to be not true. If you don't care about privacy because they will track it anyway, then why do you have to hide your faces? By the way, you made an excellent choice of profile name "Thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think the mantra of 'if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about' holds true. The goal posts can be changed as to what's wrong. I'm not a lawyer or even legally qualified beyond basic law lectures at college but I can't see anything in this latest legislation to be overly concerned about. Future legislation might worry me but as it hasn't happened yet...🤷♀️" That's a fair take. But every authoritarian law starts looking like something innocuous. This is how they passed the 2003 communications act. They basically took the wording of the telecommunications act from the 1980s and people thought that it was fine. The problem is that the telecommunications act was written for postal messages sent from one person to another. They just extended it to all sorts of internet communications that includes posts you make on social media. Today, 12,000 people are arrested every year because of it. I am pretty sure that people who supported that act never expected so many people would be arrested after a decade because of that act. Moral of the story is that never trust politicians with your right to speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X. "In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days. "You can sleep soundly, I'm not on any of them, the meta is low with this one.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ?" "The obvious problem is that porn companies are not known for their strict adherence to laws and regulations. I'll bet a whole load of them will be promising to delete your personal information, but won't actually do so. It's inevitable that one of these sites will be hacked, IDs taken, and people will start receiving extortion emails. This might be a worthwhile risk to take if it actually stopped kids from seeing porn. But it doesn't. Parents are too lax with their passwords, kids can steal their parents' ID from the family computer, and every kid in the country knows how to use a VPN. Forcing porn sites to verify users won't stop a single kid from seeing porn, but it will put a lot of people at risk of having their private life made public. It's a stupid law." "Can you prove that not one single under 18 will be prevented from seeing porn." Of course not. Just as you can't prove that one single child will be prevented. But what do you think? Kids these days know a lot about technology, and the news has been full of discussion about VPNs, which can be downloaded for free. How many children that want to see porn do you really think will find that they now can't? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days. "600 million monthly users currently. Can you tell me how you know they are all bigots? More to the point. Do you know it’s illegal to post false information online now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days.
600 million monthly users currently. Can you tell me how you know they are all bigots?
More to the point. Do you know it’s illegal to post false information online now?"Solid work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the problem with having to prove your age to view porn ? What other silencing controls have been introduced ? Because many anonymous social media have a mix of everything with many borderline content that is treated as adult content. You lose anonymity by giving your id proof. Additionally, check section 179 What's good about hiding behind anonymity and spreading misinformation or disinformation ? Unless you have an agenda If Reform wins an election which most probably they will and they pass a law that bans anonymity and "misinformation", will you be supportive of it? Remember that Reform will decide what's misinformation. If reform wins an election, freedom of speech will be a long way down the list of things to keep you awake at night Does that mean you will let reform pass such a law? Well I'll not be losing any sleep over something I'll have no control over as I'll not be voting for them. You aren't answering the question. Will you be supportive of a similar law that reform passes the way you are supportive of it now. Reform will choose what is misinformation. Reform will keep track of adult websites you are visiting. I won't be supporting anything reform do, but if others are stupid enough to elect them then I won't have a say. Will I ? No point getting yourself all stressed about shit you can't fix, worry about stuff you control Again, you are dodging the question. You are out here defending a law saying that's it's all good. I am asking that if the law is good, would it still be good if Reform passes it or even if Labour passes it but reform takes over and enforces it? Most people who are against free speech are under the naive belief that the law wouldn't affect them and it will affect only their political opponents. One fine day, your political opponents will win elections and use the same laws against you and you won't be enjoying it. This is why we should be paranoid about giving up our freedom of speech to power hungry politicians even if they are on your side no matter what reason they cook up to hide their authoritarianism Let me make it perfectly clear for you. I'm not defending a law, I'm saying it doesn't matter to me, I don't give a fuck about it and nobody has given me an answer as to why I personally should give a fuck about it. If you're up to something dodgy then shit your pants, I'm happy with my life xx I have given you the answer. The laws can be used to invade your privacy. The wordings of some sections are vague enough that you can basically arrested anytime the politicians and police want to arrest you. If you don't give a fuck about it, why are you even in this thread? People who feel strongly about it will argue about it. People who don't give a fuck would just stay out of the conversation. And yet here you are." As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days. "Pretty much everyone who left X for blue sky came back to X. You still sure X is full of bigots? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
"It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it? " Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?" Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days.
600 million monthly users currently. Can you tell me how you know they are all bigots?
More to the point. Do you know it’s illegal to post false information online now?"Maybe he can argue that he didn't know it was false information he was posting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days.
600 million monthly users currently. Can you tell me how you know they are all bigots?
More to the point. Do you know it’s illegal to post false information online now?
Maybe he can argue that he didn't know it was false information he was posting "So you’re saying it was false? Cos that’s half the issue here, knowing what the truth is. How do you know it’s false? Maybe you’re now spreading false information saying it’s false? 🤣 Bit of a minefield isn’t it? And a total waste of police time, which I believe was my original point. Unenforceable laws are pointless. Or maybe that’s false 🤣 but i believe it to be true at this point in time, just for the record. Maybe that’s the answer, as you post or share anything, just say “I believe this to be true” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days.
600 million monthly users currently. Can you tell me how you know they are all bigots?
More to the point. Do you know it’s illegal to post false information online now?
Maybe he can argue that he didn't know it was false information he was posting
So you’re saying it was false? Cos that’s half the issue here, knowing what the truth is.
How do you know it’s false? Maybe you’re now spreading false information saying it’s false? 🤣
Bit of a minefield isn’t it? And a total waste of police time, which I believe was my original point. Unenforceable laws are pointless. Or maybe that’s false 🤣 but i believe it to be true at this point in time, just for the record.
Maybe that’s the answer, as you post or share anything, just say “I believe this to be true” "
Philosophers have been arguing for millennia about what is "truth" and the UK government believes that the police can find an answer to that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days.
600 million monthly users currently. Can you tell me how you know they are all bigots?
More to the point. Do you know it’s illegal to post false information online now?
Maybe he can argue that he didn't know it was false information he was posting
So you’re saying it was false? Cos that’s half the issue here, knowing what the truth is.
How do you know it’s false? Maybe you’re now spreading false information saying it’s false? 🤣
Bit of a minefield isn’t it? And a total waste of police time, which I believe was my original point. Unenforceable laws are pointless. Or maybe that’s false 🤣 but i believe it to be true at this point in time, just for the record.
Maybe that’s the answer, as you post or share anything, just say “I believe this to be true” "Doesn't the act clearly state that it's illegal to post something you know is false, so what's the issue if you don't know, you don't know , simples | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?"You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The police have a hard enough time proving what people have done, now they have to prove what they thought. " Top lols | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet there will be an increase of users on social media platforms having their accounts removed or restricted by the use of this new act by government or agents agencies of, using the leverage of huge fines, and it will be X users who will be targeted, the uk government have form on its dislike of free speech platform X.
In fairness X is only used by bigots these days. They should just leave them in their ever increasingly hate filled bubble of intolerance. Few/no normal people use it these days.
600 million monthly users currently. Can you tell me how you know they are all bigots?
More to the point. Do you know it’s illegal to post false information online now?
Maybe he can argue that he didn't know it was false information he was posting
So you’re saying it was false? Cos that’s half the issue here, knowing what the truth is.
How do you know it’s false? Maybe you’re now spreading false information saying it’s false? 🤣
Bit of a minefield isn’t it? And a total waste of police time, which I believe was my original point. Unenforceable laws are pointless. Or maybe that’s false 🤣 but i believe it to be true at this point in time, just for the record.
Maybe that’s the answer, as you post or share anything, just say “I believe this to be true”
Doesn't the act clearly state that it's illegal to post something you know is false, so what's the issue if you don't know, you don't know , simples "Anyone can say "I don't know". So what's the point of this law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?
You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you.
"I do know. But if I want, I don't have to share it. There is Tor browser for that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?
You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you.
I do know. But if I want, I don't have to share it. There is Tor browser for that"Don't be so sure of Tor AI answer National Intelligence Agencies: These agencies have the resources and capabilities to track Tor users. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?
You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you.
I do know. But if I want, I don't have to share it. There is Tor browser for that
Don't be so sure of Tor
AI answer
National Intelligence Agencies: These agencies have the resources and capabilities to track Tor users. "The question is would they bother | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?
You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you.
I do know. But if I want, I don't have to share it. There is Tor browser for that
Don't be so sure of Tor
AI answer
National Intelligence Agencies: These agencies have the resources and capabilities to track Tor users.
The question is would they bother "AI answer is wrong About whether they bother or not, it's a ridiculous justification for handing over your privacy to the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?
You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you.
I do know. But if I want, I don't have to share it. There is Tor browser for that
Don't be so sure of Tor
AI answer
National Intelligence Agencies: These agencies have the resources and capabilities to track Tor users.
The question is would they bother
AI answer is wrong
About whether they bother or not, it's a ridiculous justification for handing over your privacy to the government."If you do something bad enough they will find you no matter how you think you've cloaked yourself, if you don't why would they want to. For someone who appears paranoid, you're not very good at it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?
You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you.
I do know. But if I want, I don't have to share it. There is Tor browser for that
Don't be so sure of Tor
AI answer
National Intelligence Agencies: These agencies have the resources and capabilities to track Tor users.
The question is would they bother
AI answer is wrong
About whether they bother or not, it's a ridiculous justification for handing over your privacy to the government.
If you do something bad enough they will find you no matter how you think you've cloaked yourself, if you don't why would they want to.
For someone who appears paranoid, you're not very good at it."So, you won't do anything in your life to protect your privacy? Because if they want, the government and the corporates will anyway find it right? Who gives a fuck about privacy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As far as I know (don't want to be spreading misinformation here) but the fab forums don't stipulate a requirement of giving a fuck to participate in a thread
It's not about fab rules. It's just logic. If you don't give a fuck about the law, why do you spend your time arguing in favour of it?
Anyway if they want to invade my privacy they sure as hell probably don't need a new act to do it and probably won't be terribly interested in me anyway but out of interest how will this act make any difference ?
Before this law, the platforms can tell the government that they don't have information about who is talking. Now they can't do so because the government has effectively forced them to collect ID proof. In parallel, the government is trying hard to stop Apple from using end to end encryption. Why do the good hearted politicians who are just trying to protect the kids do that?
You do know that any server you connect to logs your IP address, probably the make and model of the device you're using, possibly the software you have installed in it and a plethora of information that can be used to identify you.
I do know. But if I want, I don't have to share it. There is Tor browser for that
Don't be so sure of Tor
AI answer
National Intelligence Agencies: These agencies have the resources and capabilities to track Tor users.
The question is would they bother
AI answer is wrong
About whether they bother or not, it's a ridiculous justification for handing over your privacy to the government.
If you do something bad enough they will find you no matter how you think you've cloaked yourself, if you don't why would they want to.
For someone who appears paranoid, you're not very good at it.
So, you won't do anything in your life to protect your privacy? Because if they want, the government and the corporates will anyway find it right? Who gives a fuck about privacy? "Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them " If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? " I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? " All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later " Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie." Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol" "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now?" I'm not being asked for ID proof on every website I visit. I support the law (with reservations that I've mentioned before) whoever passes the legislation. I sincerely hope that Reform don't get in though. I believe we would be very far up the creek without the proverbial paddle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now?" Reform have said they'll repeal it *Shrugs shoulders and walks away laughing* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now? Reform have said they'll repeal it *Shrugs shoulders and walks away laughing*" That's true. Nigel Farage came in for some flack o er that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now? I'm not being asked for ID proof on every website I visit. I support the law (with reservations that I've mentioned before) whoever passes the legislation. I sincerely hope that Reform don't get in though. I believe we would be very far up the creek without the proverbial paddle" So you would trust that Reform wouldn't misuse this law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now?" Having read through the posts, I think this topic is more about tightening controls on internet usage rather than free speech. I have just looked at the age verification process on a couple of sites, and it is clunky and certainly untrustworthy, to the point I won't be using them. I can see these firms causing a major problem in the not too distant future such is the data they are holding and the value of that data. In terms of free speech element and section 179 that is being quoted. It is not preventing free speech it is a law that is basically asking people to be accountable for what they transmit, if they are knowingly publishing lies that can cause harassment and hurt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now? Reform have said they'll repeal it *Shrugs shoulders and walks away laughing*" Yes, but what if they pass this law! Will you be on the internet, defending Reform's law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What sites require ID ? I thought it was age verification ? Hang on I'll try it later Any site when you are accessing adult content. Age verification can be done by ID proof or uploading a selfie. Just tried it, no ID required just a blurry photo My photos are on Facebook Someone took my photo yesterday I walk past security cameras every day I'm pretty sure it logged my IP address too I wasn't doing anything illegal so why should I be worried about it ? Should I be wearing a balaclava lol "If you don't do anything illegal, you don't have to worry about anything" is exactly what China tells its people. I ask you the same question I asked the other people who support the law. If Tories and Labour did not pass the law, Reform wins the next election and passes the same law asking for ID proof on every website you visit. Will you support it like you do now? I'm not being asked for ID proof on every website I visit. I support the law (with reservations that I've mentioned before) whoever passes the legislation. I sincerely hope that Reform don't get in though. I believe we would be very far up the creek without the proverbial paddle So you would trust that Reform wouldn't misuse this law?" probsbly not but you're asking me to judge a hypothetical situation. I'm commenting on the situation as it is now, not at some time in the future. I can see the point you're trying to make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now?" What am I hiding ? Where did I defend the law, not being worried about it isn't defending it, others perhaps should be extremely worried, especially those looking for illegal shit. Doomscrolling and paranoia isn't my things I've got important things to decide like whether to go out on the motorbike or take the boat out this afternoon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now? What am I hiding ? Where did I defend the law, not being worried about it isn't defending it, others perhaps should be extremely worried, especially those looking for illegal shit. Doomscrolling and paranoia isn't my things I've got important things to decide like whether to go out on the motorbike or take the boat out this afternoon." Have you seen the man raiding money to buy a lifeboat? He's going to name it the 'Flying Farage'. 😇 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Having read through the posts, I think this topic is more about tightening controls on internet usage rather than free speech. " How is it different from tightening the controls that China did? Don't you think it's strange that the European politicians have been passing regulations after regulations on tech companies over privacy but are suddenly passing a law that's going to be a privacy nightmare? Meanwhile the government is fighting against end to end encryption too. The only reason I could think of is that they want to make UK a surveillance state. Oh by the way, totally unrelated, but face recognition cameras are being increasingly used across the country: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/24/police-live-facial-recognition-cameras-england-and-wales If you put all of the things above, we aren't that far from China in becoming a surveillance state. " In terms of free speech element and section 179 that is being quoted. It is not preventing free speech it is a law that is basically asking people to be accountable for what they transmit, if they are knowingly publishing lies that can cause harassment and hurt. " This law is practically unenforceable unless the government becomes the arbiter of truth. Again, exactly what China does. All the arguments in this thread are based on an utterly naive assumption that the politicians won't misuse them. That's why you keep hearing excuses like "I won't do anything illegal. So I don't care". What's legal and what's illegal changes all the time. The authoritarian playbook on that matter is simple - Build a surveillance state first. People can be deceived using reasons like "protecting the kids", "for your own safety". Then change what's legal and illegal. You can suppress any opposition to it because you know what? People are under surveillance and you can quash them easily. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now? What am I hiding ? Where did I defend the law, not being worried about it isn't defending it, others perhaps should be extremely worried, especially those looking for illegal shit. Doomscrolling and paranoia isn't my things I've got important things to decide like whether to go out on the motorbike or take the boat out this afternoon." If you aren't worried if the law is there or if the law is not there, you wouldn't be here defending it. You would just skip this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Having read through the posts, I think this topic is more about tightening controls on internet usage rather than free speech. How is it different from tightening the controls that China did? Don't you think it's strange that the European politicians have been passing regulations after regulations on tech companies over privacy but are suddenly passing a law that's going to be a privacy nightmare? Meanwhile the government is fighting against end to end encryption too. The only reason I could think of is that they want to make UK a surveillance state. Oh by the way, totally unrelated, but face recognition cameras are being increasingly used across the country: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/24/police-live-facial-recognition-cameras-england-and-wales If you put all of the things above, we aren't that far from China in becoming a surveillance state. In terms of free speech element and section 179 that is being quoted. It is not preventing free speech it is a law that is basically asking people to be accountable for what they transmit, if they are knowingly publishing lies that can cause harassment and hurt. This law is practically unenforceable unless the government becomes the arbiter of truth. Again, exactly what China does. All the arguments in this thread are based on an utterly naive assumption that the politicians won't misuse them. That's why you keep hearing excuses like "I won't do anything illegal. So I don't care". What's legal and what's illegal changes all the time. The authoritarian playbook on that matter is simple - Build a surveillance state first. People can be deceived using reasons like "protecting the kids", "for your own safety". Then change what's legal and illegal. You can suppress any opposition to it because you know what? People are under surveillance and you can quash them easily." The courts are the arbiters of truth, they get it wrong and get it right, however it is the best we have. Let's be clear on the surveillance, it is in place already and applied heavily handed too. The terrorism laws allowed that to happen so I can see, your point. However I think section 179, is placing the emphasis on individuals to be accountable. It is never going to be easy to define the motive or if a person didn't know something was a lie or not, but ignorance is not a defence. I can see a situation when a person is asked by the police why they posted X, and they claim they didn't not know it was a lie or it was actually harmful, it happens today under hate crimes. It isn't clear to me today what constitutes a hate crime, that is the issue, it is unclear and we need clear boundaries that are fully understood by the state and the public. The internet has created a platform that our and other governments didn't really understand. They worked on the premise that the internet should be a self governing, open platform, that has clearly changed to regulation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now? What am I hiding ? Where did I defend the law, not being worried about it isn't defending it, others perhaps should be extremely worried, especially those looking for illegal shit. Doomscrolling and paranoia isn't my things I've got important things to decide like whether to go out on the motorbike or take the boat out this afternoon. Have you seen the man raiding money to buy a lifeboat? He's going to name it the 'Flying Farage'. 😇" I did, absolutely brilliant idea, he's raised a fortune. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now? What am I hiding ? Where did I defend the law, not being worried about it isn't defending it, others perhaps should be extremely worried, especially those looking for illegal shit. Doomscrolling and paranoia isn't my things I've got important things to decide like whether to go out on the motorbike or take the boat out this afternoon. If you aren't worried if the law is there or if the law is not there, you wouldn't be here defending it. You would just skip this thread." Again, the forum by it's nature is a place for open discussion, and " not giving a fuck" is not defending something. However, I did consult with AI and he/she/it (did I get that politically correct) says I should have shown empathy and understanding towards your paranoia and not deepened your fears by challenging them and causing you to focus on them. If I was you I'd get yourself a motorbike, it really does remove the stresses of day to day life and with that I've made the choice. Motorbike run today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The courts are the arbiters of truth, they get it wrong and get it right, however it is the best we have. " When a physical crime happens, yes. They decide who committed the crime. But we are now going to have governance bodies decide what's the kind of truth that's legal to communicate between people. It's a whole different level of authoritarianism. " Let's be clear on the surveillance, it is in place already and applied heavily handed too. The terrorism laws allowed that to happen so I can see, your point. " There are levels to it, right? Why don't we just allow the government to set up cameras at our homes and watch us all the time? " However I think section 179, is placing the emphasis on individuals to be accountable. It is never going to be easy to define the motive or if a person didn't know something was a lie or not, but ignorance is not a defence. I can see a situation when a person is asked by the police why they posted X, and they claim they didn't not know it was a lie or it was actually harmful, it happens today under hate crimes. It isn't clear to me today what constitutes a hate crime, that is the issue, it is unclear and we need clear boundaries that are fully understood by the state and the public. " There are two problems with it. 1) Was it a lie? 2) Did the speaker know it was a lie? For (1), you need an arbiter of truth. For (2), how exactly do you know if it was intentional or not? If it's not possible, what's the point of this law other than intimidating people into following the party line? And how exactly is the new framework of laws different from China? Why do you think China is an authoritarian hellhole based on the same laws, but UK will continue allowing people to have individual freedom? Most Politicians are power hungry authoritarians no matter which country they are from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now? What am I hiding ? Where did I defend the law, not being worried about it isn't defending it, others perhaps should be extremely worried, especially those looking for illegal shit. Doomscrolling and paranoia isn't my things I've got important things to decide like whether to go out on the motorbike or take the boat out this afternoon. If you aren't worried if the law is there or if the law is not there, you wouldn't be here defending it. You would just skip this thread. Again, the forum by it's nature is a place for open discussion, and " not giving a fuck" is not defending something. However, I did consult with AI and he/she/it (did I get that politically correct) says I should have shown empathy and understanding towards your paranoia and not deepened your fears by challenging them and causing you to focus on them. If I was you I'd get yourself a motorbike, it really does remove the stresses of day to day life and with that I've made the choice. Motorbike run today. " A person who gets advice from AI is giving me advice on taking a motorbike and enjoying life What does the AI say about someone who "doesn't care" about a law but spends a long time writing numerous posts defending it in a forum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The courts are the arbiters of truth, they get it wrong and get it right, however it is the best we have. When a physical crime happens, yes. They decide who committed the crime. But we are now going to have governance bodies decide what's the kind of truth that's legal to communicate between people. It's a whole different level of authoritarianism. Let's be clear on the surveillance, it is in place already and applied heavily handed too. The terrorism laws allowed that to happen so I can see, your point. There are levels to it, right? Why don't we just allow the government to set up cameras at our homes and watch us all the time? However I think section 179, is placing the emphasis on individuals to be accountable. It is never going to be easy to define the motive or if a person didn't know something was a lie or not, but ignorance is not a defence. I can see a situation when a person is asked by the police why they posted X, and they claim they didn't not know it was a lie or it was actually harmful, it happens today under hate crimes. It isn't clear to me today what constitutes a hate crime, that is the issue, it is unclear and we need clear boundaries that are fully understood by the state and the public. There are two problems with it. 1) Was it a lie? 2) Did the speaker know it was a lie? For (1), you need an arbiter of truth. For (2), how exactly do you know if it was intentional or not? If it's not possible, what's the point of this law other than intimidating people into following the party line? And how exactly is the new framework of laws different from China? Why do you think China is an authoritarian hellhole based on the same laws, but UK will continue allowing people to have individual freedom? Most Politicians are power hungry authoritarians no matter which country they are from. " I have asked this before, what subject can't I talk about? If I knowingly lie and I am knowingly causing real distress and hurt, it is no different to a d*unk shouting obscenities in a crowded town centre. Don't do it. I get the point about uncertainty over what counts as “truth”. But we can cut through some of that by recognising that political views are protected as personal truth. That is the starting point. However, when a political view becomes harmful like those pushed by far right hate groups it is no longer protected. We already shut those down. This is no different. It is the courts not politicians that protect our truth and liberty. If the government overreaches, the law provides a checks and balances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Depends what you mean by privacy I don't share financial detail but if the government wants to see them they will, doesn't worry me I've nothing to hide. We keep our identity private on fab, if the government wants to know they'll find out and I've nothing to hide from them If you have nothing to hide, why hide it in the first place? I allow Google maps to store my location, if anything it would help prove me innocent if falsely accused of something. I'm sure if someone in sky broadband team wants they'll see I look at porn sites occasionally, I don't really care who knows, it's not illegal. What should I be afraid of ? All this under the assumption that the government is a good player. I ask you the same question I asked you earlier. If Labour and Tories did not pass the law, Reform wins the election and passes the same law, asking website owners to get ID proofs "to protect the kids", will you still defend that law like you are defending now? What am I hiding ? Where did I defend the law, not being worried about it isn't defending it, others perhaps should be extremely worried, especially those looking for illegal shit. Doomscrolling and paranoia isn't my things I've got important things to decide like whether to go out on the motorbike or take the boat out this afternoon. If you aren't worried if the law is there or if the law is not there, you wouldn't be here defending it. You would just skip this thread. Again, the forum by it's nature is a place for open discussion, and " not giving a fuck" is not defending something. However, I did consult with AI and he/she/it (did I get that politically correct) says I should have shown empathy and understanding towards your paranoia and not deepened your fears by challenging them and causing you to focus on them. If I was you I'd get yourself a motorbike, it really does remove the stresses of day to day life and with that I've made the choice. Motorbike run today. A person who gets advice from AI is giving me advice on taking a motorbike and enjoying life What does the AI say about someone who "doesn't care" about a law but spends a long time writing numerous posts defending it in a forum?" The end is nigh, take care | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
