Sleepwalking? I believe they're wide awake and have made their choice: they prefer an inoffensive world over a free one. Maybe it helps them sleep better at night but personally I'm not setting foot anywhere I might have an illegal opinion.
As a Brit, I'm embarrassed. These politicians are LARPing and haven't learned the most important political lesson of the last 100 years - that restrictions on speech are dangerous.
Well then you probably can't set foot anywhere much. If you were thinking of the USA, remember that people have been extra-judicially killed by the state for being "communist", only 2 or 3 decades ago.
Then you are stuck in the USA for the rest of your life. I think the USA is the only country on the entire planet which allows unfettered free speech, every other nation has some legal limits on speech (or expression as we call it in Europe).
For instance, what Kanye said on Infowars would likely land him in jail if he was German, and his talk about the holocaust not being real would get him in trouble with the authorities in a lot of other nations.
Exactly, we have had the concept of "Libel" in uk law for over 700 years [0].
It's this Libel and Defamation law that has often contributed to the allegations of censorship. Fundamentally some of this is built into British culture, and is significantly different to US culture where "free speech" rules supreme. But it's the bleeding of US culture into that of the UK though the media+internet that leads to a more vocal debate around these issues than before.
To quote form the Wikipedia article below:
"English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world."
The world is so much more connected now it's inevitable that cultural and legal differences will reduce and some sort of equilibrium will be found.
Taboo is a UK stable food, and it goes hand in hand with censorship.
In fact, with the current political and economical situation, I'm surprised it's not getting worse. The Finger would be tempting to create in a time of crisis.
Britain? All major media outlets and social network platforms worldwide now have established censorship as "the new normal".
The only mainstream platform now setting itself up to become the exception to this is the one platform that since a few weeks gets consistently attacked by the establishment: Twitter.
"Worse, this isn’t even intentional. It’s happening because ministers have not really thought through the implications"
don't often agree with Telegraph but their analysis is accurate.
Our era of soundbite politicians vulnerable to populist measures which superficially sound reasonable (sue big tech for hosting bad content) but disguise deep complexities (what is bad content, who decides this, it is universally applied?) which have profound implications for society (blaming platforms for user posted content means no more user posted content without prior moderation)
> It’s happening because ministers have not really thought through the implications
I think they've thought through the implications perfectly well. Or at the very least they've been told what the implications are by their legal advisors. The real problem is that they do not care about those implications.
But this is Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, writing in the Telegraph - both publications have been the absolute cheerleaders of the Conservative administration’s descent into an idiocracy. Reap what you sow, Fraser, you dolt.
> Our era of soundbite politicians vulnerable to populist measures which superficially sound reasonable
I’m deeply skeptical that this is a real problem. I mean, there’s defined a list of extremely popular issues which have no support from politicians (like a healthcare reform in US), and also a long list of unpopular policies enacted a lot of times with bipartisan support.
"Worse, this isn’t even intentional. It’s happening because ministers have not really thought through the implications"
It might be right that the ministers/politicians have not really thought through the implications. But someone else surely has and is making censorship (of the things that challenge their power) a matter of policy. The actions of big tech are a matter of their internal policies. Which "populist" opinions politicians respond to (and which they ignore) is a matter of policy. In an age when populist opinion is manufactured through control of content and media, politicians are no longer moved by the opinions of their constituents but rather by those holding onto that control. Instances of bipartisan support in the US, for example, are merely instances where the topic is important to the elite and need bear no relationship to the opinions of the people.
I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making this possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of communications via a few massive actors makes this kind ideas enforceable.
So, while those ideas aren't new, the thought of generalising it comes from having layed down the technical foundation that makes it possible.
> And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.
> So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
The fact that's even a possibility put me off such centralised platforms. (Of course, HN is centralised; but it's a niche forum, rather than a general medium of communication)
>I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making this possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of communications via a few massive actors makes this kind ideas enforceable.
At the time of the US revolution most communication was centralised in the postal service, monitored by the British. That's one of the reasons for the first amendment.
I believe that the government is encouraging media monopolies in the US. It's obviously infinitely easier to work with a few dependent giant media corps than trying to play a bunch of competitive outlets against each other to get your message out. You can literally just flood the few giant media companies with your own staff; just route their government paycheck through Raytheon (as a "consultant") or promise them they'll be able to retire from media to a lazy job in higher education as the Harriet Foundation Endowment Chair at the Council for Democratic Innovation at Harvard. Internet media companies are filling up with ex-intelligence agency employees.
It's not that technologies are making this possible, but rather that technology is undoing the previous era of centralized information when it was much easier to censor people without anyone noticing. The glass half-full take is that the internet is decentralizing information in a way that central authorities can no longer control, and this is one of the many desperate attempts at retaining that control. I don't think it will be successful unless governments go totalitarian.
How about talking about the source? The actual source for all those creeping towards totalitarianism? Its that governments are aware of the crisis coming and they have no solutions, no plans, no scenarios, no capabilities they want to develop to counter problems to come, except suppress the citizenry as long as they can and weather it out. Wish we could vote a whole generation of useless politicans out in lockstep.
I've been hearing constant news about how awful their censorship laws are for at least 5 years now. The only reason telegraph is saying Britain was "sleepwalking" was because up until now they've been exclusively benefiting from it
In my country (Jordan), archive.org was also blocked for some reason, but interestingly, only one ISP (ZainJO) was blocking it afaik. I have no idea why; no other sites I could think of were blocked.
Idk if the block is still there today; I moved out of Jordan years ago
The UK has always been authoritarian in sheep's clothing.
Don't be fooled by its geographic location and shared language with the US. It's very extreme as far as western countries go, and not towards the freedom side.
We seem to be in a vicious cycle of politicians trying to suppress public discontentment by limiting free speech but this only creates more discontentment which requires even more suppression of speech.
Why do people in power seem to prefer to kick the can down the road until it explodes instead of trying to resolve problems as they come? It seems to be a recurring theme of history.
> Why do people in power seem to prefer to kick the can down the road until it explodes instead of trying to resolve problems as they come? It seems to be a recurring theme of history.
People in power are often motivated by gaining more power & their core competency is acquiring more power, usually by manipulating social dynamics. They also also adept in manipulating organizations to have power-focused people, especially if they can be controlled, in positions of governance & management. Any other popular ideological position they publicly espouse is a mask to consolidate power. There are some books on psychopathy in governance & management...such as https://www.amazon.com/Political-Ponerology-Science-Psychopa...
With advances & consolidation in the state/empire, technology, automation, & global socioeconomic systems, people in power have more leverage over everybody else...Consolidation will increase until systems become too top-heavy & a collapse occurs. Most people, including people in power, tend to not desire being ruled by others, so infighting is inevitable, which also leads to collapse...Usually the breakups occur suddenly when the status quo becomes obviously untenable & it is less risky to break ranks.
Political rivals that can execute a coherent long term strategy of systemic growth & power have a long-term advantage over those who are unable to execute continued growth.
You can test these assertions in an analysis of the history of the various political & business empires which grew & collapsed.
This is a thing in most countries on the planet. Try tweeting "I wish all X people were dead!" outside of the USA, and in many places you'll get a visit from the authorities (if they notice that is, they don't actively monitor for it, someone would have to give you up to the local police).
Based on that bill it seems like the ideas are similar, i wonder if, at some point, they'll merge together and form some sort of super state that gets to decide what's right to say and what's not right to say
I'm no fan of the Telegraph, but all those links show is that it's willing to give comment space to people with different points of view.
(Or, to put it another way, the fact that they're willing to print a column by Fraser Nelson isn't a reason to suppose their home affairs editor isn't still in favour of the bill.)
See the bit where it says "Author", the person who wrote the articles you linked to (Charles Hymas) is a different person to the person who wrote the article posted by OP (Fraser Nelson). Viewpoint diversity exists, just because two people write for the same newspaper they don't have to share the same views. If you're a Guardian reader that might be a new concept though
The plan is to have a legal but harmful framework, and Elon Musk decides what is harmful. What could possibly go wrong? Threatening US multinational with billion dollar fines? Try that shit in a non-Biden administration. Has the UK gone mad?
[+] [-] sfusato|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] causality0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henry_pulver|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyanydeez|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrepd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pelorat|3 years ago|reply
For instance, what Kanye said on Infowars would likely land him in jail if he was German, and his talk about the holocaust not being real would get him in trouble with the authorities in a lot of other nations.
[+] [-] slackfan|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samwillis|3 years ago|reply
It's this Libel and Defamation law that has often contributed to the allegations of censorship. Fundamentally some of this is built into British culture, and is significantly different to US culture where "free speech" rules supreme. But it's the bleeding of US culture into that of the UK though the media+internet that leads to a more vocal debate around these issues than before.
To quote form the Wikipedia article below:
"English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world."
The world is so much more connected now it's inevitable that cultural and legal differences will reduce and some sort of equilibrium will be found.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
[+] [-] BiteCode_dev|3 years ago|reply
Taboo is a UK stable food, and it goes hand in hand with censorship.
In fact, with the current political and economical situation, I'm surprised it's not getting worse. The Finger would be tempting to create in a time of crisis.
[+] [-] benevol|3 years ago|reply
The only mainstream platform now setting itself up to become the exception to this is the one platform that since a few weeks gets consistently attacked by the establishment: Twitter.
[+] [-] odiroot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hunglee2|3 years ago|reply
don't often agree with Telegraph but their analysis is accurate.
Our era of soundbite politicians vulnerable to populist measures which superficially sound reasonable (sue big tech for hosting bad content) but disguise deep complexities (what is bad content, who decides this, it is universally applied?) which have profound implications for society (blaming platforms for user posted content means no more user posted content without prior moderation)
[+] [-] armada651|3 years ago|reply
I think they've thought through the implications perfectly well. Or at the very least they've been told what the implications are by their legal advisors. The real problem is that they do not care about those implications.
[+] [-] blipvert|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] licebmi__at__|3 years ago|reply
I’m deeply skeptical that this is a real problem. I mean, there’s defined a list of extremely popular issues which have no support from politicians (like a healthcare reform in US), and also a long list of unpopular policies enacted a lot of times with bipartisan support.
[+] [-] alldayeveryday|3 years ago|reply
It might be right that the ministers/politicians have not really thought through the implications. But someone else surely has and is making censorship (of the things that challenge their power) a matter of policy. The actions of big tech are a matter of their internal policies. Which "populist" opinions politicians respond to (and which they ignore) is a matter of policy. In an age when populist opinion is manufactured through control of content and media, politicians are no longer moved by the opinions of their constituents but rather by those holding onto that control. Instances of bipartisan support in the US, for example, are merely instances where the topic is important to the elite and need bear no relationship to the opinions of the people.
[+] [-] benevol|3 years ago|reply
Of course it is intentional. It's about manipulating the population. It's simply about the control of the people.
[+] [-] boudin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chriswarbo|3 years ago|reply
> And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.
> So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
The fact that's even a possibility put me off such centralised platforms. (Of course, HN is centralised; but it's a niche forum, rather than a general medium of communication)
[+] [-] logicchains|3 years ago|reply
At the time of the US revolution most communication was centralised in the postal service, monitored by the British. That's one of the reasons for the first amendment.
[+] [-] pessimizer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] proc0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PicassoCTs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guywithahat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_c|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] friendlyHornet|3 years ago|reply
Idk if the block is still there today; I moved out of Jordan years ago
[+] [-] knorker|3 years ago|reply
Don't be fooled by its geographic location and shared language with the US. It's very extreme as far as western countries go, and not towards the freedom side.
[+] [-] proc0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jongjong|3 years ago|reply
Why do people in power seem to prefer to kick the can down the road until it explodes instead of trying to resolve problems as they come? It seems to be a recurring theme of history.
[+] [-] briantakita|3 years ago|reply
People in power are often motivated by gaining more power & their core competency is acquiring more power, usually by manipulating social dynamics. They also also adept in manipulating organizations to have power-focused people, especially if they can be controlled, in positions of governance & management. Any other popular ideological position they publicly espouse is a mask to consolidate power. There are some books on psychopathy in governance & management...such as https://www.amazon.com/Political-Ponerology-Science-Psychopa...
With advances & consolidation in the state/empire, technology, automation, & global socioeconomic systems, people in power have more leverage over everybody else...Consolidation will increase until systems become too top-heavy & a collapse occurs. Most people, including people in power, tend to not desire being ruled by others, so infighting is inevitable, which also leads to collapse...Usually the breakups occur suddenly when the status quo becomes obviously untenable & it is less risky to break ranks.
Political rivals that can execute a coherent long term strategy of systemic growth & power have a long-term advantage over those who are unable to execute continued growth.
You can test these assertions in an analysis of the history of the various political & business empires which grew & collapsed.
[+] [-] ThrowawayTestr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pelorat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychphysic|3 years ago|reply
What's happening is that some are realising not everything they dislike was all Brussels fault.
[+] [-] Kukumber|3 years ago|reply
Based on that bill it seems like the ideas are similar, i wonder if, at some point, they'll merge together and form some sort of super state that gets to decide what's right to say and what's not right to say
A dark era for the west
[+] [-] pelorat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Toenex|3 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
[+] [-] pjc50|3 years ago|reply
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/11/29/online-safety...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/25/watering-onl...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/28/social-media-gia...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/12/tory-women-w...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/online-safety-bill-home-s... (yes, the Telegraph gave a page to a government minister; remember how much they used to pay Johnson?)
Looks like they were in favour of it all the way up to this point, so long as they thought it would only censor things they didn't like.
Compare on HN front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33836666 in re TikTok
[+] [-] mjw1007|3 years ago|reply
(Or, to put it another way, the fact that they're willing to print a column by Fraser Nelson isn't a reason to suppose their home affairs editor isn't still in favour of the bill.)
[+] [-] SXX|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamdean123|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toyg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcampbell1|3 years ago|reply