[Ravus]

It's sadly an example of terrible leading question bias, to the point where I'm surprised that it even got a 22% oppose rate.

The percentages would change dramatically were one to write it as, "From everything you have seen and heard, do you support or oppose the recent rules requiring adults to upload their id or a face photo before accessing any website that allows user to user interaction?"

Both questions are factually accurate, but omit crucial aspects.

[Lerc]

I live in a country where 91.78% of the population voted for a referendum that bought back hard labour in prisons.

As one of the few who voted against it I have yet to encounter a single person who voted for it who both supports hard labour and realised that was in the question being asked.

[pnw]

Why do you claim the 1999 referendum reintroduced hard labor in NZ prisons? I've never seen anything to that effect. The reforms were related to bail, victims rights and parole.

[lazide]

Let me guess - ‘do you support violent prisoners being given work in proportion to their crimes’ or something similar?

[scratcheee]

There’s a classic yes minister skit on how dubious polls can be: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks&t=45s

[Iulioh]

"Do you want CHILDREN to be MURDERED by RAPEISTS online or are you a good person?

Y/N

[luqtas]

then proceeds to the tea break and brainstorms on how to empower the monarchy and conquer the world

[mcny]

No

[kieranmaine]

This doesn't quite cover what you're looking for but I think a previous survey led with a question that mentioned uploading ID - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202....

I can't find the survey it's entirety, but I think the above question was followed by (this is based on the number at the end of the URL, which I'm guessing is quesiton order) - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

[simonw]

Are there any credible surveys on this topic that don't use the term "pornographic websites" in the survey question?

[andai]

Yeah. It's the "foot in the door technique." The same is being done with Chat Control.

It's very difficult to oppose a law ostensibly designed to fight CSAM. But once the law passes, it'll be easily expanded to other things like scanning messages to prevent terrorism.

See also:

> Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/06/concern-over...

[nine_k]

The problem is that one of the most secure places in the world is a maximum security prison. Hence many measures that drag us closer to the prison state do genuinely improve security.

It takes some balls for the society to say: No, we don't agree to yield an essential liberty in exchange to actual real increase of security. Yes, we accept that sometimes bad people will do evil things, because the only way to prevent that would inflict even more damage on everyone. Yes, we are willing to risk harm to stay free.

There is always plenty of people who are ready to buy more comfort in exchange for limitations of liberty that, as they think, will not affect them, because they are honest, got nothing to hide, always follow the majority... until it does affect them, but it's too late.

[Ray20]

> It's very difficult to oppose a law ostensibly designed to fight CSAM. But once the law passes, it'll be easily expanded to other things like scanning messages to prevent terrorism.

Oh, look, you did it in literally two sentences. It turns out it's pretty easy to to oppose such law. Only there's simply no need to do it when you're the main beneficiary.