[rubyAce]

It his law combined with all the other iffy laws in the UK which make this nefarious. This is the issue about discussing anything about how draconian the UK is. If you compare any single law in isolation, it isn't that different. However if you take how the British authorities and how they operate it, and all the other laws you start to see a more draconian picture.

That is what many people, especially those that do live in the UK don't appreciate.

[abxyz]

I lived in the U.K. for decades and I have lived in many other countries. I’ll criticise the U.K. government and society endlessly but to describe these changes as notable or remarkable relative to most other countries is nonsense.

From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.

The U.K. is a flawed place going to hell in a hand basket that many U.K. citizens have strong opinions on but outside of us, the freedom loving nerds on the internet, this identity verification law is not a part of the conversation. “Draconian” and “authoritarian” aren’t in the vocabulary of most U.K. citizens. They’re far more concerned about immigration and the economy.

The long-standing “the U.K. has the most cctv cameras per person” meme is further evidence of this. A well-loved fact carted out by freedom-loving anti-surveillance types… that the mainstream of the U.K. could not care less about.

[Aurornis]

> but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.

This isn’t true at all. Age verification to use services like Discord in the U.K. is very unusual.

The U.K.’s approach to online speech and freedoms is not shared by many countries.

I don’t understand why you’re trying to reduce this to a normal outcome when it’s not normal at all

[Saline9515]

It's a "blip in your radar" until you want to say something that is forbidden by the government. Or when someone thinks that you said it, such as with "non-crime hate incidents" where anyone can report "hate speech" to the police, which will be added to your public file.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-crime_hate_incident

[foldr]

There’s no such thing as a public police file in the UK. What I assume you’re referring to is that these records are accesible for the purposes of certain kinds of police background checks (which, as in many other countries, are required for certain jobs).

[scrollop]

"until you want to say something that is forbidden by the government."

Please give a few examples. I'm intrigued.

[rvnx]

Same in France, many things are forbidden to say, most of time censored, sometimes even punished (either socially or by the law). US is way way way more advanced in terms of freedom.

You are allowed to say there is censorship but not allowed to say what is forbidden (and you are not allowed to criticize some laws, without breaking the law). You can really go to jail or have your life ruined, or your business burned because of a TikTok video.

This censorship benefits a lot of bad people, but naming them is a crime by itself.

For example, in France, there is no insecurity in the streets. If you say the opposite and start naming examples, you will get shamed or even physically attacked by some people and be prosecuted for “spreading hate” and other crimes whereas your attackers will have zero issues.

This phenomenon is known as “juges rouges” (the red judges), somewhat similar to USSR

[pmezard]

Given the US government is actually defunding major universities because "reasons", I find your comment laughable. Problem with arguing about "freedoms" is usaians still believe their constitution applies. Also, Colbert show, etc.

Your take about French censorship is equally ridiculous. I would gather that 90% of French press would not survive a month in the US before being pressured/defunded or worse. What happened to Charlie Hebdo would have happened in the US, by "patriots" instead of islamists.

And let's not even start about the separation of church and state...

[Saline9515]

French press is mostly owned by billionnaires, do you really believe that it's different there than in the US?

[rvnx]

laughable; I would say saddening on both sides for both of us :/

[the_other]

You can write to several climate activists in prison if you would like first hand accounts. I means ones who held up placards, rather than the ones that climbed onto trains or glued themselves to roads.

Just weeks ago a couple of pop bands got hauled in front of judges or had police investigations aimed at them for voicing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. (Ok, so they used incediary language, but they’re 20-somethings at festivals and the Gaza situation is abhorrent).

Fairly recently, an activist group which uses tactics reminiscent of the anti-nuclear-proliferation movement and animal rights movements of the 70s-90s got proscribed a terrorist organisation. At present, the law around this and recent implementations of its enforcement are such that I can’t tell if I’ll be arrested for writing this paragraph. I’ve tried to stick to the facts, but interpretation can get you locked up.

[johnisgood]

Communications Act 2003

  Section 127(1) makes it an offence to:
  "Send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is a -
  (a) grossly offensive,
  (b) indecent, obscene, or menacing, or
  (c) false, known to be false, for causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety."

  Section 127(2) adds that: "A person is also guilty of an offence if they cause a message or other matter to be sent that is similarly offensive or menancing.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

You can be caged on a whim.

[Aurornis]

In the U.K. people can be prosecuted for speech found to be offensive.

There have been several high profile cases used as examples, like the guy who was convicted for making a video of his girlfriend’s dog pretending to do a Nazi salute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

Doing anything considered “grossly offensive” online can result in the police knocking on your door and financial penalties. It’s a foreign concept if you’re in a country where making jokes online doesn’t constitute a risk to your freedoms and finances (which is more than just the U.S.)

[Saline9515]

Do I really need to?

An Atheist who burnt a Quran in Yookay and got stabbed by a muslim as a result (proving his point?) got a 325£ fine for "religiously motivated public disorder” whatever that means.

Peter Tatchell got arested by the police for holding a sign with "STOP Israel genocide! STOP Hamas executions! Odai Al-Rubai, aged 22, executed by Hamas! RIP!" because of "breach of peace" whatever that means.

During the recent riots in Yookay, a man was jailed for 20 months for "shooting at a dog", and "using racist slur". While it's sure distasteful, it's no different than Putin's technique of protest repression.

I could go on with Germany, where sharing benign memes about politicians lead you to get swatted and your house searched, the Yookay with its "non crime hate incidents" that require no proof, France and its extensive hate speech laws that prevent asking to boycott another state, Finland where burning the Bible is ok, but not the Quran, and so on.

[rubyAce]

> I lived in the U.K. for decades and I have lived in many other countries. I’ll criticise the U.K. government and society endlessly but to describe these changes as notable or remarkable relative to most other countries is nonsense.

I am English. I was born in England, my parents are English, my Grandparents were English, My Great Grandparents were English etc. etc.

I have lived my majority of my life here. So I am English.

You obviously didn't read what I said. I understand that it is nothing special in isolation. However I am not talking about it in isolation. I was talking about the entirety of how the current laws are constructed as well as how the UK state operates.

Also just because other countries have rubbish laws, doesn't mean we should have adopted similar ones.

> From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.

Many people do not like this and are actively seeking work-arounds. These aren't uber nerds like myself BTW.

> The U.K. is a flawed place going to hell in a hand basket that many U.K. citizens have strong opinions on but outside of us, the freedom loving nerds on the internet, this identity verification law is not a part of the conversation.

So you admit there is a problem. But you then pretend that this can't possibly be part of the entire picture because you say so.

Sorry it very much well is part of the problem. You stating it isn't doesn't make it so.

[abxyz]

Share some examples, then? I just took a look across all major U.K. mainstream news publications and I cannot find any outrage about these changes.

[rubyAce]

So because it isn't discussed through UK mainstream news and publications that means people aren't concerned about it? A lot of things people are actually concerned about isn't mentioned at all in the mainstream news or publications that is why increasingly fewer people are paying attention to them.

People are talking about these things ironically on places like twitter/X, facebook, whatsapp, discord and in person (shock horror I know). I was at a boys football match this weekend and people were talking about it there.

BTW quite hilariously twitter/X are censoring some footage from the commons as that content has to be age-gated.

[abxyz]

The myth of things “not being talked about” in the mainstream is a convenient way to excuse being unable to provide any meaningful evidence that a notable portion of the country care about something.

I know it might shock you but people on twitter and discord are not representative of voters. Most voters do not engage with any social media.

People on the internet get so caught up in the international perspective we are exposed to that we forget what national voters actually care about.

Go look at polling about this law for a real insight, 80% of people support it: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

[rubyAce]

> The myth of things “not being talked about” in the mainstream is a convenient way to excuse being unable to provide any meaningful evidence that a notable portion of the country care about something.

If social media wasn't important, politicians, mainstream news publications themselves, and other political activists wouldn't bother with it. So this is patently False.

Pretending this hasn't been a trend now for 15 years is completely asinine and shame on you for attempting to pretend the opposite is true.

> I know it might shock you but people on twitter and discord are not representative of voters. Most voters do not engage with any social media.

False. Almost everyone I know is on social media of some sort. They might not be actively engaging but they do engage regularly in some form or another. Most of them would be called lurkers, or they will check out stuff if some piques their interests.

You conveniently missed out where I said "facebook" and "in person"

> People on the internet get so caught up in the international perspective we are exposed to that we forget what national voters actually care about.

I don't care about the international perspective. I am English (I've already told you this). I care about this issue and I know plenty of other people who are British care about this issue.

> Go look at polling about this law for a real insight, 80% of people support it: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

The same YouGov polling that had almost every about Brexit issue at 71% vs 29%. Their polling isn't to be trusted.

Even if I took that at face value, that means 1/5 people don't support it. Which isn't an insignificant amount of people. So there are a decent number of people that care about it, even using your own figures. This disproves your statements about it not being cared about and only uber nerds caring about it.

[mike50]

How many mainstream outlets are owned by Murdoch in the UK?

[irusensei]

Not from US. It’s not a blip in my radar. It’s terrifying and you seem to be dismissing it as “it’s just some Americans”.

[rpdillon]

> From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.

You're commenting on a story about VPN use surging in the country after the law came into effect. Clearly folks noticed.

[southernplaces7]

>to describe these changes as notable or remarkable relative to most other countries is nonsense. From a U.S. internet libertarian freedom-at-all-costs perspective, sure, it’s a draconian nightmare, but for normal people from the U.K. or any other country, it’s barely a blip on their radar.

This is a very dangerous measure of how worryingly authoritarian or not a particular place is becoming. People's perceptions are notoriously subject to all kinds of blindness and unknowns. The perceptions of most average Germans living in the first years of the Nazi state were also of minimal concern for authoritarianism, and little more than a series of modest blimps on the radar, and where did that take them?

This is not to compare the underlying savagery of something like the Nazi state with the soft bureaucratic smarminess of the modern UK, but the underlying risks of any creeping authoritarianism are the same: a steady normalization of deviance.