[abxyz]

You are simply over indexing for your own circle. Your circle (by virtue of being a nerd) is deeply biased towards people heavily influenced by U.S. attitudes towards freedom. I’m an internet nerd too, I know how easy it is to get caught up in this idea that what you see online is representative of the people, but it isn’t. Go out and talk to real people. Go and stand in the street and ask every passer by whether they feel the U.K. is “draconian” or not. You’ll be shocked to discover that almost nobody cares about anything that doesn’t directly impact their day to day life. Look at the rise of Reform, Farage’s embrace of trumpism. That’s authoritarianism, and the people love it. You’re completely out of touch with the common person if you think any of this matters.

You can take a principled stance, you can have strong views, you can believe in freedom, I’m with you, but it’s patently absurd to suggest that any of what you believe is representative of the people. The people, in the U.K. and beyond, simply do not have a single solitary regard for any of this. Porn bad so porn ban good. That’s the entire thought process.

Could more than 5% of the U.K. voting public even define “draconian”? or “authoritarian”?

[rubyAce]

> You are simply over indexing for your own circle. Your circle (by virtue of being a nerd) is deeply biased towards people heavily influenced by U.S. attitudes towards freedom. I’m an internet nerd too, I know how easy it is to get caught up in this idea that what you see online is representative of the people, but it isn’t.

False. Most of the people I engage with in real life are not nerds. You keep on stating things that you know nothing about as truisms. How about instead of trying to gaslight people about what is real and what isn't, you actually engage in the points being made by your interlocutor?

> Go out and talk to real people. Go and stand in the street and ask every passer by whether they feel the U.K. is “draconian” or not.

I would imagine if someone thought about it, I would get a statement something about all the cameras everywhere or how buying some with a bank transfer is difficult (if you buy something cash like a vehicle it sets off anti-fraud detection in your bank and transactions can be blocked).

They won't talk about it in terms you are familiar with. They will point to stuff like cameras, unfair charges etc and how difficult some of this makes their lives.

All of this normal people have experienced.

> You’ll be shocked to discover that almost nobody cares about anything that doesn’t directly impact their day to day life. Look at the rise of Reform, Farage’s embrace of trumpism. That’s authoritarianism, and the people love it. You’re completely out of touch with the common person if you think any of this matters.

You mentioned all of those. I didn't mention them. You are projecting onto me what your experience is. The irony here is astounding.

[abxyz]

Shrug. I’m not sure what else to say. I’ve shown you that polling shows the majority support age verification. I have asked you to provide evidence of mainstream objection to this law, which you are unable to provide. You have asserted that polling is wrong because you know people who disagree.

You may not like it and I may not like it but the view of the U.K. voting public is that age verification to look at porn is reasonable and that “protecting” children justifies limiting freedoms.

My exercise for you: decide what evidence is needed to convince you that most British people are happy with this law.

[rubyAce]

> Shrug. I’m not sure what else to say. I’ve shown you that polling shows the majority support age verification. I have asked you to provide evidence of mainstream objection to this law, which you are unable to provide. You have asserted that polling is wrong because you know people who disagree.

You said it "wasn't part of the conversation" originally. Not what the majority agreed with. You've subtly tried to change what the discussion was about. That is known as moving the goalposts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Then you asked me to provide evidence of something I can't possibly provide. That quite frankly bullshit.

> You may not like it and I may not like it but the view of the U.K. voting public is that age verification to look at porn is reasonable and that “protecting” children justifies limiting freedoms.

I don't doubt that the majority are OK with it. I am taking issue with the fact that you are pretending only libertarian nerds online care about this. I know that isn't true.

> My exercise for you: decide what evidence is needed to convince you that most British people are happy with this law.

Don't talk to me like a child.

I don't have you provide you with anything. You made the claim that only a few people care about this. When even your own evidence disputes. 20% of a large group of people is still a lot. That isn't "nobody cares" like you pretend is the case.

Anyway I am done with you. Go away!

[abxyz]

“The conversation” is well understood to mean “the things being talked about in the mainstream”. 80% in favour of a law is so overwhelmingly positive that it is rarely seen. My initial comment, a lifetime ago, was in the context of someone asking why the U.K. is unique when it comes to these laws. I said the U.K. is not and that most people support them. I’ve showed surveying that backs that up. The absence of any mainstream articles about this should be evidence enough it isn’t part of the conversation. Maybe that’ll change in future, but at least for now, nobody cares. Maybe you’re right and there’s a conspiracy amongst the mainstream to suppress the real views of the people, we will see.

(I don’t want to talk to you like a child, but a little lesson: mainstream news is mostly a cynical cash grab by harnessing outrage. Mainstream news loves things that outrage people. If there was any real outrage about this law, it would be harnessed by the dailymail and the Sun and Reach PLC to make money hand over fist. They would milk it so hard they would have to implement age verification.)

[SailorMuck]

> “The conversation” is well understood to mean “the things being talked about in the mainstream”. 80% in favour of a law is so overwhelmingly positive that it is rarely seen. My initial comment, a lifetime ago, was in the context of someone asking why the U.K. is unique when it comes to these laws. I said the U.K. is not and that most people support them.

No it is not. I've asked other politicos I know and they didn't know what you were talking about. I ended up asking the perplexity. Which disagrees with your definition and says that social media and in person is also important.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-conversation-when-refer...

You cannot judge public sentiment accurately from mainstream media or polling. Mainstream media typically act as stenographers for either the state, their corporate masters or both. Polling has a multitude of issues that are well known.

> I’ve showed surveying that backs that up. The absence of any mainstream articles about this should be evidence enough it isn’t part of the conversation. Maybe that’ll change in future, but at least for now, nobody cares. Maybe you’re right and there’s a conspiracy amongst the mainstream to suppress the real views of the people, we will see.

I've told you why I don't believe them to be convincing. "The conversation" isn't happening on mainstream media. It is happening on social media, in person, on YouTube etc.

You re-iterating the same tired old talking points and showing me a YouGov poll (which are known to be BS) and saying you are right isn't evidence.

BTW. A lot of these polls aren't there to find out what the public actually thinks. They are there to manufacturer consent by making it look like it is supported by the majority.

> I don’t want to talk to you like a child, but a little lesson: mainstream news is mostly a cynical cash grab by harnessing outrage. Mainstream news loves things that outrage people.

You are literally still talking down to me in a condescending manner. Do you think I don't know that msm doesn't engage outrage?

BTW, you are presenting this like this is a revelation. When in fact it is a trite observation about how the media operates.

There are actually much more interesting ones if you look at how sometimes the exact same headlines are pushed by newspapers that are supposed to be opposing one another.

Earlier on in my career, I used to integrate news feeds for news sites (sports news, but still news). Most of the news you see is literally bought from several source providers and copy-righter/editors (or AI now) literally rewrite the article in the style of the site. That is why many news sites literally just repeat the same thing and then put their own spin on it based on their audience.

God forbid we start talking about subjects like how the media manufacturers consent, how the British State (MI6) has engaged in psyops against it own citizens.

I really suggest you spend some time reading some books about these subjects because you are way out of your depth.

> If there was any real outrage about this law, it would be harnessed by the dailymail and the Sun and Reach PLC to make money hand over fist. They would milk it so hard they would have to implement age verification.

Firstly, everyone who has two brain cells to rub together know that these are rags.

Secondly. Your argument is that if there was real outrage about this law it would be covered by outrage mongers. Why would they need to create outrage if there was already real outrage? Doesn't make any sense.

Thirdly. There has been coverage by MSM. I was visiting my parents house at the weekend, and as I walked into the living room, ITV news had two so-called experts talking about the issue. So somehow I stumbled on the mainstream coverage by accident (I don't ever watch TV these days), but you can't find it! Strange that.