Comment by lokar
Comment by lokar a day ago
While I disapprove of what the gov is doing here, I think it’s incorrect and unhelpful to put all the blame on them. AIUI, the UK is a democracy and these policies are generally supported by the voters.
Comment by lokar a day ago
While I disapprove of what the gov is doing here, I think it’s incorrect and unhelpful to put all the blame on them. AIUI, the UK is a democracy and these policies are generally supported by the voters.
No post war U.K. government aside from the 2010-15 coalition had a majority of voters voting for the parties in power. 1951 came close I think.
However opinion polls consistently put support for the “anti porn” bill up high amongst multiple demographics.
The cause for this is a lack of computer literacy, in both government and the population, but that doesn’t really matter.
The electorate hated the politicians, then they still vote for the same guys. The general public doesn't care about politics, those who cared treats it like tribalism and don't want to learn what are actually happening, they don't want to think they only want to be told whatever feeding their brain chemistry.
> They won by default effectively due to a quirk of how UK elections work (which was less of a problem when the monarch/aristocracy was still involved to counter balance things like this, but now that that's gone the state is effectively out of control.)
I’m reading this as you saying that the system is worse now that the monarchy and aristocracy have less power. Is that correct? If so, how do these unelected groups make it better?
You have misread (in a very common way for, I believe, a very common reason.)
I said it's less democratic. That's not necessarily less bad unless you believe democracy is the ultimate measure of fitness for a state.
Less than 30% of the electorate voted labour. The problem is that the opposing party consistently ran as opposition but then executed on labour's policies instead so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for.
The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies, they effectively weren't given a choice. To call that democracy delegtimizes democratic elections.
>The electorate legitimately did not want these people or their policies
> so most people just didn't vote because they didn't see anyone running to vote for.
Probably shoulda voted then
Being unpopular is not the opposite of popular.
The winter fuel payments were very unpopular with a very vocal part of the population, while any benefits were very thinly distributed on the rest of the electorate.
The cost of the online safety act is very small and almost invisible distributed across everyone. Any major effects (leaking of personal data) can be blamed on the victims (most people assume that only perverts will have to verify their age). Another effect where security conscious people will be excluded from online discussions is probably in invisible (if not a benefit) to most people.
I understand the people might wanna block porn on their kids mobile internet and home WiFi.
So why don't they mandate their ISP to implement this as an optional feature ?
Why do they instead try to boil the ocean by going after every website on the planet and outside of their jurisdiction?
The ISPs already do this. Most mobile networks are even opt-out, not in, to this feature. The new law is unnecessary overreach. They either don’t know what they are doing technically (alarming) or are just authoritarian (very alarming)
I don't think ISP DNS solution is very effective when all major web browsers implement DoH by default.
My solution was to set my router to use the DNS server at 1.1.1.3 which blocks adult sites.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-1-1-1-1-for-families...
I don’t have to show ID, but I do have to pay the bill, which means a direct debit, which means over 18.
The correct solution (in addition to bill layer control and arguably compulsory support for an “over 18” tag in dns which would be easy enough to implement for the same sites that currently demand over 18s, would be to help parents utilise parental controls (having recently been through it with Minecraft and fortnight it was a nightmarish gordian knot.
The hand wringing about how evil vpns are is the same. My son can’t install mullvad or whatever on his phone without my approval thanks to apple’s parental controls. I assume android has the same.
The goal has never been to empower parents though
> direct debit, which means over 18
Incorrect. Source: I had a checking account before I was 18.
I think the correct solution would be to make parents responsible for actually using those controls, as they always have been for controlling a child's access to such materials in other media.
For example, if you have a stack of explicit DVDs and it becomes apparent that your child has access to them, then you will likely get a visit from social services and potentially suffer legal consequences up to and including removal of custody. I honestly have no idea why stuff on the internet is treated differently. Internet providers are already required to check that you are over 18 (much as the person selling you those DVDs is) - if you then share the content that this makes available with a child, then you should be held responsible in the same way. It was sufficient with print, VHS, Sky TV, etc. - why not the internet?
I've posted this before, but it's relevant here:
'The UK’s Online Safety Act didn’t come from Parliament or the public'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ2AokZujC0 (watch from about 4:20)
> 'The UK’s Online Safety Act didn’t come from Parliament or the public'
It was debated at length in parliament and it was voted into legislation by parliament. It was developed by a Tory government and has been implemented by a Labour one.
I don't like the OSA but the whole 'robber baron' organisation thing in that video is just .. well Andrew Carnegie died more than a hundred years ago. He funded a lot of charitable organisations including one that has funded work in this area.
Most people are either blissfully unaware or don’t understand the ramifications of a policy until it becomes law
> rooted in the ideology that the majority knows best
Let's be careful here, the point in favor of democracy is not that the majority knows best, but rather if that people are to be subject to laws, then those same people should have an equal share in determining what those laws are. IOW, the point of democracy is to give the people what they deserve, and no more.
When people talk about democracies, they almost always refer to liberal democracies.
With liberal democracies, I believe it's more about self-determination or fair representation than who knows best. The point is to prevent tyranny, including majority tyranny.
There can be no liberal democracy without the protection of human rights and the of law.
It's not 50% of the electorate, in the UK it is the plurality (second best plus 1 vote) of 50% of the electoral seats plus 1 seat. That gives absolute power.
Anything can be turned into an ideology, even democracy.
> AIUI, the UK is a democracy and these policies are generally supported by the voters.
When were UK citizens polled on these policies before politicians started enforcing them? And I think after Brexit, the UK government learned never to ask the opinions of their citizens again, because they will vote in direct opposition of the political status quo out of sheer spite of their politicians.
There are huge flaws with our current democratic systems: like sure we can vote, but after the people we vote for get into power, we have no control over what they do until next election cycle. So you can be a democracy on paper while your government is doing things you don't approve of.
Most people I talk to in the west, both here in Europe and in North America, don't seem to approve of what their government is doing on important topics, and at the same time they feel hopeless in being able to change that because either the issues are never on the table, or if they are, the politicians do a 180 once they get voted to power or forget about them because political promises are worthless and non-binding, meaning they lied themselves into power.
So given these issues ask yourself, is that really a true democracy, or just an illusion of choice of direction while you're actually riding a trolly track?
> the politicians do a 180 once they get voted to power or forget about them because political promises are worthless and non-binding, meaning they lied themselves into power.
Why is this allowed? Why aren't there laws in place to hold politicians accountable for the promises they make to get elected?
Why haven't wolves made laws for themselves that prevent them from eating sheep?
But how can those changes be made if the representatives don't act to make them? It would take a pretty big act of solidarity amongst various constituencies to send the message that failure to act is not an option.
Since we're talking about the UK, in 2010 negotations after a hung parliament produced an opportunity to move towards something a little more representative: The 2011 referendum on changing to AV voting from first-past-the-post.
Unfortunately, voters rejected that change quite strongly, and that probably set the trend for a while against further steps to proportional or more direct democratic systems.
AV is a type of transferable vote system, and a step closer to proportional representation. In AV you get two votes, so you can vote for your preferred candidate first (who may be niche but represents you better), and your tactical-vote candidate second (who doesn't represent you but are better than the even-worse candidate). As opposed to the current FPTP system, where you often have to tactical-vote for candidates who don't represent your interests much, and your actual preference is not recorded at all.
Even though AV is far from ideal, if voters had said yes then I think just the symbolism of changing the system, would have resulted in a greater inclination to change the system again later.
AV, STV and PR have been debated a number of times in the UK parliament in the last centery, so it does keep coming up, and will likely come up again, eventually.
The UK hasn't elected a government on 50% or more of the vote since the 1950s:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/717004/general-elections...
It is hard to call minority rule democratic, really. I've no issue with your point on the OSA and think it is widely supported, but let's be realistic, representation in the UK is virtual on matters like this: widely supported, but mostly by coincidence.
The UK has been effectively a two party system anyway within living memory (Labour and Tories). Only rarely (e.g. 2010) does the token third party, the Lib Dems) get to be in coalition, and I think no one else has won anything since 1910.
In a monkey's paw moment for everyone who dislikes only having effectively two parties to choose from, this may soon be changing as Reform is poised to overtake the Tories.
> The UK has been effectively a two party system anyway within living memory
> ...this may soon be changing as Reform is poised to overtake the Tories.
How long has the Farage-shaped tail been wagging the dog? It probably was before 2010. He managed notch many wins without winning a majority government by getting the 2 major parties - especially the Tories - to adopt his parties' positions.
It's a two party system in the sense that only two parties have a chance of winning any given UK general election, but the popular vote is quite widely distributed among parties. In the last election, 33.7% of people voted Labour and 23.7% people voted for the second largest party (the Conservatives):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1478478/uk-election-resu...
I think you're making the original poster's point for them. It's very clear a minority government is not the one forcing OSA on people. They don't even have the power.
Arguably, minority rule is more democratic than majority rule, because minority rule isn't "the minority does whatever they want".
> generally supported by the voters
you could say the same about the US... that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean people aren't violently voting against their own best interests.
It's a huge stretch to call the existence of 4chan in anyone's best interests.
First they came for 4chan and I said nothing, because good riddance!
This is not a slippery slope; this is a spring trying to return to the center. The harder the resistance at the extremes, the more energetic the oscillation will be, so if we want to minimize that, work on undermining the intolerable extremes.
The sheer anarchy of the libertarian mindset that much of this site supports is not a good thing.
>It's a huge stretch to call the existence of 4chan in anyone's best interests.
Absolutely, 100% incorrect. You obviously don't approve of 4chan's content or mission, but that's not the point. It benefits everyone when anyone takes a stand because their legal rights are under attack.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
>This is not a slippery slope
Again, incorrect.
Any type of punishment for 4chan due to their legal content is damn close to the definition of "slippery slope". You're familiar with the "anti-slippery slope" argument already ("First they came for 4chan and I said nothing, because good riddance!"), so you're obviously cogent enough to understand what you're saying.
>The sheer anarchy of the libertarian mindset that much of this site supports is not a good thing.
This is not for you to decide. Your mindset is why free speech laws must exist in the first place.
> It's a huge stretch to call the existence of 4chan in anyone's best interests.
I wasn't trying to imply that at all... I just meant that voting for age verification laws themselves were against peoples' best interest, not the blocking of any particular website.
In any case... sites like 4chan itself existing (ignoring any actual moderation issues like CP/etc. or other clearly illegal stuff), to me, simply means that free speech still exists, and I will defend their (anyone's) right to exist and to free speech if I have to. It doesn't mean I agree with/support them or their content though.
As shown by the proroguing of parliament by Boris Johnson on the September 9th, from September 10th to October 14th in 2019 (1), just a couple of months before the COVID19 pandemic landed and the first cases were being reported.
This action to prorogue was however later deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court on the 24th September 2019 (2). See recent changes to senior members, and subsequent rulings on matters of state importance by the Supreme Court for a look at what happens when they try to correct parliamentary actions by the ruling party. They have been singing from the governmental hymn sheet ever since.
Whither democracy? Whither justice?
1. https://labourheartlands.com/parliament-has-been-prorogued-a...
2. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme...
The goal of the policy is supported by the voters. The polls used to measure this are shifty at best about the implementation details. Who doesn't want to prevent kids from looking at pornography? But plenty of things are popular if you ask people in a way that makes them ignore how it plays out in real life. Laws against tall buildings are a pretty good example. Land reform was extremely popular in many socialist countries until it actually happened. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
In this case the ministers know what the problems are. The policy is not new or unique to the UK and it has been done better in Louisiana of all places:
https://reason.com/2024/03/18/pornhub-pulls-out-of-seventh-s...
> The difference is in the details of complying with Louisiana's law. Verifying visitor ages in Louisiana does not require porn sites to directly collect user IDs. Rather, the state's government helped develop a third-party service called LA Wallet, which stores digital driver's licenses and serves as an online age verification credential that affords some privacy.
> Land reform was extremely popular in many socialist countries until it actually happened
Actually, land reforms were spectacularly popular—and very successful—in many countries like Guatemala or Vietnam (coincidentally, two places that were invaded by the US in an attempt to revert those reforms, one successful and the other not).
really?
From my anecdotal evidence, is that it's fucking stupid and hated
Weirdly, the majority of the British public a) support age verification, b) aren't willing to use age verification themselves and c) don't think it'll actually work.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-...
Reading the polling questions, it doesn't actually seem that contradictory.
> To what extent do you support or oppose the introduction of age verification checks to access platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders and pornography?
Most people say support, presumably thinking "yeah those things seem bad and kids shouldn't be able to look at them".
> How likely or unlikely would you be to submit any proof of age (e.g. a photo/ video, photographic ID, using banking information, digital ID wallets etc) in order to access... Messaging apps / Social media websites / Online discussion forums / User-generated encyclopedias / Dating apps / Pornography websites
"Ok no I don't like this method, and obviously I'm not going to submit a photo of myself to look at porn." I don't think anybody hearing the first question was thinking "yes I support age verification even if it means blocking Wikipedia".
> And how confident, if at all, are you that the Online Safety Act will prevent children and people under 18 from seeing illegal and harmful material online?
Nothing contradictory about supporting a policy that you don't think will completely work, especially after realizing that you yourself would probably try to get around it.
I think combining or switching the first two questions might produce very different results.
The phrasing on these polls is really unhelpful because it doesn't include the actor.
"To what extent do you support or oppose the introduction of age verification checks to access platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography"
is like asking me
"To what extent do you support the detainment of people suspected of theft"
and then concluding I support vigilante mobs dragging people out of their homes when I answer in the affirmative. The means IS the question - the sad meltdown we're all about to witness as the UK government realises their lack of jurisdiction is because the actor is wrong, not because the end is wrong.
The phrasing should be "To what extent do you support or oppose the British government enforcing the introduction of age verification checks to access platforms that may host content related to suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, and pornography"
Forcing major device manufacturers to implement these content blocks to a certain level of rigour is the obvious, enforceable, effective, minimally invasive way to achieve this entirely reasonable goal. I can believe that pornography consumption by preteens is not a good thing and that this implementation is stupid at the same time.
Doesn’t seem weird at all, Britons are saying a) I agree children watching porn is bad but b) I value my privacy online and c) don’t think sending in photos of an ID is really going to stop kids. Actually seems pretty reasonable, and a reasonable democratic representative should look at that and say “well, how else can get A if method B is unpopular and unlikely to work?”
Instead they seem to have conflated B with A. Maybe they are afraid that any criticism on this method is interpreted as attack on doing anything at all for kids watching porn on the internet or even twisted into some kind of endorsement.
> Instead they seem to have conflated B with A. Maybe they are afraid that any criticism on this method is interpreted as attack on doing anything at all for kids watching porn on the internet or even twisted into some kind of endorsement.
In all fairness, I have seen quite a few people explicitly arguing "I want kids to watch porn" of late.
That’s not really being fair if you’re assuming that fringe argument by default though right?
Western democracies have fair and competitive elections in the same way they have fair and competitive markets for things like internet access or mobile phones. You are effectively only allowed to choose between a very carefully managed set of choice that are provided to you. This set of choices is often so dire and distant from people's actual desires that many just don't bother voting at all.
George Carlin used the analogy of restaurant to modern democracy. You have the appearance of choice because you are handed a menu where you can choose liberal or conversative or green party, etc. But all of the actual policies and laws are drawn up by the same chefs in the back and you eat what you are served.
our two party system means that more often than not you are voting against some party having power.
The left wing has been vote split for some time, now the tight wing is getting vote split.
It’s not a fair characterisation to say that the UK government is popular, the last actually popular government was probably Tony Blair (though many regret him in hindsight), though Boris had his followers I guess.
I'd say it is the other way around. -- Support for the Tories/Conservatives has collapsed to the point where they are 4th or even 5th place! Reform have benefitted most from this shift. [1]-[4]
The left wing is seeing Labour voters shift to the Lib Dems, Greens, Jeremy Corbin's new party, and Reform.
[1] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/services_lsdm.html (April)
[2] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20250625... (June)
[3] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html (July)
[4] https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_rrose_20250731.... (August)
there's a reason anecdotes aren't data. While people are more divided on the effectiveness, there's pretty overwhelming pubblic support for laws like the Online Safety Act.
https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...
It's always slightly surprising to see Americans online react to this thinking there is some Illuminati conspiracy happening. Britain and Europe are not the US, we don't have much of an interest of having 4chan dictate public policy.
It's also a good lesson in how effective platforms like Twitter can be in manipulating public perception, given that the same users now seem to be able to openly agitate over there.
> It's always slightly surprising to see Americans online react to this thinking there is some Illuminati conspiracy happening. Britain and Europe are not the US, we don't have much of an interest of having 4chan dictate public policy.
Too late by about nine years at the very least.
The people in charge are largely hated by the electorate. They won by default effectively due to a quirk of how UK elections work (which was less of a problem when the monarch/aristocracy was still involved to counter balance things like this, but now that that's gone the state is effectively out of control.)
Unless by "democracy" you mean "sleepwalking administration everyone hates" the current UK government is unusually undemocratic.