zlacker

>>mmaria+(OP)
Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government. Like maybe Adolescence or basically any mention of the NHS. The crimes they cite like child grooming or terrorism/hate being incited sound pretty terrible too, but I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it.

>>zapthe+zf
You are approaching this from a uniquely U.S. perspective. The U.K. is pretty middle of the road as far as “surveillance” and while this may offend the freedom-at-all-costs sensibilities, it’s a fairly milquetoast change.

Visiting the Heineken website in the U.S. requires that you assert you are over the age of 21. Texas has instituted I.D. verification for pornography.

Regardless of how you feel about this law, it is not accurate to say the U.K. is unique in implementing it.

>>abxyz+Mu
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.

>>rubyAc+bB
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.

>>abxyz+gE
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

>>Saline+nK
"until you want to say something that is forbidden by the government."

Please give a few examples. I'm intrigued.

>>scroll+NZ
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

>>rvnx+Q01
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...