zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. isaacr+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-07-29 13:23:15
Screw anonymous attestation. We don't need to be controlled at every frigging second by people who are time and time again proven to be corrupt and working for their own interests. *Oh, I just received this thousands in gifts but it doesn't affect my decisions".

The only thing to do is denounce every bit of bullshit and not try and "find a way to make it work". Just stand for freedom for once instead of bending the knee or pushing for authoritarianism like most people do with every invasion for oil, during covid, when there's an accusation of some -ism or whatever the next label is.

replies(2): >>soulof+w2 >>pc86+ec
2. soulof+w2[view] [source] 2025-07-29 13:35:16
>>isaacr+(OP)
Agreed. This is our Prohibition Era for free speech and expression and privacy. We must act as bootleggers, creating and maintaining private spaces which strengthen communities, preserve autonomy and discovery while still protecting its users from harm or predation. I owe everything in my life to websites I wasn't allowed on as a kid.
3. pc86+ec[view] [source] 2025-07-29 14:25:10
>>isaacr+(OP)
The UK is an increasingly authoritarian nightmare. The US should start a refugee program for UK citizens who understand what freedom actually means and want to live in a free country again.
replies(6): >>rdudek+Uf >>louthy+4h >>captai+Dl >>MattPa+Go >>holler+0q >>nkohar+6r
◧◩
4. rdudek+Uf[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 14:40:04
>>pc86+ec
What makes you think it's any better here in the US? There is a worldwide rise toward nationalism/authoritarianism.
replies(1): >>holler+dp
◧◩
5. louthy+4h[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 14:46:36
>>pc86+ec
> The UK is an increasingly authoritarian nightmare. The US should start a refugee program for UK

Hilarious, you literally have a president shutting down free speech by getting a talkshow taken off the air so that the owning media company can pass its merger regulations; he’s also threatening to sue or actually suing other media organisations, universities, newspapers,... And on top of all that has built a private militia to grab people off the street and deport them.

All while major corporations have so much money and control over the government and its representatives that individuals have little to no say in how things are done.

And let’s not even start on the electoral system that encourages only the issues of a few states to ever be ‘heard’.

The whole country is indoctrinated to pledge allegiance to the flag and is taught that the constitution is of equivalent standing as the stone tablets brought down from Mount Sinai, leaving you all more vulnerable in a world where anybody can say anything and have it broadcast to billions of people at once. Or, you know, to being shot. You're indoctrinated to believe that the founding fathers were infallible geniuses, when they were just men, with opinions.

Often in these discussions we get quotes like:

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That was said by a man, a regular man. He said a thing. It is entirely devoid of nuance, but you will all recite like it's the word of god. It's a form of self-oppression in its own right.

The vast majority of so-called oppressive laws introduced in the UK were well meaning, not done for power (like with your current president). The anti-hate speech laws were brought about because preachers were openly indoctrinating people who went on to commit atrocities like 7/7. I have never fallen fowl of those laws because I don't preach hate and foment violence. But to Ben Franklin that's the thin end of the wedge.

This latest law is for sure misguided, but it came from a desire to reduce online harm for children -- more opposition was needed when it was going through parliament. I get it, they messed up, it's bad law, but we also have a parliamentary system that functions, so it will almost certainly be refined over time.

The goals are right, the implementation is wrong, but that doesn't mean the UK is falling into authoritarianism. We're not trying to overturn elections, or you know, stop them altogether.

The idea that the US is some paragon of freedom and liberty is utter, utter nonsense. It’s more fucked than the UK will ever be.

replies(1): >>pc86+bs
◧◩
6. captai+Dl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 15:10:26
>>pc86+ec
The frying pan is uncomfortable and everything but the fire is failing to tempt me.
◧◩
7. MattPa+Go[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 15:25:29
>>pc86+ec
Many in the UK find the US quite a frightening place right now. We will also welcome US refugees into the UK! Don't want to create a refugee-deficit after all ;)
◧◩◪
8. holler+dp[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 15:28:36
>>rdudek+Uf
Right, but it is not the nationalists in the UK that passed the Online Safety Act discussed in the OP.
◧◩
9. holler+0q[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 15:32:07
>>pc86+ec
It wouldn't be the first time: when the Parliamentarians gained control over England in the English Civil War, large number of Cavaliers fled to the American colonies.
◧◩
10. nkohar+6r[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 15:36:54
>>pc86+ec
> The US should start a refugee program for UK citizens who understand what freedom actually means and want to live in a free country again.

I ask this in all seriousness: have you been paying attention to what's happening recently in the US?

◧◩◪
11. pc86+bs[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 15:43:02
>>louthy+4h
WALLOFTEXT notwithstanding, doing bad things for good reasons is not in and of itself any better than doing bad things for bad reasons.
replies(1): >>louthy+Ys
◧◩◪◨
12. louthy+Ys[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 15:47:18
>>pc86+bs
Yeah, it objectively is better. Because if the government is trying to do good things and they mess up in the process, then good people can change it. But if the people are bad, then they're gonna do bad regardless. One is a functioning democracy, one is sliding into authoritarianism.

You wrote: "The UK is an increasingly authoritarian nightmare." - it just isn't. For those of us who live here, nothing is really different. Not being able to access porn without a VPN is not the definition of "authoritarian nightmare".

The UK, for sure, has its problems. Some related to our democracy. But it isn't on the precipice of losing its democracy altogether (like the US).

replies(1): >>pc86+Pz
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. pc86+Pz[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 16:20:57
>>louthy+Ys
> Not being able to access porn without a VPN is not the definition of "authoritarian nightmare".

Linking your real identity to the ability to load text on a computer you own absolutely is. Not being able to step out onto the street without having 50 government-operated cameras take your picture absolutely is. "Knife control" absolutely is.

> But it isn't on the precipice of losing its democracy altogether (like the US).

Good god come on. I hope I remember to come back here after the next election and accept your apology.

replies(3): >>foldr+4I >>rsynno+uI >>louthy+NK
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. foldr+4I[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 17:01:34
>>pc86+Pz
Assuming you live in the US, I sincerely recommend that you take all the energy you’re expending decrying the UK’s supposed slide into authoritarianism and see if you can find a way to use that energy to do something about masked thugs kidnapping US citizens, or stop scientific research being defunded for political reasons. How much time have you even spent in the UK? We have our problems for sure, but it’s baffling that anyone in the US at present would feel that they were in a position to lecture us on freem and moxy.

Also, as sibling says, you’re simply misinformed about CCTV. There is no centralized government-operated network of CCTV cameras. In fact, all figures you read about total numbers of CCTV cameras are basically just guesses, as there is no accurate way to track numbers of privately operated cameras.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
15. rsynno+uI[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 17:03:49
>>pc86+Pz
> Linking your real identity to the ability to load text on a computer you own absolutely is.

Not to defend the UK too vociferously (it _is_ going in a weirdly authoritarian direction and I certainly wouldn't want to live there), but this is also a thing in many US states: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/11/politics/invs-porn-age-verifi...

> Not being able to step out onto the street without having 50 government-operated cameras take your picture absolutely is.

This is a _bit_ of a myth; very few CCTVs in the UK are run by the government. It does have a very large number of CCTVs but they're generally privately owned and operated; they're largely a product of insurance company requirements.

As someone who lives in neither, the US seems considerably scarier at the moment, in general, and a lot further down the road to Hungary-style authoritarianism. The British government hasn't, as yet, made a serious effort to take over the media, say.

replies(1): >>pc86+YP
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
16. louthy+NK[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 17:15:42
>>pc86+Pz
>> Not being able to access porn without a VPN is not the definition of "authoritarian nightmare".

> Linking your real identity to the ability to load text on a computer you own absolutely is.

You're responding to something I didn't say.

> Not being able to step out onto the street without having 50 government-operated cameras take your picture absolutely is.

That's not true either. You're just lying. There are police CCTV cameras in trouble areas, sure, but the idea that there are 50 pointing at you at any one time is a lie. Most CCTV cameras are privately owned and they can only be sequestered by the police with a warrant.

But just to be clear, you call that an "authoritarian nightmare". It's an exchange of some freedoms (privacy on a public street) for some safety (freedom from criminal assault/theft/etc.). Because we haven't been constitutionally indoctrinated we can see the nuance in that exchange. Some may think it's gone too far, others not far enough, most appreciate the drop in crime.

> "Knife control" absolutely is.

The last time I bought a knife the Amazon delivery driver just had to check my ID to make sure I was 18 or over. But again, because we haven't been indoctrinated to believe that the constitution was given from upon high, we understand that if kids or young adults are buying knifes to stab each other, then we'll do something about it.

How many school shootings have there been in the US this year? The fetishisation of guns and violence is literally insane. The rest of the world looks at the US and its lack of gun control as lunacy.

>> But it isn't on the precipice of losing its democracy altogether (like the US).

> Good god come on. I hope I remember to come back here after the next election and accept your apology.

You first. You've already lied several times about the UK, so whenever you're ready.

This whole debate is utterly pointless. There's a clear divide between how the constitutionally indoctrinated American sees the world and those of us who live in countries without constitutions. Our system will always seem crazy to someone who only believes in one set of laws written down 200 odd years ago.

The difference with the UK to the US is that we have tended toward freedom for the past 1000 years. We are more comfortable with our system and institutions. It's certainly not perfect, but on the whole it doesn't oppress.

The 'First They Came' poem in the UK would go something like this:

* First they came for the Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers, and I did not speak out because I was not a Islamic fundamentalist suicide bomber.

* Then they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi.

* Then they came for my PornHub access, luckily I didn't need anyone to speak up because I had VPN access

* Then they came for me - and there were plenty of decent people to speak up for me, cos life in the UK ain't as bad as it's said to be on Hacker News.

It kinda doesn't punch quite as hard ;)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
17. pc86+YP[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-29 17:43:39
>>rsynno+uI
> The British government hasn't, as yet, made a serious effort to take over the media, say.

Nor has the US.

[go to top]