Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Is 4chan the perfect Pirate Bay poster child to justify wider UK site-blocking?

    (torrentfreak.com)
    361 points gloxkiqcza | 21 comments | 24 Aug 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source | bottom
    Show context
    hungmung ◴[24 Aug 25 17:34 UTC] No.45006064[source]▶
    More made up problems for a fundamentally inept government to solve because fixing real problems like a broken healthcare system is hard and not a guaranteed political win.

    Thanks Starmer, you're a worthless turd and no different than your predecessor.

    replies(6): >>45006181 #>>45006484 #>>45007240 #>>45007801 #>>45007859 #>>45008041 #
    1. basisword ◴[24 Aug 25 17:48 UTC] No.45006181[source]▶
    The Online Safety Act was passed when the Tories were still in government.

    Rolling that back essentially makes you a prime minister that believes children should have unfettered access to porn, self-harm material, gore, and that the outspoken parents of kids who've killed themselves after accessing this material shouldn't be listened to. At least, that's how the media (on all sides) would spin it. Not really a fight worth picking.

    replies(4): >>45006238 #>>45006471 #>>45006495 #>>45006587 #
    2. YurgenJurgensen ◴[24 Aug 25 17:55 UTC] No.45006238[source]▶
    That’s populist talk, and if the PM wants to play populism, he’s not doing a very good job of it.
    replies(2): >>45006288 #>>45006526 #
    3. basisword ◴[24 Aug 25 18:02 UTC] No.45006288[source]▶
    The problem the majority of people have with this law is "I can't easily access my free porn anymore". The counter-argument is "child kills self"[1] because shitty tech companies can't control their thirst for money. Like I said, I don't agree with the legislation but it's not an easy argument to make.

    [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62998484

    replies(1): >>45006441 #
    4. cm2187 ◴[24 Aug 25 18:23 UTC] No.45006441{3}[source]▶
    In a world where you can cast your vote anonymously in the voting booth, it’s a dangerous game to piss off a large number of voters, even if they can’t admit publicly why. They will be reminded every day of that idiotic policy. Like cookie consent banners.
    replies(1): >>45007135 #
    5. akk0 ◴[24 Aug 25 18:27 UTC] No.45006471[source]▶
    Not a fight worth picking if truth, sanity, principles and integrity are worthless to you, I'm sure.
    replies(1): >>45007924 #
    6. MrGinkgo ◴[24 Aug 25 18:31 UTC] No.45006495[source]▶
    The way to fight it without coming off that way is by advocating for a form of age check that doesn't require personal information, which I haven't heard any really water-tight suggestions yet.

    If their real interest was in protecting children, they'd make a free, publicly accessible age blocking system that parents could choose to opt into, that isn't thrust upon all citizens at once

    replies(3): >>45006954 #>>45008682 #>>45011271 #
    7. FridayoLeary ◴[24 Aug 25 18:34 UTC] No.45006526[source]▶
    He's not doing a very good job of anything. His main problem is he has very few fundamental beliefs. All he has is some vague left wing aligned principles which he allows others to advise him on and then selects whatever position will gain himself the most goodwill. Which is why his ministers can propose atrocious ideas and he will go along with them. It's not as if he has anything better to suggest.
    8. miohtama ◴[24 Aug 25 18:41 UTC] No.45006587[source]▶
    Nick Farage from Reform plans to pick this fight. Of course whether he does it or not will be seen.
    replies(2): >>45007423 #>>45007569 #
    9. zahlman ◴[24 Aug 25 19:29 UTC] No.45006954[source]▶
    >a form of age check that doesn't require personal information

    But your age is personal information.

    replies(1): >>45008598 #
    10. afavour ◴[24 Aug 25 19:48 UTC] No.45007135{4}[source]▶
    I think you’re correct and the person you’re replying to is correct too.

    Voters aren’t all that rational. They could choose to vote against the person that blocked their access to porn but also choose to vote against the person who made porn available again because doing so puts children in danger or whatever the scaremongering line would be.

    11. monkey_monkey ◴[24 Aug 25 20:20 UTC] No.45007423[source]▶
    Farage is a moral-free scumbag who will be known in history as one of the architects of Britain's period of decline. The fact that he hasn't been held to account is one of the great scandals of our age.
    replies(3): >>45008300 #>>45009584 #>>45009692 #
    12. grues-dinner ◴[24 Aug 25 20:40 UTC] No.45007569[source]▶
    He says he's against the OSA but he's also funded by religious right nutters who think it's a great first step. So if/when he gets into power, don't expect anything better to replace it. Not that I would expect him to uphold a single promise: as I understand it, Reform doesn't even commit to a formal manifesto, anyway.
    13. FridayoLeary ◴[24 Aug 25 21:24 UTC] No.45007924[source]▶
    Just want to point out that none of those are guiding principles for politicians either.
    14. BLKNSLVR ◴[24 Aug 25 22:19 UTC] No.45008300{3}[source]▶
    I like the fact that as soon as his cause 'won' he stepped down so that he didn't need to do any of the actual hard work in implementing the disaster.
    replies(1): >>45011616 #
    15. MrGinkgo ◴[24 Aug 25 23:02 UTC] No.45008598{3}[source]▶
    sure, but it's far from the most identifying information you can hand over to a government, though
    16. o11c ◴[24 Aug 25 23:14 UTC] No.45008682[source]▶
    > The way to fight it without coming off that way is by advocating for a form of age check that doesn't require personal information, which I haven't heard any really water-tight suggestions yet.

    Given the spread of explicit "give us our pedo games" and "let kids watch porn" voices, I don't think there's any demand for a moderate solution.

    And when the moderate solution is actively rejected for a very real problem, nobody has a right to complain when the problem eventually is addressed using extreme solutions.

    replies(1): >>45009960 #
    17. anal_reactor ◴[25 Aug 25 02:16 UTC] No.45009584{3}[source]▶
    People literally wanted this though.
    18. mr_toad ◴[25 Aug 25 02:42 UTC] No.45009692{3}[source]▶
    Unless he gets into power he’s just a symptom.
    19. immibis ◴[25 Aug 25 03:35 UTC] No.45009960{3}[source]▶
    Where are you hearing those voices?
    20. ascorbic ◴[25 Aug 25 07:33 UTC] No.45011271[source]▶
    I've only done one of these age verifications (for Bluesky) and that didn't require any personal information beyond seeing my face.

    The digital credentials API trial seems interesting though: letting the browser verify your age without sharing any other personal details. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/digital-credentials-api-or...

    21. Nursie ◴[25 Aug 25 08:34 UTC] No.45011616{4}[source]▶
    He had no power.

    I'm no brexiteer but ... it's not like the Tories were going to hand him the keys to Number 10 and say "Have at it". He wasn't an MP at all at that point.

    It's like the "Idiots didn't even know what they were voting for!" argument. Sure, they didn't. Because the people who actually had the power to make a plan to vote for, declined to do so, specifically to increase uncertainty and perception of risk for voting leave.

    You can blame Farage and brexit voters for a lot (and you should!) but neither he nor they ever had the political power to make or execute a plan.