Most active commenters
  • luke727(9)
  • account42(4)

←back to thread

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

(torrentfreak.com)
361 points gloxkiqcza | 41 comments | 24 Aug 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
torginus ◴[25 Aug 25 08:26 UTC] No.45011561[source]▶
I genuinely do not understand where how the idea of building a total surveillance police state, where all speech is monitored, can even as much as seriously be considered by an allegedly pro-democracy, pro-human rights government, much less make it into law.

Also:

Step 1: Build mass surveillance to prevent the 'bad guys' from coming into political power (its ok, we're the good guys).

Step 2: Your political opponents capitalize on your genuinely horrific overreach, and legitimize themselves in the eyes of the public as fighting against tyranny (unfortunately for you they do have a point). They promise to dismantle the system if coming to power.

Step 3: They get elected.

Step 4: They don't dismantle the system, now the people you planned to use the system against are using it against you.

Sounds brilliant, lets do this.

replies(17): >>45011763 #>>45011799 #>>45011932 #>>45012205 #>>45012358 #>>45012512 #>>45012976 #>>45013249 #>>45013303 #>>45013857 #>>45014035 #>>45014477 #>>45014527 #>>45014559 #>>45016358 #>>45020627 #>>45021408 #
1. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 09:27 UTC] No.45011932[source]▶
The thing you have to understand is that the average Brit wants and possibly needs the government to tell them how to live their lives. It's a completely foreign paradigm to the average American, though alarming "progress" has been made on the American front as of late.
replies(8): >>45011972 #>>45012013 #>>45012249 #>>45012258 #>>45012369 #>>45012965 #>>45013164 #>>45014618 #
2. torginus ◴[25 Aug 25 09:31 UTC] No.45011972[source]▶
Are you (or do you know) many 'average Brits' who would agree with this statement (as applying to themselves)?
replies(2): >>45012292 #>>45012373 #
3. sailorganymede ◴[25 Aug 25 09:38 UTC] No.45012013[source]▶
Average Brit here - we do not like this and the way politics here has been so tumultuous has shown the general public are sick of this behaviour too.
replies(3): >>45012076 #>>45012148 #>>45023587 #
4. ghufran_syed ◴[25 Aug 25 09:48 UTC] No.45012076[source]▶
and yet they keep voting for blue labour or red labour…
replies(1): >>45012271 #
5. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 09:58 UTC] No.45012148[source]▶
Tumultuous in what way? There's so little distance between Conservative and Labour today that it really doesn't matter who's in power.
replies(3): >>45012398 #>>45012449 #>>45013338 #
6. inglor_cz ◴[25 Aug 25 10:14 UTC] No.45012271{3}[source]▶
Current opinion polls for both are abysmal, but I don't think that civic freedoms are the main reason; the main reason is immigration, which all the previous governments promised to limit and then silently decided not to.
replies(3): >>45012421 #>>45012465 #>>45012586 #
7. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 10:20 UTC] No.45012292[source]▶
I am not nor will I ever be a Brit, let alone an average one. But I live here and I have seen and heard things from seemingly average Brits. Would they describe themselves using my exact words? Doubtful. But what other conclusion can one draw from their observed behavior? The Online Safety Act in particular enjoys extraordinarily high support among the general public.
replies(2): >>45012409 #>>45013692 #
8. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 10:30 UTC] No.45012353[source]▶
My comment provoked you enough to create an account just to make a throwaway insult reply to it. I think perhaps it hit closer to home than you would care to acknolwedge.
replies(2): >>45012415 #>>45012622 #
9. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 10:31 UTC] No.45012356[source]▶
I'm speaking like someone who has to live with the consequences of horrible legislation like this because I live here.
10. DrBazza ◴[25 Aug 25 10:33 UTC] No.45012369[source]▶
No. We were typically indifferent to our Government. Very much a case of 'go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over.' But substitute 'tea'.

But in the last couple of decades, things have changed. Arguably, a public referendum in 2016, was very much a protest vote against several Parliaments that didn't listen to its citizens. And the last decade shows nothing has changed.

My friends and family, and myself included, were never very political, and very much a case of 'No Matter Who You Vote For The Government Always Gets In', but now everyone is talking about the Government. Interesting times ahead.

replies(1): >>45012518 #
11. PickledJesus ◴[25 Aug 25 10:34 UTC] No.45012373[source]▶
Obviously few would with that framing, but if they're given policies, lots of British people across the political spectrum would support ones that are more paternalistic. Support for the OSA is very high: https://yougov.co.uk/technology/articles/52693-how-have-brit...

British people are much happier with the state being paternalistic, across the political spectrum, it is a very strong differentiator between the US and the UK. "The government should do something!" You can see it in attitudes to the NHS, pensions, welfare. At its peak, in the 70s, 32% of people lived in social housing!

Labour voters, young and old, are generally quite paternalistic. Lots of Conservative voters are too, depending on the flavour. The exceptions are the Lib Dems and some conservative tribes. I am consistently surprised when talking to highly-educated, politically engaged people, left or right, how much the default is that the state should act.

replies(2): >>45013198 #>>45013711 #
12. bigfudge ◴[25 Aug 25 10:39 UTC] No.45012398{3}[source]▶
I think there’s more difference than there has been since the 1980s. People really underestimate how far the Tory base (and parliamentary party following closely) have shifted to the right. The willingness of sitting Tory MPs to knowingly lie and dissemble on immigration related issues to create heat is a real break from a past consensus.
13. kypro ◴[25 Aug 25 10:41 UTC] No.45012409{3}[source]▶
For what it's worth as a Brit I agree with you.

When I talk to people in Britain about sugar-taxes, smoking bans, porn bans, hate-speech laws, etc, most people will explain that without these things people will say/do harmful things therefore the government should stop them.

I remember when they started rolling out biometric facing scanning technology in stores and using it to ban people from all supermarkets within a designated area – basically forcing them to shop in smaller stores without these cameras or get their friends and family to buy their groceries. I thought this was utterly insane but to be horror Brits seem to almost universally support of this stuff because face scanning is a great way to identity people which private companies have flagged high-risk.

Our opinion of others is very low, and are comfort with authoritarianism is relatively high.

replies(2): >>45012717 #>>45013189 #
14. kachapopopow ◴[25 Aug 25 10:42 UTC] No.45012415{3}[source]▶
they're kinda right, in europe we really don't give a shit about politics and if we do you're doing something wrong.
replies(2): >>45012644 #>>45012673 #
15. bigfudge ◴[25 Aug 25 10:42 UTC] No.45012421{4}[source]▶
Decided not to, but continued to actively campaign on. It’s created a really weird situation where the actual policy choices are hugely disconnected from the rhetoric and emotion in the debate.

Legal immigration from South Asia dominates illegal immigration by an order of magnitude, but nobody wants to lose seats in Birmingham, so essentially doesn’t figure in the arguments about small numbers of afghans in miserable hotels in Essex.

16. pydry ◴[25 Aug 25 10:47 UTC] No.45012449{3}[source]▶
And both are now more unpopular than ever.
17. pydry ◴[25 Aug 25 10:49 UTC] No.45012465{4}[source]▶
Immigration is sucking support more from the tories than labour. They rode into power based upon a promise to do something about it and then massively increased it.

Labour are recently leaning into being anti immigration because it's one of the few wealthy-donor-friendly policies they can pursue which will potentially gain them votes.

18. boppo1 ◴[25 Aug 25 11:01 UTC] No.45012518[source]▶
> now everyone is talking about the Government

How are they talking about it?

19. tomatocracy ◴[25 Aug 25 11:14 UTC] No.45012586{4}[source]▶
For the Conservatives it's all about irregular/illegal immigration. Labour are hugely unpopular on that having apparently no idea what to do about it but they also have massive challenges on the economy/cost of living and the state of publicly funded services.
20. _nada ◴[25 Aug 25 11:21 UTC] No.45012622{3}[source]▶
As with your initial comment, none of these assertions are correct.

This is not a throwaway account or comment - it is my first and only HN account.

The comment I made was not an insult, but was made to flag the ignorance and stupidity of yours - maybe take a look at the subreddit and see if you can see some parallels. If you have taken it as an insult then that's fine.

replies(1): >>45012813 #
21. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 11:23 UTC] No.45012644{4}[source]▶
You should give a shit because Europe is on its way to implementing its own horrible legislation [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Comb...

replies(1): >>45012824 #
22. throwaway65042 ◴[25 Aug 25 11:27 UTC] No.45012673{4}[source]▶
Going by that reasoning someone must be clearly doing something wrong considering they seem to voice their political will at about the same rate as the politically active Americans.

Turnout in the latest presidential/general elections:

2025 German federal election 82.5%

2024 United Kingdom general election 59.7%

2022 French presidential election 73.69%(I)/71.99%(II)

2022 Italian general election 63.85%

2023 Spanish general election 66.6%

2024 United States presidential election 64.1%

replies(1): >>45013804 #
23. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 11:33 UTC] No.45012717{4}[source]▶
It's disturbing to me that so much of this type of legislation originates with the "Conservatives", and the only viable alternative in Labour thinks this type of legislation doesn't go far enough. I guess at least things will be interesting with Farage in Number 10.
24. luke727 ◴[25 Aug 25 11:47 UTC] No.45012813{4}[source]▶
Well, I offered my observations and a few people agreed with me to varying degrees. You asserted I'm wrong, ignorant, and stupid. Perhaps that is true; it is not, however, an argument.
replies(1): >>45013084 #
25. monkey_monkey ◴[25 Aug 25 11:48 UTC] No.45012824{5}[source]▶
https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1126/id/2988284

America ! America! God Shine Her Light On Theeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

replies(1): >>45023682 #
26. nly ◴[25 Aug 25 12:07 UTC] No.45012965[source]▶
The average Brit isn't even aware this is happening.

The OSA is the first time people may actually notice, because their porn habits will be disrupted.

27. _nada ◴[25 Aug 25 12:24 UTC] No.45013084{5}[source]▶
Again, none of these statement are true. When you wrote "The thing you have to understand", this is not an observation - it is a statement of objective fact. I never asserted you were ignorant and stupid - I initially implied your comment was, which it objectively is.
replies(1): >>45048789 #
28. lttlrck ◴[25 Aug 25 12:34 UTC] No.45013164[source]▶
There is a kernel of truth.

But I think you are, maybe to a large extent, misattributing political apathy.

replies(1): >>45023575 #
29. lazide ◴[25 Aug 25 12:37 UTC] No.45013189{4}[source]▶
They think (like many Americans right now) that it will only be done against ‘those other people’. When they realize it’s been applied to them, it’s too late (they’ve been ‘othered’ now) and people will ignore them - or they’ll have to blame themselves or cover it up in order to fit in.

It’s classic.

Eventually, enough people will have been fucked by it that the numbers will shift back the other way - and then the opposite end of the pathology (not being able to recognize the main groups own needs enough to defend them or pull together as a coherent group) starts building.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

30. lazide ◴[25 Aug 25 12:39 UTC] No.45013198{3}[source]▶
As much as US folks bemoan the ‘nanny state’, it’s because they look at the UK and cringe.
31. Nursie ◴[25 Aug 25 12:56 UTC] No.45013338{3}[source]▶
And they have record low shares of the vote, so … seems consistent?
32. tim333 ◴[25 Aug 25 13:35 UTC] No.45013692{3}[source]▶
>The Online Safety Act in particular enjoys extraordinarily high support among the general public

does not mean

>the average Brit wants and possibly needs the government to tell them how to live their lives

The average Brit doesn't want foreign entities pushing porn and self harm / pro suicide stuff to their kids. Can you perhaps see the difference there?

I notice most of the outrage in HN is from foreign entities wanting freedom to push whatever. The Brits are ok telling JD Vance et all chill.

replies(2): >>45014851 #>>45023560 #
33. rdm_blackhole ◴[25 Aug 25 13:36 UTC] No.45013711{3}[source]▶
We have the same issue in France as well.

Why won't the government do something is the refrain that everyone including opposing parties are saying. God forbid anyone should take initiative on anything.

And the state keeps on expanding year after year. I cannot remember the last time someone did not promise to shrink the state/government and once elected did a complete 180. It's bonkers.

34. kachapopopow ◴[25 Aug 25 13:47 UTC] No.45013804{5}[source]▶
Yah, exactly, we do care about politics right this moment because the goverment did fuck up badly.
35. Yeul ◴[25 Aug 25 15:00 UTC] No.45014618[source]▶
The average American needs church to tell them how to live.

And there are now openly right wing Christians in government...

36. throw7 ◴[25 Aug 25 15:22 UTC] No.45014851{4}[source]▶
The Brits can go bugger off and build their own China Firewall™.
37. account42 ◴[26 Aug 25 07:56 UTC] No.45023560{4}[source]▶
It does mean exactly that. If parents want to control what their kids see online they can take control of the situation and limit screen time to where it can be supervised. It might even make sense to have legislation to ensure that that is possible (that schools can't require devices for young children, that device makers need to implement effective parental controls, etc.).

But that's not what the OSA is. Instead it's the government deciding how all kids should be parented. And of course it doesn't just affect the kids now because to be effective all adults need to prove they are not kids to view "harmful" materials, with all the chilling effects and collection of sensitive data that that entails.

> I notice most of the outrage in HN is from foreign entities wanting freedom to push whatever.

Hence the original acknowledgement:

> The thing you have to understand is that the average Brit wants and possibly needs the government to tell them how to live their lives.

38. account42 ◴[26 Aug 25 07:57 UTC] No.45023575[source]▶
Apathy is approval of the status quo.
39. account42 ◴[26 Aug 25 07:59 UTC] No.45023587[source]▶
Sick enough to stop it or only sick enough to vote for the other party who has been doing the same shit but everyone has forgotten now?

Maybe you're not as average as you think you are.

40. account42 ◴[26 Aug 25 08:11 UTC] No.45023682{6}[source]▶
In what way is this supposed to be a response to the statement that Europeans should give a shit a bout chat control?

Do you think this is a contest where as long as you can find other countries with similar shit you don't score last?

41. luke727 ◴[28 Aug 25 05:40 UTC] No.45048789{6}[source]▶
I don't think pathologizing an entire nation is a statement of objective fact. Regardless, upon reflection I feel my initial comment was unduly harsh. I think it would be more accurate to say that British society as a whole is very much in favor of the nanny state.