←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
torginus ◴[] 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 #
luke727 ◴[] 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 #
torginus ◴[] 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 #
luke727 ◴[] 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 #
1. tim333 ◴[] No.45013692[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 #
2. throw7 ◴[] No.45014851[source]
The Brits can go bugger off and build their own China Firewall™.
3. account42 ◴[] No.45023560[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.