6 ms·

The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. I wouldn’t be so sure that any

The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.

adamm255 1y ago
If the current government reversed it, the 'oh think of the children' angle from the Tories/Reform against them would be relentless. I cant say they have been amazing at messaging as it is.
- weavejester 1y ago
  The current leaders of both the Conservatives and Reform are on record as being against the Act. While this doesn't preclude them changing their mind, it does make it more difficult for them to reverse course.
  - petre 1y ago
    They will reverse it when politicians visiting pron sites are exposed through a leak or something. Everybody else uses VPNs.
    - tomkarho 1y ago
      Politicians already use VPN and even expense it. They've got their ducks in a row.
mrandish 1y ago
> I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government will necessarily reverse this. Agreed. I think the supposed justifications for mass population-wide online surveillance, restrictions and de-anonymization are so strong most political parties in western democracies go along with what surveillance agencies push for once they get in power. Even in the U.S. where free speech & personal privacy rights are constitutionally and culturally stronger, both major parties are virtually identical in what they actually permit the surveillance state to do once they get in office (despite sometimes talking differently while campaigning). The reason is that the surveillance state has gotten extremely good at presenting scary scenarios and examples of supposed "disaster averted because we could spy on everyone", or the alternative, "bad thing happened because we couldn't spy on everyone" to politicians in non-public briefings. They keep these presentations secret from public and press scrutiny by claiming it's necessary to keep "sources and methods" secret from adversaries. Of course, this is ridiculous because adversary spy agencies are certainly already aware of the broad capabilities of our electronic surveillance - it's their job after all and they do the same things to their own populations. The intelligence community rarely briefs politicians on individual operations or the exact details of the sources and methods which adversarial intelligence agencies would care about anyway. The vast majority of these secret briefings could be public without revealing anything of real value to major adversaries. At most it would only confirm we're doing the things adversaries already assume we're doing (and already take steps to counter). The real reason they hide the politician briefings from the public is because voters would be creeped out by the pervasive surveillance and domain experts would call bullshit on the incomplete facts and fallacious reasoning used to justify it to politicians. Even if a politician sincerely intended to preserve privacy and freedom before getting in office, they aren't domain experts and when confronted with seemingly overwhelming (but secret) evidence of preventing "big bad" presented unanimously by intelligence community experts, the majority of elected officials go along. If that's not enough for the anti-privacy agencies (intel & law enforcement) to get what they want, there's always the "think of the children" arguments. It's the rare politician who's clear-thinking and principled enough to apply appropriate skepticism and measured nuance when faced with horrendous examples of child porn and abuse which the law enforcement/intelligence agency lobby has ready in ample supply and deploys behind closed doors for maximum effect. The anti-privacy lobby has figured out how to hack representative democracy to circumvent protections and because it's done away from public scrutiny, there's currently no way to stop them and it's only going to keep getting worse. IMHO, it's a disaster and even in the U.S. (where I am) it's only slightly better than the UK, Australia, EU and elsewhere.
- autoexec 1y ago
  > The reason is that the surveillance state has gotten extremely good at presenting scary scenarios and examples of supposed "disaster averted because we could spy on everyone", or the alternative, "bad thing happened because we couldn't spy on everyone" to politicians in non-public briefings. Those politicians who are vocal against mass surveillance tend to change their tune the moment they're in office and I doubt they were all intending to go back on their campaign promises from the start or that they were really convinced by horror stories of terrorists told over powerpoint in closed door briefings. I wouldn't doubt if they were also giving politicians examples of the kind of dirt they already have on them and their families. This is one of the biggest risks of the surveillance state. Endless blackmail material made up of actual skeletons, as well as the resources to install new ones into anyone's closets whenever needed.
  - 20after4 1y ago
    Do what we say or we might get a warrant and find that stash of CP that we installed on your hard drive. How do you even defend against planted digital evidence? It would be easy to fake and very difficult to disprove. But when it comes to politicians and people with power, I think it's even worse than all of that. It's kind of obvious what Mr Epstein was getting up to with regard to blackmail.
    - Ray20 1y ago
      > How do you even defend against planted digital evidence? With your good name. In the end, it is not important what the politician had or did not have on the disk, but who the public will believe more, the secret services, who claim that there was something there, or the politician, who claims that he is being set up and groundlessly persecuted for the purpose of political pressure. And as long as public opinion about the special services is what it is, politicians can safely stash CP on their disks without fear that they will be charged with anything even if they are found.
      - hopelite 1y ago
autoexec 1y ago
Governments do seem to hate weakening their power over the population.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  If Wiki had the guts it'd leave the UK. Nothing will happen unless there's a backlash from the citizenry.
  - verisimi 1y ago
    Wiki isn't the citizenry. And no one voted for this. When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions. And even then, if both parties want to do something, as in this case, there is nowhere to go. This is force. If you can't say 'no', this is immoral, coercive force, even if the person or party doing the forcing says it isn't. And no, the forcer (government) won't give back freedoms (the right to privacy) that it takes away. In the end, the only moral, respectful and free way to proceed, without force, ie where people opt in. Individuals would opt in/out to paying tax for wars/schools/online safety, etc. "But it is impossible that everyone should be allowed to only opt in to the decisions they like!" .. is only the case because we think it is normal to endlessly abused by governments and because so many citizens are dependent on its handouts.
    - novok 1y ago
      They are not, but they are central resource that the citizenry uses. If enough of the internet enters an embargo with the UK, they will probably capitulate because more and more of the citizenry will realize what is happening, be greatly inconvenienced, reduce the UK's GDP and complain. IMO I hope more big websites do block the UK.
    - bratbag 1y ago
      The libertarian fantasy where its possible to exist without the choices of others impacting you, doesn't work in the real world.
monooso 1y ago
Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage.
- Jimmc414 1y ago
  > The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage. I've come to believe that is the point of forcing people to choose between extreme polarizing positions. It makes disengagement feel like the only moderate move.
  - ozim 1y ago
    Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future.
    - MrGilbert 1y ago
      > Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future. Always go for your gut feeling, not for what people are blaring. Especially populists will, as the name suggest, crave for people's attention and a cheap "Yeah, they are totally right!". That's how they win elections. And three months into the new period, they will show their real intentions.
      - bigfudge 1y ago
        Surely gut feelings are how we get populists voted in? I’d prefer people sat and thought carefully for a while than trusted their gut!
        1y ago
stephen_g 1y ago
What? I can't imagine anybody who was paying attention through any of this would have expected that Starmer's Labour would reverse this...
ExoticPearTree 1y ago
> The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. Unless a law is a mortal threat to the current party in power, it will not be repelled. Even so most likely they will try to wash it down instead of actually abolishing it.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "Unless a law is a mortal threat to the current party in power, it will not be repelled." Trouble is, like the frog in warming water, the UK is by a series of steps falling into ever-increasing irrelevancy on the world stage. By the time it wakes up to the fact it'll be too late.
gpderetta 1y ago
They voted against it because they thought it was not strong enough [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pledges-toughen-online-safety-bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...
captainbland 1y ago
I think something like reversing it in one specific domain (e.g. softcore porn or static images). Then retooling it so it applies to e.g. people viewing info on immigration rights etc. is likely on the cards.

adamm255 1y ago

If the current government reversed it, the 'oh think of the children' angle from the Tories/Reform against them would be relentless. I cant say they have been amazing at messaging as it is.

weavejester 1y ago
The current leaders of both the Conservatives and Reform are on record as being against the Act. While this doesn't preclude them changing their mind, it does make it more difficult for them to reverse course.
- petre 1y ago
  They will reverse it when politicians visiting pron sites are exposed through a leak or something. Everybody else uses VPNs.
  - tomkarho 1y ago
    Politicians already use VPN and even expense it. They've got their ducks in a row.

mrandish 1y ago

> I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government will necessarily reverse this. Agreed. I think the supposed justifications for mass population-wide online surveillance, restrictions and de-anonymization are so strong most political parties in western democracies go along with what surveillance agencies push for once they get in power. Even in the U.S. where free speech & personal privacy rights are constitutionally and culturally stronger, both major parties are virtually identical in what they actually permit the surveillance state to do once they get in office (despite sometimes talking differently while campaigning). The reason is that the surveillance state has gotten extremely good at presenting scary scenarios and examples of supposed "disaster averted because we could spy on everyone", or the alternative, "bad thing happened because we couldn't spy on everyone" to politicians in non-public briefings. They keep these presentations secret from public and press scrutiny by claiming it's necessary to keep "sources and methods" secret from adversaries. Of course, this is ridiculous because adversary spy agencies are certainly already aware of the broad capabilities of our electronic surveillance - it's their job after all and they do the same things to their own populations. The intelligence community rarely briefs politicians on individual operations or the exact details of the sources and methods which adversarial intelligence agencies would care about anyway. The vast majority of these secret briefings could be public without revealing anything of real value to major adversaries. At most it would only confirm we're doing the things adversaries already assume we're doing (and already take steps to counter). The real reason they hide the politician briefings from the public is because voters would be creeped out by the pervasive surveillance and domain experts would call bullshit on the incomplete facts and fallacious reasoning used to justify it to politicians. Even if a politician sincerely intended to preserve privacy and freedom before getting in office, they aren't domain experts and when confronted with seemingly overwhelming (but secret) evidence of preventing "big bad" presented unanimously by intelligence community experts, the majority of elected officials go along. If that's not enough for the anti-privacy agencies (intel & law enforcement) to get what they want, there's always the "think of the children" arguments. It's the rare politician who's clear-thinking and principled enough to apply appropriate skepticism and measured nuance when faced with horrendous examples of child porn and abuse which the law enforcement/intelligence agency lobby has ready in ample supply and deploys behind closed doors for maximum effect. The anti-privacy lobby has figured out how to hack representative democracy to circumvent protections and because it's done away from public scrutiny, there's currently no way to stop them and it's only going to keep getting worse. IMHO, it's a disaster and even in the U.S. (where I am) it's only slightly better than the UK, Australia, EU and elsewhere.

autoexec 1y ago
> The reason is that the surveillance state has gotten extremely good at presenting scary scenarios and examples of supposed "disaster averted because we could spy on everyone", or the alternative, "bad thing happened because we couldn't spy on everyone" to politicians in non-public briefings. Those politicians who are vocal against mass surveillance tend to change their tune the moment they're in office and I doubt they were all intending to go back on their campaign promises from the start or that they were really convinced by horror stories of terrorists told over powerpoint in closed door briefings. I wouldn't doubt if they were also giving politicians examples of the kind of dirt they already have on them and their families. This is one of the biggest risks of the surveillance state. Endless blackmail material made up of actual skeletons, as well as the resources to install new ones into anyone's closets whenever needed.
- 20after4 1y ago
  Do what we say or we might get a warrant and find that stash of CP that we installed on your hard drive. How do you even defend against planted digital evidence? It would be easy to fake and very difficult to disprove. But when it comes to politicians and people with power, I think it's even worse than all of that. It's kind of obvious what Mr Epstein was getting up to with regard to blackmail.
  - Ray20 1y ago
    > How do you even defend against planted digital evidence? With your good name. In the end, it is not important what the politician had or did not have on the disk, but who the public will believe more, the secret services, who claim that there was something there, or the politician, who claims that he is being set up and groundlessly persecuted for the purpose of political pressure. And as long as public opinion about the special services is what it is, politicians can safely stash CP on their disks without fear that they will be charged with anything even if they are found.
    - hopelite 1y ago

autoexec 1y ago

Governments do seem to hate weakening their power over the population.

hilbert42 1y ago
If Wiki had the guts it'd leave the UK. Nothing will happen unless there's a backlash from the citizenry.
- verisimi 1y ago
  Wiki isn't the citizenry. And no one voted for this. When one votes in this so-called "democracy", one votes for a representative to represent 'you and thousands of others' on thousands of decisions. And even then, if both parties want to do something, as in this case, there is nowhere to go. This is force. If you can't say 'no', this is immoral, coercive force, even if the person or party doing the forcing says it isn't. And no, the forcer (government) won't give back freedoms (the right to privacy) that it takes away. In the end, the only moral, respectful and free way to proceed, without force, ie where people opt in. Individuals would opt in/out to paying tax for wars/schools/online safety, etc. "But it is impossible that everyone should be allowed to only opt in to the decisions they like!" .. is only the case because we think it is normal to endlessly abused by governments and because so many citizens are dependent on its handouts.
  - novok 1y ago
    They are not, but they are central resource that the citizenry uses. If enough of the internet enters an embargo with the UK, they will probably capitulate because more and more of the citizenry will realize what is happening, be greatly inconvenienced, reduce the UK's GDP and complain. IMO I hope more big websites do block the UK.
  - bratbag 1y ago
    The libertarian fantasy where its possible to exist without the choices of others impacting you, doesn't work in the real world.

monooso 1y ago

Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage.

Jimmc414 1y ago
> The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage. I've come to believe that is the point of forcing people to choose between extreme polarizing positions. It makes disengagement feel like the only moderate move.
- ozim 1y ago
  Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future.
  - MrGilbert 1y ago
    > Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future. Always go for your gut feeling, not for what people are blaring. Especially populists will, as the name suggest, crave for people's attention and a cheap "Yeah, they are totally right!". That's how they win elections. And three months into the new period, they will show their real intentions.
    - bigfudge 1y ago
      Surely gut feelings are how we get populists voted in? I’d prefer people sat and thought carefully for a while than trusted their gut!
      - 1y ago

stephen_g 1y ago

What? I can't imagine anybody who was paying attention through any of this would have expected that Starmer's Labour would reverse this...

ExoticPearTree 1y ago

> The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. Unless a law is a mortal threat to the current party in power, it will not be repelled. Even so most likely they will try to wash it down instead of actually abolishing it.

hilbert42 1y ago
"Unless a law is a mortal threat to the current party in power, it will not be repelled." Trouble is, like the frog in warming water, the UK is by a series of steps falling into ever-increasing irrelevancy on the world stage. By the time it wakes up to the fact it'll be too late.

gpderetta 1y ago

They voted against it because they thought it was not strong enough [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pledges-toughen-online-safety-bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...

captainbland 1y ago

I think something like reversing it in one specific domain (e.g. softcore porn or static images). Then retooling it so it applies to e.g. people viewing info on immigration rights etc. is likely on the cards.