It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK State Goes Full On Authoritarian

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The UK government has declared the internet unsafe, and therefor, the UK people at risk of various "online harms", which is pure double-speak. In order to defend its citizens, the government has declared itself their mighty protector. But UK citizens should not be deceived by state rhetoric and decide which is more dangerous: internet content or state-curated access to the world wide web.

The newly released “online harms white paper” goes full Orwellian. According to the paper, UK internet users need to be protected from “online harms”, up to and including “content to behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal”.

The paper makes “unacceptable” content out to be an existential threat to the lives and well-being of its citizens. The euphemistic “online harms” means whatever the UK doesn’t want you to see.

One might ask at this point how internet content could be harmful, as if it was going to reach through the screen and throttle whomever was looking at it. But the limiting of freedom through the promise of safety from some amorphous danger has been the tried and true method of authoritarianism since the dawn of civilization.

Not only does the UK state get to decide what is or isn’t dangerous, but also how to protect its citizens from these dangers. The room for abuse is profound.

The citizens of the UK should oppose this madness and demand their freedom to self-regulate what they access online.

www.gov.uk...
edit on 8-4-2019 by Tartuffe because: (no reason given)



+4 more 
posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

It doesn't appear, to me, as an outsider, that the government gives a d**n what its citizens want.

In fact, it seems to me, rather than do what citizens want, they just import new citizens.
edit on 482019 by Mach2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Yes they should. Should be angry that is.... the citizens....

I am thinking that one of the funny things about this though is it will eventually help close down the giant clown farms known as facebook twitter and ?

Anyway, it will be funny to watch as they ban everything except gay porn, tranny sites, muslim sites, and of course messages from the queen. I would also assume pedophilia sites might be ok as well given the proclivities of those "in control" these days.

Happy weird surfing - better go ahead and get vpn asap. You'll probably pay 100 pounds a month for vpn after this garbage goes into effect.
edit on 8-4-2019 by Fools because: ..



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Their version of the Patriot Act goes a step further through their program CONTEST, and tries to prevent via controlling information of sorts.

I did a thread that kinda sums it up in a spark notes version.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Tartuffe

It doesn't appear, to me, as an outsider, that the government gives a d**n what its citizens want.

In fact, it seems to me, rather than do what citizens want, they just import new citizens.


It's a nanny-state.

Mass immigration has always been about importing future tax payers. It's about keeping the state apparatus funded, not about the people.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

Their version of the Patriot Act goes a step further through their program CONTEST, and tries to prevent via controlling information of sorts.

I did a thread that kinda sums it up in a spark notes version.


Frightening. Milton and Mill are turning in their graves.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe
The citizens of the UK should oppose this madness and demand their freedom to self-regulate what they access online.

Why ?

i say - give the NWO grunts a spade and let them dig their sorry ass3s to hell whilst they obey their leader Lucifuhrer.

Then when they end up in the Lake of Fire for Eternity after Judgment Day; they will only have themselves to blame for trusting an immortal traitor of GOD.
edit on 8-4-2019 by Rapha because: spelling



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

Their version of the Patriot Act goes a step further through their program CONTEST, and tries to prevent via controlling information of sorts.

I did a thread that kinda sums it up in a spark notes version.


Frightening. Milton and Mill are turning in their graves.


We're not far behind.

With the domestic spy apparatus, all it would take is one large event to convince people they needed to do more.

The Patriot Act primed the environment for the fed to flip a switch and counter most of the constitution. I've seen many citizens cheer it on out of fear.

It's a matter of time IMO.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Seems to have backfired. From what I understand, most of these "new citizens" are being subsidized. Correct me if I'm wrong. UK politics is not my forte.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rapha

originally posted by: Tartuffe
The citizens of the UK should oppose this madness and demand their freedom to self-regulate what they access online.

Why ?

i say - give the NWO grunts a spade and let them dig their sorry ass3s to hell whilst they obey their leader Lucifuhrer.

Then when they end up in the Lake of Fire for Eternity after Judgment Day; they will only have themselves to blame for trusting an immortal traitor of GOD.


Who are these immortal traitors of GOD? Any names?



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

That might be likely. According to the paper:


"Many of our international partners are also developing new regulatory approaches to tackle online harms, but none has yet established a regulatory framework that tackles this range of online harms. The UK will be the first to do this, leading international efforts by setting a coherent, proportionate and effective approach that reflects our commitment to a free, open and secure internet."


It's so ludicrous and statist that I see other countries adopting it. I recall Obama speaking about a curated internet.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   

The citizens of the UK should oppose this madness and demand their freedom to self-regulate what they access online.


And there's the rub huh?.. Are the citizens of the UK, or for that matter any democracy capable of self-regulating. And not self-regulating for the needs and aspirations of just one citizen but rather self-regulating for the needs of all citizens together which form any society.

Is a baby self-regulating? No. A toddler? A bit. A young child? A bit more. A teenager, some much more while others maybe not so much. My point here being that self-regulation does not seem to be an inherent aspect of individual human nature but rather an adaptive response to stimuli imposed by the surrounding environment. In this context the self-regulating of the individuals is in concert with the regulating of the entire society.

As long as that society is a monolithic society all regulating and self regulating is in concert. But in a society such as our modern societies that are not as monolithic ''self-regulating'' can take many different forms. What one might see as fundamental agreements on social behavior can be seen as authoritarian restrictions by others.

While it is good to be aware of authoritarian restrictions on our freedoms, no, make that awareness imperative, it is also imperative to recognize that not all citizens are capable of ascertaining what information is conducive to social cohesion and what is not. Some information by it's very nature is destructive to that cohesion.

So while I agree with the concerns against an overly regulative society I also recognize the social need to have it. It is not madness though it may be overly protective. It is up to us self-regulating citizens to make sure that our self-regulating doesn't end up taking the form of self-medicating our own weaknesses as members of a society.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
As a parent I agree. If you read the White Paper the proposals are based around making companies take responsibility for the content in their systems, and have a duty of care for their consumers. The other aspect is strengthenig child exploitation and stuff like that.
edit on 8/4/2019 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

The citizens of the UK should oppose this madness and demand their freedom to self-regulate what they access online.


And there's the rub huh?.. Are the citizens of the UK, or for that matter any democracy capable of self-regulating. And not self-regulating for the needs and aspirations of just one citizen but rather self-regulating for the needs of all citizens together which form any society.

Is a baby self-regulating? No. A toddler? A bit. A young child? A bit more. A teenager, some much more while others maybe not so much. My point here being that self-regulation does not seem to be an inherent aspect of individual human nature but rather an adaptive response to stimuli imposed by the surrounding environment. In this context the self-regulating of the individuals is in concert with the regulating of the entire society.

As long as that society is a monolithic society all regulating and self regulating is in concert. But in a society such as our modern societies that are not as monolithic ''self-regulating'' can take many different forms. What one might see as fundamental agreements on social behavior can be seen as authoritarian restrictions by others.

While it is good to be aware of authoritarian restrictions on our freedoms, no, make that awareness imperative, it is also imperative to recognize that not all citizens are capable of ascertaining what information is conducive to social cohesion and what is not. Some information by it's very nature is destructive to that cohesion.

So while I agree with the concerns against an overly regulative society I also recognize the social need to have it. It is not madness though it may be overly protective. It is up to us self-regulating citizens to make sure that our self-regulating doesn't end up taking the form of self-medicating our own weaknesses as members of a society.


Out of curiosity, who would you choose to decide what you can or cannot access online?



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Having read the paper you linked to, it looks like they are going after social media platforms including this very site.


The companies in scope of the regulatory framework 29. We propose that the regulatory framework should apply to companies that allow users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online. 30. These services are offered by a very wide range of companies of all sizes, including social media platforms, file hosting sites, public discussion forums, messaging services and search engines.


They site reasons as to protect children, prevent terrorism and all that nasty stuff but it then goes on to say this


33. Reflecting the importance of privacy, any requirements to scan or monitor content for tightly defined categories of illegal content will not apply to private channels. We are consulting on definitions of private communications, and what measures should apply to these services.


You read that right, it won’t apply to private channels of communication. Which I’m pretty sure is what real terrorists and criminals utilise. I wonder what they plan to do about the dark web?

It seems to me this just an attempt to control narratives and shut down free speech under the guise of keeping people safe. It will mostly be sites like this one that will suffer from these new guidelines and with fines being enforced that will shut them down altogether. Meanwhile FB Twitter and YouTube will just monitor content even more aggressively and delete anything considered inappropriate while flagging users as potential threats.

I suppose one good thing might be ok about it, they don’t like echo chambers so diverse opinions must be available on forums. Not good for extremist sites and circle jerkers. Otherwise RIP the internet.
edit on 8-4-2019 by surfer_soul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

I don't understand how people are letting this happen. I just don't understand how online content and information, like any content and information, can be considered harmful.

It's madness.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

People will see it as stopping terrorists and pedos, who’s going to complain about that? It will only be when it’s to late they realise what it’s really about.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

For a government led by Theresa May to be anti-libertarian is no surprise , typical knee jerk reaction of blame the easiest target is obvious.
Sooner they're gone the better.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Tartuffe

People will see it as stopping terrorists and pedos, who’s going to complain about that? It will only be when it’s to late they realise what it’s really about.


It's no different than curating what books we read or movies we watch. Utter madness. I hope they don't get away with it.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
If you guys sit there and allow it to continue it'll get harder and harder to dig yourselves out. I'm not sure why anyone with any shred of common sense is putting up with this. You like to be told what to do and how to live, youre getting it.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join