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: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

So your first post to me was to blame me, now MY question is classed as absurd, i think we best agree to differ on this one, i tried to hold a conversation with you yet you seem to just want to be unloading your built up anger over liberties being removed onto someone, I find that quite tedious I am afraid. Maybe reread my question in my first response to you, if my spelling was poor I do apologise, which words caused you so much difficulty?

have a great night




posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: Tartuffe

So your first post to me was to blame me, now MY question is classed as absurd, i think we best agree to differ on this one, i tried to hold a conversation with you yet you seem to just want to be unloading your built up anger over liberties being removed onto someone, I find that quite tedious I am afraid. Maybe reread my question in my first response to you, if my spelling was poor I do apologise, which words caused you so much difficulty?

have a great night


I apologize, really. But the insinuation that I am defending rape and murder and I need to take a long look at myself is stupid. It's just that this sort of conflation between criminal activity and online activity is what lead us down the road towards the government's regulation of the internet in the first place.

Take care.
edit on 8-4-2019 by Tartuffe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   
In honesty, I think this has more to do with Facebook Live Streaming videos, like Christchurch and those that commit suicide live than anything else.

ATS never had a live video streaming service despite several requests for it because there was no clear path to moderating content in a live environment. Because you could end up with videos that looked like a young Ivan Milat dancing a flamenco in a tin foil bolero and no one wants to see that.


edit on 8-4-2019 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Pretty sure this is retribution from the Royal family. Apparently, the Duchess of Sussex has been getting trolled big time on social media and the Queen... well, she's really pissed!

So now the Royals are demanding satisfaction against there peasant subjects, in the form of internet censorship.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
In honesty, I think this has more to do with Facebook Live Streaming videos, like Christchurch and those that commit suicide live than anything else.

ATS never had a live video streaming service despite several requests for it because there was no clear path to moderating content in a live environment. Because you could end up with videos that looked like a young Ivan Milat dancing a flamenco in a tin foil bolero and no one wants to see that.



A lot of it has to do with the suicide of Molly Russell. Her parents found that she was looking at disturbing images of self-harm on instagram. Her parents assumed (without evidence) that it was these images and instagram which lead to her suicide, and the UK government used it as an emotional appeal for internet regulation.

www.bbc.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe


For a start, the implication that the state should regulate what we read and view, and should be the arbiter of truth could be misconstrued as fascistic.


I find this as absolutely true. And that Tart is the fine line we as freedom loving citizens need to walk. That balance between anarchy and totalitarianism.

For me, the question comes down to just how do those freedom loving citizens govern themselves. They do that by organizing a larger entity which we call government to act upon the wishes of the citizens. It this is done in the way we all hope it could be done, those regulations that are decided upon by that government should, either agreed upon or not, by all citizens.

But if that government is seen only as a foreign body, a body of repression then sure, toss out all it has to offer. And sadly that seems to be the ruling premise now, that our government has been taken over by big money. That corporations choose and decide what is allowed and what is not. Here I agree completely.

However, I am not willing to toss out that hope that we might be able to take our government back, to place it back in our control. I know, that almost seems naive but you know what? What else is there to hope for.


edit on 30America/ChicagoMon, 08 Apr 2019 17:30:07 -0500Mon, 08 Apr 2019 17:30:07 -050019042019-04-08T17:30:07-05:00500000030 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Pretty sure this is retribution from the Royal family. Apparently, the Duchess of Sussex has been getting trolled big time on social media and the Queen... well, she's really pissed!

So now the Royals are demanding satisfaction against there peasant subjects, in the form of internet censorship.



That's right. The royal family appeal for social media guidelines used the excuse of creating a "safe environment" because they were pissed at online criticisms.

www.royal.uk...



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

The question may have been heavy, as they are serious crimes which FB and YT have let slip thru but it did offer both options, it was not intended to then make judgment of you and then demonize you in anyway, i am taking a guess here but I bet neither of us wants these things on the internet, we then could have then discussed how to achieve it without trampling on your or my freedoms.

I honestly do not care what people view as long as everyone involved in the footage is legal (if sexual footage), has given permission and is not the victim of a crime.

My first response in this thread prior to our tête-à-tête was to put the responsibility back onto these companies who make m̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶s̶, g̶a̶z̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ or any profit before they ensure their platofrm is sturdy enough for human (bowels of depravity) interaction, it reminds of of carwashes that disclaim any damage to your car, wait a minute your a massive company who can afford this £250,000 machine yet if it damages my car (after I have paid the fee to use it) its my fault


Own your platform, police your platform and none of this would even be being discussed, what we currently have is still an internet bubble of sooooooo much money being made that eyes get blinded and morales get forgotten.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Tartuffe


For a start, the implication that the state should regulate what we read and view, and should be the arbiter of truth could be misconstrued as fascistic.


I find this as absolutely true. And that Tart is the fine line we as freedom loving citizens need to walk. That balance between anarchy and totalitarianism.

For me, the question comes down to just how do those freedom loving citizens govern themselves. They do that by organizing a larger entity which we call government to act upon the wishes of the citizens. It this is done in the way we all hope it could be done, those regulations that are decided upon by that government should, either agreed upon or not, by all citizens.

But if that government is seen only as a foreign body, a body of repression then sure, toss out all it has to offer. And sadly that seems to be the ruling premise now, that our government has been taken over by big money. That corporations choose and decide what is allowed and what is not. Here I agree completely.

However, I am not willing to toss out that hope that we might be able to take our government back, to place it back in our control. I know, that almost seems naive but you know what? What else is there to hope for.



I get what you're saying, and sympathize to a degree. And yes, if this infantilizing regulation is the choice of the UK people, then who am I to stop them?

I agree with what you said about the government, especially the parliamentary system. But there comes a point when the government becomes so bloated, and the people so dependent on it, that they'll give up their essential liberties just to keep it going. This sort of statism has replaced replaced religion in my view, and we'll see the same crushing authoritarianism that we once saw under, say, the catholic church during the inquisition.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Brits RISE ! The Spirit of Oliver Cromwell and GOD Beseeches You !



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

I mean I get it. But I see it just a little differently.

Yes, we all can agree that live-streaming a murder is wrong, not only because murder is wrong, but because the exhibition of it is also wrong. What I do not agree with is the solution: giving the government power over what we view on the internet.

I've been following the battle against ISIS for years now, and have watched perhaps too many of their warcrimes perpetrated against innocents. Many of these were acts of torture and genocide. They film it all, put it on the internet, and I've seen some of it. It's horrific. The imagery haunts my dreams. I've seen evil. I just as easily could have avoided it. What I do not want is the government taking that choice away.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe



Nevermind the Bullocks , England RISE !






posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

I want to learn ancient esoteric teachings and for information to be free flowing. I want the government's to be accountable and for them to be unable to hide their wrongdoings as far as the snuff you talk about I only ever hear of that from MSM not see it. So if anything needs censored it's the news.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
This isn't about protecting the people and it isn't a crackdown on social media and tech giants. It is quite the opposite in fact. It is classic regulatory capture and corporate capture of government. It is the same malarkey that has been happening for decades now. There is a reason all of the social media and tech giants are pushing for these regulations. It is because people have become more wise to their clandestine actions in manipulating public opinion and they are afraid of alternative competition arising from the backlash. The quid pro quo is that the government protects the tech giants from upstart competition through these regulations and the tech giants continue to promote the government agenda and brainwash the people so that they can achieve their aims.

This is the same sort of garbage that killed democracy in the offline world and now they are doing it to the online world.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Tartuffe

Brits RISE ! The Spirit of Oliver Cromwell and GOD Beseeches You !


There is a beautiful irony to this... Under EU law censure of the Internet - as well as geoblocking IP addresses - is actually illegal as content is classed as freedom of expression and all EU citizens have the right to freedom of speech.

Hence the new UK laws can not be implemented until we leave the EU (hence the delay to them coming in) - however once Brexit has happened the government can lawfully decide what you post, where you post it and what you read. They also plan on implementing geolocation based IP blocking.

The irony is those who most want Britain to "rise up and take control" are the very people who want to leave the EU but are upset that they will loose the freedom of expression and freedom of speech they are currently entitled to...

And yes, as a telecoms bod, all the systems are already in place to restrict net access at the ISP end but are currently mothballed until the moment the UK leaves...

Scary times...



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Yeah, I share those concerns about how government could and has turned bad. In my youth, the 60s I was absolutely anti-government. I was in the streets and voted mostly for third party candidates.

However, as I grew older I began to evaluate just who was it that ran our government. Not only our government but the whole of our society. Who controlled the mass media. Who controlled the trends, the fads and the fashions. Who put the drivel on TV that our children sit and drool over. Enough of that list. What I decided was that it was the entire economic system and how it was run, not by the will of the people but rather by those who would use psychological manipulation to sell their products to the people. The corporations.

So actually, it is my thinking that we the people have lost that war, that battle to keep the large corporations from taking over the whole world. My God, look at Bezos. He just lost half his fortune to his wife in their divorce and guess what, he is still the richest man in the world.

So when you find me arguing against those who focus on how we are being screwed by government it is only because to my mind, our only hope against those corporations is that we should utilzed what small power we have left to act like free citizens and reign them in.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Ahabstar
In honesty, I think this has more to do with Facebook Live Streaming videos, like Christchurch and those that commit suicide live than anything else.

ATS never had a live video streaming service despite several requests for it because there was no clear path to moderating content in a live environment. Because you could end up with videos that looked like a young Ivan Milat dancing a flamenco in a tin foil bolero and no one wants to see that.



A lot of it has to do with the suicide of Molly Russell. Her parents found that she was looking at disturbing images of self-harm on instagram. Her parents assumed (without evidence) that it was these images and instagram which lead to her suicide, and the UK government used it as an emotional appeal for internet regulation.

www.bbc.com...


What do you mean 'without evidence'? You mean those graphic images of self harm and suicide that you've mentioned yourself? What I think you meant to say is 'without proof', that would be something established by a coroner in the absence of a note.

Facebook/Instagram have said they are appalled such content is hosted on their platforms and will work to remove it. Many sufferers from self harm and eating disorders have claimed that the content exacerbated their condition(s).

I'm not totally sure on the legality of posting graphic pictures of suicide victims online but I know my own stance.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

And if youtube take those videos down, denying you the choice of watching individuals killing other individuals is that not also censorship?

If you get your kicks from watching what is effectively snuff movies then that's your business.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Ahabstar
In honesty, I think this has more to do with Facebook Live Streaming videos, like Christchurch and those that commit suicide live than anything else.

ATS never had a live video streaming service despite several requests for it because there was no clear path to moderating content in a live environment. Because you could end up with videos that looked like a young Ivan Milat dancing a flamenco in a tin foil bolero and no one wants to see that.



A lot of it has to do with the suicide of Molly Russell. Her parents found that she was looking at disturbing images of self-harm on instagram. Her parents assumed (without evidence) that it was these images and instagram which lead to her suicide, and the UK government used it as an emotional appeal for internet regulation.

www.bbc.com...


What do you mean 'without evidence'? You mean those graphic images of self harm and suicide that you've mentioned yourself? What I think you meant to say is 'without proof', that would be something established by a coroner in the absence of a note.

Facebook/Instagram have said they are appalled such content is hosted on their platforms and will work to remove it. Many sufferers from self harm and eating disorders have claimed that the content exacerbated their condition(s).

I'm not totally sure on the legality of posting graphic pictures of suicide victims online but I know my own stance.



It’s simple. The images people look at is not evidence of the reason why they commit suicide.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Tartuffe

And if youtube take those videos down, denying you the choice of watching individuals killing other individuals is that not also censorship?

If you get your kicks from watching what is effectively snuff movies then that's your business.


Yes, it would be censorship.

Your insinuation that I enjoy snuff films reflects badly on who you are as a person.







 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join