The evils of the new 'Online Safety Bill'.. Are you ready for TOTAL censorship in the UK?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Pinko, commie bastard!

a reply to: Freeborn

Fascist bully boy!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: DBCowboy

May I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my reply on the other thread?

"How's this?

Rishi Sunak is a terrible Prime Minister, Priti Patel is a disgrace, Suella Braverman isan even bigger disgrace, Rees Mogg is a walking anachronism and I criticise the whole Tory Government unreservedly.

Scum, scum, scum..

So. Let's see how that goes, eh?"

Right then, I'll buy you a pint as well.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Cheers.

Mines a pint of a decent Single Malt.




Jolly decent of you, old chap.

originally posted by: quintessentone

The only 24/7 surveillance would be by the site owners/programmers/algorithms following their policies and TOCs, of which the government expects them to follow the laws. If they don't then government has every right to intervene and hold those that are negligible accountable - so people and especially children are not harmed.

Please tell me everyone here laughed at this post?

No one is free if the government threatens a large fine, loss of income, shutting down their business, or jail time!
If someone forces to withdraw money from an ATM at gunpoint, the person holding the gun is responsible.


The Government is not expecting them to follow specific laws but be controlled by an unelected board acting under very, very vague guidelines subject to wide interpretation.

No, they don't have a right to decide what "speech" is harmful. Previously, there were a few specific exceptions to free speech but allowing a board to decide the definition of "harmful" is a new concept. Half of the people think speech supporting Biden is harmful, the other half think speech supporting Trump is harmful.

I think what you post is harmful and probably will end up harming children. Do you want someone like me deciding what you can say?

originally posted by: CryHavoc
I'm not sure where anyone ever got the idea that the Internet is a right.

Anyone who's ever gotten 'banned' from a site due to fruitcakery by a sh!tty Moderator knows that there really isn't a Right to be on a website or web forum.

None of these people have any kind of legitimacy or qualifications.

I was made a Moderator once because I was good at flagging SPAM. That was it. That was the only reason why. And I was even banned from the site for about 6 months five years before that.

If Internet communication is a right, we need much better people Moderating these websites.

And we need to get rid of Hackers and Cyberstalkers.

This was the problem during the covid thing - content checkers with zero knowledge of a subject were flagging news stories and facts from highly highly educated people at the top of their game who were using official facts and figures and data , like the Nobel prize winner luic monsignuir Co discoverer of Aids who was told to sit down and shut up he didn't know what he was talking about .

The battalion 77 crew were running mad on here and everywhere else on the net disrupting conversations , I posted facts and figures from the government sites the office of national statistics etc at least 5 articles , maybe 1 hour of reading and within seconds this sceptic jock replied with a 300 word thesis on why I was a idiot for believing those figures www.bbc.co.uk...

This is what's coming

a reply to: stonerwilliam

If anything, we need to go the other direction and get Government out of social media.


If a government employee (including the military psych ops) or a person contracted by the government, posts on social media, they should have to disclose their role.

Same with "asking" social media to post/censor certain information - they need to disclose

Any database of posters should also be available for inspection

originally posted by: quintessentone


Who really has the censoring power in social media? #1 Sponsors #2 audience ... simple as that.

Nope -

If the Government is threatening you with jail and/or fines, the government has taken the power.....simple as that.

a reply to: Daughter2

I posted a thread here ages ago about how the government was recruiting 15.000 people to police social media , we have a armed forces of about 110.000 service men and women to defend our shores and interests . Our government can now call on 250.000 battalion 77 crew and we are the enemy .

I had a friend years ago who worked at GCHQ , they are not the brightest lot on the planet but with access to AI at their finger tips they can shut down conversations and are skilled at it .

They are called PHD p#*$%'s for a reason , would run and cry in real life from a fight and would not know what end of a gun to hold .

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: quintessentone

The only 24/7 surveillance would be by the site owners/programmers/algorithms following their policies and TOCs, of which the government expects them to follow the laws. If they don't then government has every right to intervene and hold those that are negligible accountable - so people and especially children are not harmed.

Please tell me everyone here laughed at this post?

i think quintessentone lives in a goldfish bowl........ Makes my brain hurt with the one track rail road they're on.

How will the government monitor communications? Does this mean they have a backdoor decryption key? Is encryption entirely useless now? Or will encryption be forbidden?

a reply to: MetalChickAmy


Encyption and the Online safety bill article.....

the government has not changed the wording of the bill, which still gives Ofcom the power to issue an accredited technology notice. A government spokesperson said: “Our position on this matter has not changed”.

I think this is a 'We reserve the right too' notice.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
...could have the prospect of being arrested by the police as described above. Whether that would result in criminal charges is another matter. It seems likely that, at least in the first stages, it would be a case of 'process as punishment', whereby the 'offender' is subject to a stressful 12-24 hour process of arrest, booking, overnight in a cell, needing a solicitor to get out in the morning, etc. They would be traumatised sufficiently by that 12-24 hour process that they likely would never post anything controversial ever again.

Arrest process in this country also includes, finger printing, mug shots and DNA testing as standard. Been that way for a long time.

"It's going to go on your permanent record!!!" Anybody remember that nasty bit of propaganda and brainwashing used on their kids in school?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Great thread!

We have covered plenty of material already but there is always space for more conversations.

Perhaps you should be addressing this thread to the Government and OFCOM apologists from the UK who did nothing other than parrot official lines and asserted them as facts.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: Daughter2

I posted a thread here ages ago about how the government was recruiting 15.000 people to police social media , we have a armed forces of about 110.000 service men and women to defend our shores and interests . Our government can now call on 250.000 battalion 77 crew and we are the enemy .

I had a friend years ago who worked at GCHQ , they are not the brightest lot on the planet but with access to AI at their finger tips they can shut down conversations and are skilled at it .

They are called PHD p#*$%'s for a reason , would run and cry in real life from a fight and would not know what end of a gun to hold .

I can assure you that whenever I am around they fail big time!

150 or 1,500 or 15,000 the results are the same.

originally posted by: quintessentone
If someone doesn't like their social platform's TOS or censoring algorithms, which probably use empirical scientific evidence and not opinion or conspiracy theories, then go somewhere else.

You're free to do so if you want.
No need to follow other accounts around and chat nonsense.

One member has already said it and I have mentioned it a few days ago. With this online safety bill in the UK, ATS could become a thing of the past for the UK members.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
From what I have read of the bill so far,its the kind of thing Stalin or Mao would have had wet dreams over.
Neil Ward did an informative video about it which put in another thread.

One part he speaks off seems highly authoritarian-If you use 10 or so of the biggest social media sites-stuff like instagram/FB/Linkdin you automatically give the UK government real time access to EVERYTHING on your device-photos,email,any messages,location.

Then there is the "approved government software" thing-internet companies must install this software to aloow the governement to monitor everything.Even companies outside the UK..
Don't comply? Your site gets banned from UK,added to a blacklist.

Then there is the encrytion aspect-banning apps such as Whatsapp from using encryption-don't comply-see above,but also whatsapp would be fined -£10 Million-Oh and If you are a USER of such a website you can get 6months in jail and a fine.

Welcome to North Korea,UK.


I was genuinely amazed at how much support this bill got in the other thread..hopefully people will read more into it and discover it is a censorship,mass surveillance and control operation and not to "protect the children" as the governemnt claims.

In some other threads there have been only a few members who support this bill. Most people reject it outright.

Itll be like living in Communist Canada.

us corps are already moving to try and enforce a model where users "pay for rights"

its the very essence of paying for indulgences.. if you want rights it'll cost you as monthly fee..

it embeds the idea that only the rich in rich countries can own their own rights and own the rights of others.

this is critical in understanding the cliff edge reformation we are lurching over post-haste..

the biggest mistake anyone made with Brexit was thinking it was about national sovereignty when lie the reformation it was about personal sovereignty and how that as an expression shapes national sovereignty..