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

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

I’m not an extremist. Certainly never been part of a riot or violent protest.

I work hard, I pay my taxes, I abide by the law.

Again, you can’t bring yourself to criticise left wing extremism as you support their cause. When the shoe is on the other foot and your mob face cancellation for your opinions, don’t expect any sympathy from me. I’m a true libertarian, not a socialist hiding behind group think ideology and hijacking language to appear benevolent.

The biggest problem with the left is they’re too dumb to realise that they’re creating a rod for their own back. The first to fall in socialist regimes will be your pink haired tattoo covered LGBTQ types. You think hard working conservative military age men with strong families will be the target of authoritarian regimes or those who are prone to protest? Do the left leaning progressives fare well in countries like China or Russia? Be careful what you wish for.

Extremism acts are defined quite specifically by the laws put in place. If any person or group of people break those laws - online or offline - then they should be held accountable and punished. Is my stance.

You ve been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism and the BLM and Antifa groups. It's quite clear why.

If they break the laws then they should be held accountable and punished is my stance.

All I see happening here with the Online Safety Act is a moving of existing offline laws of protection of citizens/users to fill in the gaps that exist online. To me the onus to police the platform rests solely with the owners and their agents. The question is will the owners and their agents properly police their platform and not give into their political ideologies, bias' and other weaknesses all humans have to grapple with. If they get sloppy and allow harm to others then users will complain to the proper authorities and the platform owners will be warned, fined or shut down depending on the severity of the infraction or repeated infractions that are ignored.

As I've said too many times to count, free speech with hate/vitriol or types of intimidation/threats or libel/defamation should do no harm to others and it's against the law PERIOD Even ATS does not allow the milder forms of harassment, so I don't see the problem with making sure platform owners actually enforce their policies and follow the law.

But still you have been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism.

The online safety act isn't for the protection of children or citizens. It's quite obvious. Can you not see it?

I am reluctant to follow your agenda for labeling me as a leftist and whatever else you can dream up.

From what I've researched the Act includes those offline laws that existed for a long time including and most specifically aimed at the protection of children. Do your research then you will see it too.

What agenda??
I am not labeling you.
You have admitted yourself you're left wing and even if you haven't done it then your replies so it quite clearly.

The online safety act has one purpose only and we all know it. It's not what you're saying it is.

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

I’m not an extremist. Certainly never been part of a riot or violent protest.

I work hard, I pay my taxes, I abide by the law.

Again, you can’t bring yourself to criticise left wing extremism as you support their cause. When the shoe is on the other foot and your mob face cancellation for your opinions, don’t expect any sympathy from me. I’m a true libertarian, not a socialist hiding behind group think ideology and hijacking language to appear benevolent.

The biggest problem with the left is they’re too dumb to realise that they’re creating a rod for their own back. The first to fall in socialist regimes will be your pink haired tattoo covered LGBTQ types. You think hard working conservative military age men with strong families will be the target of authoritarian regimes or those who are prone to protest? Do the left leaning progressives fare well in countries like China or Russia? Be careful what you wish for.

Extremism acts are defined quite specifically by the laws put in place. If any person or group of people break those laws - online or offline - then they should be held accountable and punished. Is my stance.

You ve been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism and the BLM and Antifa groups. It's quite clear why.

If they break the laws then they should be held accountable and punished is my stance.

All I see happening here with the Online Safety Act is a moving of existing offline laws of protection of citizens/users to fill in the gaps that exist online. To me the onus to police the platform rests solely with the owners and their agents. The question is will the owners and their agents properly police their platform and not give into their political ideologies, bias' and other weaknesses all humans have to grapple with. If they get sloppy and allow harm to others then users will complain to the proper authorities and the platform owners will be warned, fined or shut down depending on the severity of the infraction or repeated infractions that are ignored.

As I've said too many times to count, free speech with hate/vitriol or types of intimidation/threats or libel/defamation should do no harm to others and it's against the law PERIOD Even ATS does not allow the milder forms of harassment, so I don't see the problem with making sure platform owners actually enforce their policies and follow the law.

But still you have been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism.

The online safety act isn't for the protection of children or citizens. It's quite obvious. Can you not see it?

I am reluctant to follow your agenda for labeling me as a leftist and whatever else you can dream up.

From what I've researched the Act includes those offline laws that existed for a long time including and most specifically aimed at the protection of children. Do your research then you will see it too.

What agenda??
I am not labeling you.
You have admitted yourself you're left wing and even if you haven't done it then your replies so it quite clearly.

The online safety act has one purpose only and we all know it. It's not what you're saying it is.

I have admitted to being in the middle/independent with leanings left or right depending on the issue. And on ATS what are the threads mostly leaning towards, let me help you, extremist right. If threads were centre leaning I would be giving 'thumbs up' and 'beer mugs' galore.

Well you are entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but I disagree only because it makes sense to force platform owners to protect children when children thus far have not been protected online.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

I’m not an extremist. Certainly never been part of a riot or violent protest.

I work hard, I pay my taxes, I abide by the law.

Again, you can’t bring yourself to criticise left wing extremism as you support their cause. When the shoe is on the other foot and your mob face cancellation for your opinions, don’t expect any sympathy from me. I’m a true libertarian, not a socialist hiding behind group think ideology and hijacking language to appear benevolent.

The biggest problem with the left is they’re too dumb to realise that they’re creating a rod for their own back. The first to fall in socialist regimes will be your pink haired tattoo covered LGBTQ types. You think hard working conservative military age men with strong families will be the target of authoritarian regimes or those who are prone to protest? Do the left leaning progressives fare well in countries like China or Russia? Be careful what you wish for.

Extremism acts are defined quite specifically by the laws put in place. If any person or group of people break those laws - online or offline - then they should be held accountable and punished. Is my stance.

You ve been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism and the BLM and Antifa groups. It's quite clear why.

If they break the laws then they should be held accountable and punished is my stance.

All I see happening here with the Online Safety Act is a moving of existing offline laws of protection of citizens/users to fill in the gaps that exist online. To me the onus to police the platform rests solely with the owners and their agents. The question is will the owners and their agents properly police their platform and not give into their political ideologies, bias' and other weaknesses all humans have to grapple with. If they get sloppy and allow harm to others then users will complain to the proper authorities and the platform owners will be warned, fined or shut down depending on the severity of the infraction or repeated infractions that are ignored.

As I've said too many times to count, free speech with hate/vitriol or types of intimidation/threats or libel/defamation should do no harm to others and it's against the law PERIOD Even ATS does not allow the milder forms of harassment, so I don't see the problem with making sure platform owners actually enforce their policies and follow the law.

But still you have been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism.

The online safety act isn't for the protection of children or citizens. It's quite obvious. Can you not see it?

I am reluctant to follow your agenda for labeling me as a leftist and whatever else you can dream up.

From what I've researched the Act includes those offline laws that existed for a long time including and most specifically aimed at the protection of children. Do your research then you will see it too.

What agenda??
I am not labeling you.
You have admitted yourself you're left wing and even if you haven't done it then your replies so it quite clearly.

The online safety act has one purpose only and we all know it. It's not what you're saying it is.

I have admitted to being in the middle/independent with leanings left or right depending on the issue. And on ATS what are the threads mostly leaning towards, let me help you, extremist right. If threads were centre leaning I would be giving 'thumbs up' and 'beer mugs' galore.

Well you are entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but I disagree only because it makes sense to force platform owners to protect children when children thus far have not been protected online.

That's your own interpretation.
Many of the threads are against the woke culture and ideology. To see them as extreme right means you accept the teachings of the woke ideology.

The online safety act isn't about protecting children but for censoring and silencing individuals and entire platforms of needed.

It could be this one by the way.

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

I’m not an extremist. Certainly never been part of a riot or violent protest.

I work hard, I pay my taxes, I abide by the law.

Again, you can’t bring yourself to criticise left wing extremism as you support their cause. When the shoe is on the other foot and your mob face cancellation for your opinions, don’t expect any sympathy from me. I’m a true libertarian, not a socialist hiding behind group think ideology and hijacking language to appear benevolent.

The biggest problem with the left is they’re too dumb to realise that they’re creating a rod for their own back. The first to fall in socialist regimes will be your pink haired tattoo covered LGBTQ types. You think hard working conservative military age men with strong families will be the target of authoritarian regimes or those who are prone to protest? Do the left leaning progressives fare well in countries like China or Russia? Be careful what you wish for.

Extremism acts are defined quite specifically by the laws put in place. If any person or group of people break those laws - online or offline - then they should be held accountable and punished. Is my stance.

You ve been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism and the BLM and Antifa groups. It's quite clear why.

If they break the laws then they should be held accountable and punished is my stance.

All I see happening here with the Online Safety Act is a moving of existing offline laws of protection of citizens/users to fill in the gaps that exist online. To me the onus to police the platform rests solely with the owners and their agents. The question is will the owners and their agents properly police their platform and not give into their political ideologies, bias' and other weaknesses all humans have to grapple with. If they get sloppy and allow harm to others then users will complain to the proper authorities and the platform owners will be warned, fined or shut down depending on the severity of the infraction or repeated infractions that are ignored.

As I've said too many times to count, free speech with hate/vitriol or types of intimidation/threats or libel/defamation should do no harm to others and it's against the law PERIOD Even ATS does not allow the milder forms of harassment, so I don't see the problem with making sure platform owners actually enforce their policies and follow the law.

But still you have been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism.

The online safety act isn't for the protection of children or citizens. It's quite obvious. Can you not see it?

I am reluctant to follow your agenda for labeling me as a leftist and whatever else you can dream up.

From what I've researched the Act includes those offline laws that existed for a long time including and most specifically aimed at the protection of children. Do your research then you will see it too.

What agenda??
I am not labeling you.
You have admitted yourself you're left wing and even if you haven't done it then your replies so it quite clearly.

The online safety act has one purpose only and we all know it. It's not what you're saying it is.

I have admitted to being in the middle/independent with leanings left or right depending on the issue. And on ATS what are the threads mostly leaning towards, let me help you, extremist right. If threads were centre leaning I would be giving 'thumbs up' and 'beer mugs' galore.

Well you are entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but I disagree only because it makes sense to force platform owners to protect children when children thus far have not been protected online.

That's your own interpretation.
Many of the threads are against the woke culture and ideology. To see them as extreme right means you accept the teachings of the woke ideology.

The online safety act isn't about protecting children but for censoring and silencing individuals and entire platforms of needed.

It could be this one by the way.

I see intolerance and taking away a citizen's rights in any form as extremist and mostly those who agree with these acts admit they are either Christian Conservative Republicans or on the far (another word for extremist) right. I've seen posters who admit to being on the right that don't have these extremist views, so yes, most threads here based on intolerance, hate and shaming (under the guise of free speech) come from extremists who do not self-describe as being anywhere else but the right.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: quintessentone

I’m not an extremist. Certainly never been part of a riot or violent protest.

I work hard, I pay my taxes, I abide by the law.

Again, you can’t bring yourself to criticise left wing extremism as you support their cause. When the shoe is on the other foot and your mob face cancellation for your opinions, don’t expect any sympathy from me. I’m a true libertarian, not a socialist hiding behind group think ideology and hijacking language to appear benevolent.

The biggest problem with the left is they’re too dumb to realise that they’re creating a rod for their own back. The first to fall in socialist regimes will be your pink haired tattoo covered LGBTQ types. You think hard working conservative military age men with strong families will be the target of authoritarian regimes or those who are prone to protest? Do the left leaning progressives fare well in countries like China or Russia? Be careful what you wish for.

Extremism acts are defined quite specifically by the laws put in place. If any person or group of people break those laws - online or offline - then they should be held accountable and punished. Is my stance.

You ve been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism and the BLM and Antifa groups. It's quite clear why.

If they break the laws then they should be held accountable and punished is my stance.

All I see happening here with the Online Safety Act is a moving of existing offline laws of protection of citizens/users to fill in the gaps that exist online. To me the onus to police the platform rests solely with the owners and their agents. The question is will the owners and their agents properly police their platform and not give into their political ideologies, bias' and other weaknesses all humans have to grapple with. If they get sloppy and allow harm to others then users will complain to the proper authorities and the platform owners will be warned, fined or shut down depending on the severity of the infraction or repeated infractions that are ignored.

As I've said too many times to count, free speech with hate/vitriol or types of intimidation/threats or libel/defamation should do no harm to others and it's against the law PERIOD Even ATS does not allow the milder forms of harassment, so I don't see the problem with making sure platform owners actually enforce their policies and follow the law.

But still you have been reluctant to criticise the radical left wing extremism.

The online safety act isn't for the protection of children or citizens. It's quite obvious. Can you not see it?

I am reluctant to follow your agenda for labeling me as a leftist and whatever else you can dream up.

From what I've researched the Act includes those offline laws that existed for a long time including and most specifically aimed at the protection of children. Do your research then you will see it too.

What agenda??
I am not labeling you.
You have admitted yourself you're left wing and even if you haven't done it then your replies so it quite clearly.

The online safety act has one purpose only and we all know it. It's not what you're saying it is.

I have admitted to being in the middle/independent with leanings left or right depending on the issue. And on ATS what are the threads mostly leaning towards, let me help you, extremist right. If threads were centre leaning I would be giving 'thumbs up' and 'beer mugs' galore.

Well you are entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but I disagree only because it makes sense to force platform owners to protect children when children thus far have not been protected online.

That's your own interpretation.
Many of the threads are against the woke culture and ideology. To see them as extreme right means you accept the teachings of the woke ideology.

The online safety act isn't about protecting children but for censoring and silencing individuals and entire platforms of needed.

It could be this one by the way.

I see intolerance and taking away a citizen's rights in any form as extremist and mostly those who agree with these acts admit they are either Christian Conservative Republicans or on the far (another word for extremist) right. I've seen posters who admit to being on the right that don't have these extremist views, so yes, most threads here based on intolerance, hate and shaming (under the guise of free speech) come from extremists who do not self-describe as being anywhere else but the right.

Still these are your own interpretations.
Do you understand that you have just called free speech as right wing-hate speech-intolerant coming from extremists. Where have I seen this before?

a reply to: quintessentone

You see it coming from the right because to you left wing speech, even if it promotes intolerance and even violence, isn't seen as hate speech. Here are some examples of left wing hate speech:

1. Hillary Clinton - she proposed sending all of Trumps supporters to re-education camps
2. Riley Gaines was actually held captive and physically assaulted based on her views
3. Youtube bans medical doctors if Youtube does not agree with their opinions
4. The Biden administration asked the FBI to lie to social media companies to hide Hunter's laptop story

You have to admit all three of those are pretty extreme - and none of them could be considered right wing.

All this talk about "protecting children" but will it really?

Here's the best solution: ban children under a certain age from the internet!

Yes, it's extreme but so is this bill.

originally posted by: Daughter2

All this talk about "protecting children" but will it really?

Here's the best solution: ban children under a certain age from the internet!

Yes, it's extreme but so is this bill.

That's an excuse to push the bill.
There is nothing new there that protects children. All it does is to create the basis for further surveillance and interference with the aim to censor and silence free speech.

Well worth the read to see what's coming down the road

www.zerohedge.com...

As an American with English heritage in the UK

I say there’s nothing wrong with the uk strictly monitoring the data with safety against hate by arresting hate speech sent on the internet

I actually assume we Americans need more strict law of the same for our American internet, having the police arrest (genocide talk and hate speech) If the police refuse to arrest these nutsos then give them a fine and a warning)

Think about the fact of earning corporate money on the laptop an how everything on the internet has to do with internet labor (how us Americans say working at home)

If we do not have the police intervene on the internet, what happens when corporate money earned vanished without a trace from a cyber terrorist?

I also assume cyber terrorists using software to infiltrate the financial data on the internet is illegal and the police should start arresting these cyber terrorists stealing internet data on the laptop from us regular average joe people

Would you be happy knowing your laptop and safe financially with police arresting cyber terorists?

Let’s not forget the disgusting genocide talk with hate speech

What about the iPhone Apple products to? The (Apple) Market Software for Applications is full of scammers profiting on fake activity.

Do this task free to earn and never receive what was promised or pay this to earn extra more type of scammers on the Apple Applications have to be thrown off the Apple market!

a reply to: Sendmelove1987

There's no such thing as hate speech, and even if there was it is 100% protected by the first amendment. The only speech that is not protected is speech that actively calls for violence or is a direct threat. As an American, I don't want ANY government entity having ANY say over what I can and cannot say. They cannot be trusted with that kind of power.