8 ms·

UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

169 points by StuntPope 3y ago

mikece 3y ago
Aside from "the dark web," are there any efforts to create an impossible-to-censor parallel version or subset of the internet?
- StuntPope 3y ago
  Nostr and SimpleX look promising.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  You can rarely solve a social problem by technical means alone. Get involved. The reason the government is full of decrepit dotards, blustering fanatics, and greedy criminals is because nobody else seems to want to participate anymore.
- varispeed 3y ago
  Who wants to hide whatever, can already assume the current methods of communications are compromised. I think it will be a cat and mouse game, where people will be finding more and more creative ways of exchanging keys and disguising encrypted messages in seemingly normal conversations or images. It will be again something that won't affect serious criminals, but will give government an insight into who is committing wrong think of the given year (as these things change over time). I can also imagine, given the wages in the UK are pretty bad, especially for engineers, many of those working on the necessary infrastructure would be tempted by the ideas of insider trading, leaking company and private secrets to the highest bidder and so on. It feels like this government just doesn't give a flying toss and they just want take a dip into people private lives and see what they can get out of it. What is even more worrying is that the opposition also supports this bill.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
  No because people with enough influence will terminate your hosting, domain name, isp, bank account, or just get your site blocked. See kiwi farms, nigel farage, and the wikipedia-iwf dust-up. Mastodon and the fediverse are close, maybe, but many instances refuse to "speak" to one another because of their users.
  - mc32 3y ago
    Exactly. Last election cycle we saw all sorts of excuses to deplatform certain communities and viewpoints, some very disagreeable but some just had a different point of view on some health related topics.
  - bonzini 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Pannoniae 3y ago
      It is a very good example though.... It's a horrendous site, but freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept. Censorship always starts with the weakest and most hated target, then moves onto the less controversial ones.
      - bonzini 3y ago
        > freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept That is not the case in large parts of the world. WikiLeaks might be a better example.
        Pannoniae 3y ago
        "That is not the case in large parts of the world" that doesn't mean giving up and accepting it. "Are you defending X?"-type attacks are horrendous and just contribute to polarisation. Everyone deserves free speech, not just people I like.
        3y ago
- IshKebab 3y ago
  There's Freenet but these sorts of projects generally have issues because the biggest segments of society that want impossible-to-censor are also the worst.
  - kypro 3y ago
    Wasn't this somewhat true of VPNs say 10 years ago? My perception back then was that people who used VPNs were generally dodgy people who wanted to illegally download things online or mask their identity while doing various other illegal things. But in recent years geo-restrictions, ISP blacklists, and data collection have forced more and more users to use VPNs to the point where their use today is fairly common. Obviously I'm not in favour of this legislation, but I would hope that the more the governments seek to censor content and attack encryption online the more people will use services that are un-censorable and encrypted. Short of requiring spy-ware on all of our devices there's fundamentally very little governments can actually do to prevent this. In fact, the harder they fight the more they'll push people out of their reach.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    > because the biggest segments of society that want impossible-to-censor are also the worst. This is not true, this is slander. Child pornographers use whatever is available to them. Censors, however, spend all of their time trying to associate people who wish to speak, listen, and associate freely with child pornographers.
    - monksy 3y ago
      Don't forget politicians will also say the same thing. Politicians being censors?! no way in a democracy(rollseyes)
      - vGPU 3y ago
        “For the children” They say As they cart you off to the gulag.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
So the UK finally wants to create the Ministry of Truth?
- dang 3y ago
  Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    Maybe unsubstantive, but it's the closest analogy everyone can understand.
    - dang 3y ago
      If everyone can understand something, then repeating it won't lead any place new. We're trying to optimize for curiosity [1], so we're trying to avoid repetition [2]. That goes double for the repetitive+indignant sort of internet comment—those almost always lead to shallow conversation. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
- LightBug1 3y ago
  Not sure why this is flagged.
classified 3y ago
The self-anointed saviors of mankind know best, and they can do no wrong.
- dang 3y ago
  Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
akomtu 3y ago
It's "Online Harms (to the UK royalty) Bill". The lords and dukes are very worried.
- toyg 3y ago
  Lords and dukes don't give a monkey - in fact, the House of Lords has largely been a progressive organ over the last 20 years. Turns out that, once they're given a sinecure, political hacks and flunkeys often rediscover their ethics and morals. This is more the "Online Harm To Tory Propaganda And Election Chances Bill".
  - varispeed 3y ago
    > This is more the "Online Harm To Tory Propaganda And Election Chances Bill". Hey, let's not forget that Labour also supports this bill.
    - toyg 3y ago
      Yeah but one of those parties can drop it, and they won't.
somecompanyguy 3y ago
[flagged]
happytiger 3y ago
Do they not realize that they will kill democracy in the process?
- rosmax_1337 3y ago
  "They" don't believe in democracy anyway, they like to make people think they believe in democracy, but really they're like any other despots around the world.
- christoph 3y ago
  I think they absolutely do. The more serious question is, do the general public realise?
- makingstuffs 3y ago
  It’s a feature, not a bug - Them, probably
- treeman79 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Rexogamer 3y ago
    we are currently under a right wing government whose media friends smeared their only real opposition as... a dangerous communist who would destroy the country. their main opposition now are copying more and more of their policies. they are not, in fact, communists and are pretty far away from ever being left of centre.
    - PKop 3y ago
      A Right wing government would stop mass immigration and not promote leftist social values as current UK government/establishment does. Far away from right wing, certainly not nationalist in any way.
      - Rexogamer 3y ago
LightBug1 3y ago
[flagged]
elforce002 3y ago
One question to UK fellas: is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china?
- suid 3y ago
  "Becoming"? It's been happening for 20 years now.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  Remember 1984, written by Englishman George Orwell? It's worth remembering that in part that was a commentary on British society, through a future lens. When the UK does things which remind of you that, it isn't a coincidence. To be clear I'm not saying "this is literally 1984" or anything like that, I'm just trying to explain how "surveillance state" and "UK" have a LOT of known history.
  - godelski 3y ago
    1984 also wasn't about being watched at all times, it was about how the government had _the potential to_ watch its citizens at any time. And how the citizens changed their behaviors due to this. I mean the government doesn't watch you in the bathrooms, but they are scraping all internet info, have a lot of cameras, and are even flying planes in the sky to record data. People may not be watching those things, but they do exist. I think the big difference is that most citizens aren't aware of this level of invasion into their lives and they haven't really changed their behaviors because of it. That's probably the biggest difference between 1984.
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      That's very well stated, and I think it's best encapsulated in how popular the semi-joking phrase, "Well now I'm on a list" came about.
- kroltan 3y ago
  The West is not against surveillance, apparently, everyone wants to do it! It's been a market for a good while now. UK is just wsocialising it.
stuckinhell 3y ago
I don't like this at all, especially in a world where we are finding out so many top scientists lied or fabricated data in their research. The PRESIDENT of Stanford just resigned! It's clear we cannot trust the institutional powers to self-regulate and do the right thing.
- kneebonian 3y ago
  DO NOT DENIGRATE THE SCIENCE! The Science is settled and the science is holy, it came down to us from the anointed scientists and anyone who disagrees with or questions the science is a dangerous heretic, wishing to spread misinformation and promote hate. You aren't qualified to ask questions, the science is settled the science has spoken, you are a lowly non-government non-scientist and you are not to get out of line. After all you know who else questions the science, climate deniers, and anti-vaxxers and Neo-Nazis and transphobes. So don't question the science it is settled, and you better no longer talk back to your betters.
  - 128bytes 3y ago
    "They described the strange feeling of peace that came over them when they handled the Book of Science, the pleasure that it was to repeat certain statistics out of it, however little meaning those statistics conveyed to the outward ear, the ecstasy of touching an instrument, however unimportant, or of hearing new Scientific revelation, however superflous. "The Science," they exclaimed, "feeds us and protects us and elevates us; with it we speak to one another, with it we teach one another, in it is the totality of being. The Science is the friend of rationality and the enemy of superstition: the Science is omniscient, unquestioned; blessed is the Science." And before long this allocution was printed on the first page of the Book, and in subsequent editions the ritual swelled into a complicated system of praise and prayer." - A parody of The Machine Stops
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - monksy 3y ago
    That was the politicians who did that. They even disincentivized valid research and policies that would help. (I.e. testing strategies, masking, quality of masks, programs to get masks out, etc)
kneebonian 3y ago
"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquillity of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the fifth, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. They were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic, you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the Old Bailey to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words; they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot."
- callalex 3y ago
stainablesteel 3y ago
my serious prediction of this country is 20 years does not look good
- HtmlProgrammer 3y ago
  Make your money and get out my friend. As off the grid as possible in the country is where it’s at
Jigsy 3y ago
Sadly, to paraphrase a now deceased UK judge: "Due process is whatever the government of the day says it is."
owlbite 3y ago
UK MPs: "We're very worried about people debunked due to their repulsive beliefs". Also UK MPs: "We believe ISPs should be able to deinternet people's views based an arbitrary computer models of dubious accuracy." How long before these two views are exposed as contradictory? (Or do they just resolve that internally as "we only support dewhatevering people we don't like"?)
- vixen99 3y ago
  I think the MP meant 'debanked'.
- hayd 3y ago
  Ah ha, but you can't have "repulsive beliefs" if we suppress them... like they do in much of Europe! It seemed like most MPs weren't actually bothered about debanking, it's been going on for several years now and surely many of those people affected wrote/spoke to their local MP. It's required someone like Farage to kick up a fuss about it. Hopefully we'll see proper legislation to prevent it going forward but I won't hold my breath. The next government is going to be even more all-in on the authoritarian/blasphemy-laws nonsense.
wesleywt 3y ago
The Great Firewall of China will become the norm of the internet not the outlier.

169 points by StuntPope 3y ago

Aside from "the dark web," are there any efforts to create an impossible-to-censor parallel version or subset of the internet?

StuntPope 3y ago
Nostr and SimpleX look promising.
CamperBob2 3y ago
You can rarely solve a social problem by technical means alone. Get involved. The reason the government is full of decrepit dotards, blustering fanatics, and greedy criminals is because nobody else seems to want to participate anymore.
varispeed 3y ago
Who wants to hide whatever, can already assume the current methods of communications are compromised. I think it will be a cat and mouse game, where people will be finding more and more creative ways of exchanging keys and disguising encrypted messages in seemingly normal conversations or images. It will be again something that won't affect serious criminals, but will give government an insight into who is committing wrong think of the given year (as these things change over time). I can also imagine, given the wages in the UK are pretty bad, especially for engineers, many of those working on the necessary infrastructure would be tempted by the ideas of insider trading, leaking company and private secrets to the highest bidder and so on. It feels like this government just doesn't give a flying toss and they just want take a dip into people private lives and see what they can get out of it. What is even more worrying is that the opposition also supports this bill.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
No because people with enough influence will terminate your hosting, domain name, isp, bank account, or just get your site blocked. See kiwi farms, nigel farage, and the wikipedia-iwf dust-up. Mastodon and the fediverse are close, maybe, but many instances refuse to "speak" to one another because of their users.
- mc32 3y ago
  Exactly. Last election cycle we saw all sorts of excuses to deplatform certain communities and viewpoints, some very disagreeable but some just had a different point of view on some health related topics.
- bonzini 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    It is a very good example though.... It's a horrendous site, but freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept. Censorship always starts with the weakest and most hated target, then moves onto the less controversial ones.
    - bonzini 3y ago
      > freedom of speech doesn't only apply to people I like or accept That is not the case in large parts of the world. WikiLeaks might be a better example.
      - Pannoniae 3y ago
        "That is not the case in large parts of the world" that doesn't mean giving up and accepting it. "Are you defending X?"-type attacks are horrendous and just contribute to polarisation. Everyone deserves free speech, not just people I like.
        3y ago
IshKebab 3y ago
There's Freenet but these sorts of projects generally have issues because the biggest segments of society that want impossible-to-censor are also the worst.
- kypro 3y ago
  Wasn't this somewhat true of VPNs say 10 years ago? My perception back then was that people who used VPNs were generally dodgy people who wanted to illegally download things online or mask their identity while doing various other illegal things. But in recent years geo-restrictions, ISP blacklists, and data collection have forced more and more users to use VPNs to the point where their use today is fairly common. Obviously I'm not in favour of this legislation, but I would hope that the more the governments seek to censor content and attack encryption online the more people will use services that are un-censorable and encrypted. Short of requiring spy-ware on all of our devices there's fundamentally very little governments can actually do to prevent this. In fact, the harder they fight the more they'll push people out of their reach.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > because the biggest segments of society that want impossible-to-censor are also the worst. This is not true, this is slander. Child pornographers use whatever is available to them. Censors, however, spend all of their time trying to associate people who wish to speak, listen, and associate freely with child pornographers.
  - monksy 3y ago
    Don't forget politicians will also say the same thing. Politicians being censors?! no way in a democracy(rollseyes)
    - vGPU 3y ago
      “For the children” They say As they cart you off to the gulag.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

So the UK finally wants to create the Ministry of Truth?

dang 3y ago
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  Maybe unsubstantive, but it's the closest analogy everyone can understand.
  - dang 3y ago
    If everyone can understand something, then repeating it won't lead any place new. We're trying to optimize for curiosity [1], so we're trying to avoid repetition [2]. That goes double for the repetitive+indignant sort of internet comment—those almost always lead to shallow conversation. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
LightBug1 3y ago
Not sure why this is flagged.

classified 3y ago

The self-anointed saviors of mankind know best, and they can do no wrong.

dang 3y ago
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

akomtu 3y ago

It's "Online Harms (to the UK royalty) Bill". The lords and dukes are very worried.

toyg 3y ago
Lords and dukes don't give a monkey - in fact, the House of Lords has largely been a progressive organ over the last 20 years. Turns out that, once they're given a sinecure, political hacks and flunkeys often rediscover their ethics and morals. This is more the "Online Harm To Tory Propaganda And Election Chances Bill".
- varispeed 3y ago
  > This is more the "Online Harm To Tory Propaganda And Election Chances Bill". Hey, let's not forget that Labour also supports this bill.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Yeah but one of those parties can drop it, and they won't.

somecompanyguy 3y ago

[flagged]

happytiger 3y ago

Do they not realize that they will kill democracy in the process?

rosmax_1337 3y ago
"They" don't believe in democracy anyway, they like to make people think they believe in democracy, but really they're like any other despots around the world.
christoph 3y ago
I think they absolutely do. The more serious question is, do the general public realise?
makingstuffs 3y ago
It’s a feature, not a bug - Them, probably
treeman79 3y ago
[flagged]
- Rexogamer 3y ago
  we are currently under a right wing government whose media friends smeared their only real opposition as... a dangerous communist who would destroy the country. their main opposition now are copying more and more of their policies. they are not, in fact, communists and are pretty far away from ever being left of centre.
  - PKop 3y ago
    A Right wing government would stop mass immigration and not promote leftist social values as current UK government/establishment does. Far away from right wing, certainly not nationalist in any way.
    - Rexogamer 3y ago

LightBug1 3y ago

[flagged]

elforce002 3y ago

One question to UK fellas: is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china?

suid 3y ago
"Becoming"? It's been happening for 20 years now.
EA-3167 3y ago
Remember 1984, written by Englishman George Orwell? It's worth remembering that in part that was a commentary on British society, through a future lens. When the UK does things which remind of you that, it isn't a coincidence. To be clear I'm not saying "this is literally 1984" or anything like that, I'm just trying to explain how "surveillance state" and "UK" have a LOT of known history.
- godelski 3y ago
  1984 also wasn't about being watched at all times, it was about how the government had _the potential to_ watch its citizens at any time. And how the citizens changed their behaviors due to this. I mean the government doesn't watch you in the bathrooms, but they are scraping all internet info, have a lot of cameras, and are even flying planes in the sky to record data. People may not be watching those things, but they do exist. I think the big difference is that most citizens aren't aware of this level of invasion into their lives and they haven't really changed their behaviors because of it. That's probably the biggest difference between 1984.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    That's very well stated, and I think it's best encapsulated in how popular the semi-joking phrase, "Well now I'm on a list" came about.
kroltan 3y ago
The West is not against surveillance, apparently, everyone wants to do it! It's been a market for a good while now. UK is just wsocialising it.

stuckinhell 3y ago

I don't like this at all, especially in a world where we are finding out so many top scientists lied or fabricated data in their research. The PRESIDENT of Stanford just resigned! It's clear we cannot trust the institutional powers to self-regulate and do the right thing.

kneebonian 3y ago
DO NOT DENIGRATE THE SCIENCE! The Science is settled and the science is holy, it came down to us from the anointed scientists and anyone who disagrees with or questions the science is a dangerous heretic, wishing to spread misinformation and promote hate. You aren't qualified to ask questions, the science is settled the science has spoken, you are a lowly non-government non-scientist and you are not to get out of line. After all you know who else questions the science, climate deniers, and anti-vaxxers and Neo-Nazis and transphobes. So don't question the science it is settled, and you better no longer talk back to your betters.
- 128bytes 3y ago
  "They described the strange feeling of peace that came over them when they handled the Book of Science, the pleasure that it was to repeat certain statistics out of it, however little meaning those statistics conveyed to the outward ear, the ecstasy of touching an instrument, however unimportant, or of hearing new Scientific revelation, however superflous. "The Science," they exclaimed, "feeds us and protects us and elevates us; with it we speak to one another, with it we teach one another, in it is the totality of being. The Science is the friend of rationality and the enemy of superstition: the Science is omniscient, unquestioned; blessed is the Science." And before long this allocution was printed on the first page of the Book, and in subsequent editions the ritual swelled into a complicated system of praise and prayer." - A parody of The Machine Stops
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- monksy 3y ago
  That was the politicians who did that. They even disincentivized valid research and policies that would help. (I.e. testing strategies, masking, quality of masks, programs to get masks out, etc)

kneebonian 3y ago

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquillity of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated with a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the fifth, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. They were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic, you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the Old Bailey to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words; they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot."

callalex 3y ago

stainablesteel 3y ago

my serious prediction of this country is 20 years does not look good

HtmlProgrammer 3y ago
Make your money and get out my friend. As off the grid as possible in the country is where it’s at

Jigsy 3y ago

Sadly, to paraphrase a now deceased UK judge: "Due process is whatever the government of the day says it is."

owlbite 3y ago

UK MPs: "We're very worried about people debunked due to their repulsive beliefs". Also UK MPs: "We believe ISPs should be able to deinternet people's views based an arbitrary computer models of dubious accuracy." How long before these two views are exposed as contradictory? (Or do they just resolve that internally as "we only support dewhatevering people we don't like"?)

vixen99 3y ago
I think the MP meant 'debanked'.
hayd 3y ago
Ah ha, but you can't have "repulsive beliefs" if we suppress them... like they do in much of Europe! It seemed like most MPs weren't actually bothered about debanking, it's been going on for several years now and surely many of those people affected wrote/spoke to their local MP. It's required someone like Farage to kick up a fuss about it. Hopefully we'll see proper legislation to prevent it going forward but I won't hold my breath. The next government is going to be even more all-in on the authoritarian/blasphemy-laws nonsense.

wesleywt 3y ago

The Great Firewall of China will become the norm of the internet not the outlier.