20 ms·

Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in su

Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government. Like maybe Adolescence or basically any mention of the NHS. The crimes they cite like child grooming or terrorism/hate being incited sound pretty terrible too, but I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it.

kevinventullo 1y ago
Neither, they’re just the most convenient excuses for instituting draconian laws.
happymellon 1y ago
Because the media always paints other countries in certain lights, as it helps them build a narrative for their own governments? > complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government I disagree with this sentiment, however it does show how bad "democracy" can be when voting for a complete government change results in absolutely no change whatsoever.
- MaxPock 1y ago
  Authoritarian CCTV cameras in Shenzhen Vs democratic CCTV cameras in London
  - happymellon 1y ago
    Heavily monitored London, freedom America. https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-prevalence-cctv-cameras-large-cities.html https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-prevalence-cctv-cameras-... Oh wait, Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km. Narrative.
    - Saline9515 1y ago
      Paris and Seoul are much denser than London. A better measure is the cameras/habitant or the % of coverage. London has 100% coverage for instance.
      - happymellon 1y ago
        > better measure is the cameras/habitant How so? If I have a car lot, I'll have multiple cameras for a tiny area bumping the average camera per person without meaningful results. Sounds like the worst measurement unless you are trying to push a narrative.
        Saline9515 1y ago
        Large parts if London are just forests, unlike Paris which is one of the densest places on earth. So of course density of population affects camera per sqm: you tend to place more cameras where there are people. This is also why I said that coverage is even a better measure: "what are the odds that I'm being filmed, now".
      - lavezzi 1y ago
        > London has 100% coverage for instance. What? > Large parts if London are just forests What?
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      > Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km You listed extremely dense cities. Of course they have more cameras per square. This isn’t a narrative violation, it’s basic math.
      - happymellon 1y ago
        I think its highly relevant when we have people pushing the faulty logic narrative that the UK is China and using CCTV as a measurement for their case. UK bad because online safety rules, let's ignore US states that already do this. > Don't mind what we are doing, the UK is worse. Not defending the UK, but they aren't the first and you dont get the same inflammatory racist language with other countries.
derelicta 1y ago
The Bourgeois love to divide the working class, typical divide and conquer. Indigenous worker vs imported worker, men vs women, queer vs straight, old vs young, car user vs bicycle rider. This is important because it weakens existing solidarities and prevent the emergence of class consciousness. It's part of their modus operandi and has been for centuries, only now they master it thanks to algorithms and machine learning. This increased surveillance also happens to be extremely useful at taming future strikes and protests, or rat out future pro-workers groups
- mft_ 1y ago
  This view (“the Bourgeois’, etc.) seems to imply there’s a group of very clever manipulators somewhere, overtly planning and executing this (presumably in a dark room with armchairs and cigars). But I just can’t imagine this, in the UK’s example. What I see instead is the other side of Hanlon’s razor —incompetence— coupled with a political class riven with pockets of self-interest, and very few seemingly with an intellectual hypothesis to explain the UK’s current predicament, or to chart a path out of it.
  - KineticLensman 1y ago
    Elements of the UK media fulfil this role, continually advancing a corrosive narrative that the country is broken. E.g. frequently using the words ‘lawless’ or ‘tinderbox’ in any headline or op-ed title that also contains the word ‘Britain’
    - mft_ 1y ago
      The closest I can imagine would be media owners - the Murdochs, the Barclays, etc. And of course, they can all be in bed with their own special interest groups, or particular friends. But they're also acting differently, mostly out of self-interest, and in totally different uncoordinated directions.
  - sapphicsnail 1y ago
    Have you read the Telegraph or pretty much any UK media lately?
mattlondon 1y ago
Not saying I agree with the legislation, but the UK experienced a lot of pretty bad domestic terrorism in the rememberable past (namely IRA bombs detonating in towns and cities etc, often with devastating impacts). Then there were the tube and bus suicide bombings more recently. And there has also been a constant pitter-patter of "radicalised lone wolf" type things like the Ariana Grande concert bomber, the guy who killed a load of 8 year old girls at a summer camp and so on. None of this is porn of course, but supposedly a lot of the lone wolf's are radicalised online so it creates a lot of "someone needs to do something!!!!" type attitudes (and no public gun ownership would not work like everyone says it would because the USA had that yet no one lifted a finger when they needed to recently, and now look what's happened), and sadly the older and more little-c conservative population carriers more clout in terms of policies because historically they tend to vote in greater numbers than younger groups. N.b. that 16 and 17 year olds have very recently been given the right to vote so things may change.
- vaylian 1y ago
  > Then there were the tube and bus suicide bombings more recently. That was 20 years ago. Not really recently.
  - 4ugSWklu 1y ago
    If you read very carefully, you'll see that the word "more" is key in that sentence.
    - vaylian 1y ago
      Technically true, but also besides the point. These are not recent events.
      - mattlondon 1y ago
        Yes but they are part of the lived experience of a large part of the country. So these are not some dusty forgotten thing from history books that people might read about, it was stuff they saw on TV and is back in the news whenever a round-number anniversary comes up etc. The point I was trying to make is that quite shocking bad things happened semi-recently, and more shocking bad things continue to happen. It appears in the news over and over and over about people being radicalised online. I get why people think this is a good idea - you need to prove age to buy knives and cigarettes etc, so they think "why not" for porn and other "adult" things online.
cs02rm0 1y ago
The UK is becoming increasingly authoritarian in ways that feel increasingly antagonistic to the majority of the population, regardless of political party. Taxes are rising (with tax take falling), crimes are going unchecked, just mentioning increased immigration gets a lot of people's backs up, but as GDP per capita continues to stall and even fall, the pressure it puts on services is a factor for many. And we're seeing those with a few quid to rub together leave, but as long as those people leaving are straight, white males, or their families, they're being told "good riddance" regardless of the brain drain and loss of tax income. On the NHS, I tried for years to push for improvements to switch to digital cancer screening invitations after they missed my mother (offering to build the software for free), which is now happening, but suggesting the NHS isn't perfect is against the religion here. My sister who works in NHS DEI hasn't spoken to me since publishing a book on it. Every time someone with the finances, vision and ability leaves I think the situation gets a little bit worse, it increases the proportion of people remaining willing to put up with all of it. Anecdotally, many of my friends have already left, some of the older generation want to leave but feel tied in. My flight out is in 6 weeks. Good riddance, no doubt.
- jerry1979 1y ago
  Out of curiosity, where are people going?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - squidbeak 1y ago
    They aren't. The figures suggesting the rich are leaving come from Henley & Partners, who aren't impartial. Anecdotally, the loaded people I know are all still here and largely back up polling data that the rich tend to favour higher taxes on themselves.
- piker 1y ago
  > Every time someone with the finances, vision and ability leaves I think the situation gets a little bit worse, it increases the proportion of people remaining willing to put up with all of it. This is the issue.
willvarfar 1y ago
Its because the popular press has, for a very long time, been pushing a narrative of a country under siege. It sells papers, but to keep selling papers, it has to keep steadily upping the narrative over time.
- badpenny 1y ago
  I agree, but isn't that the case in lots of other countries? I think it's a contributing factor, but there's more to it.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    It is the case elsewhere, remember how close France once got to Frexit and how close the far right were to winning their most recent general election with the same claims. But the UK has always to some extent enjoyed a fantasy of being an island under siege from mainland Europe and it something the nationalist press like to drum up. As for its increasing poverty, the UK went all-in on neoliberalism since the ‘80s, and especially in on austerity since 2008. Entry-level wages barely grew for over 10 years. Blame the EU for that, get Brexit, more expensive goods and damage to the financial sector the country relied on. Then Covid…
crimsoneer 1y ago
While I appreciate the concern, it's worth pointing out that 30 or so years ago "government should mandate id checks for harmful content" was not some radical dystopian notion. The UK was also one of the first nations to ban indoor smoking and in cars with kids. I think this is very much in that vein (politically).
JdeBP 1y ago
Don't believe the things that you read. Our newspapers have been openly biased for centuries, and there's some very shoddy journalism at times. See, for example: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  Idk I think the main cause of public discontent in the UK isn't what anyone is reading, it's the extremely obvious change in material conditions.
makingstuffs 1y ago
In a word, division. The UK is so divided that people are too busy pointing the finger at each other to realise the root cause of the deterioration of our quality of life is entirely generations of mismanagement of the public purse. Instead of questioning how MPs are entitled to a pay rise while your average person gets made redundant, people are questioning why people fleeing persecution should ‘be paid for with my tax money’. Brain fatigue and mixed signals combined with destitution and desperation drastically impede the average person’s ability and desire to fact check and extrapolate. We are moving towards a society of down and out people living with no hope serving the elite and those with a bit of money behind them. My fiancée and I have had enough and are also leaving in October. No idea where to all we know is we have a one way ticket away and will figure the rest out.
- badgersnake 1y ago
  MPs pay is a drop in a bucket there are many better things to question than that.
  - makingstuffs 1y ago
    It’s an example, it’s not a mutually exclusive situation. The point is that people are busy pointing the finger at each other instead of the people whom are paid to actually improve their lives.
    - emptyfile 1y ago
      [dead]
- fennecbutt 1y ago
  >people are questioning why people fleeing persecution Except many of them are not, they are economic migrants. And some have even realised that claiming that they're persecuted for lgbt reasons is an instant in - there was a case with a guy (with a wife and a bunch of children) that claimed to have written a pro lgbt article and now he's persecuted. As a gay man the thought of that sickens me, economic migrants using who I am as a shortcut to entry, I have no problem at all with genuinely lgbt individuals seeking refugee status; we're still persecuted in so many places and there's not enough of us to make change happen in those places. But the economic migrants...all they're doing is ensuring their home country never improves and that a steady stream of migrants continues into Europe. It'll never end.
elric 1y ago
And the EU is following suit. Brexit has never looked so stupid. They could have worked on expanding an authoritarian regime together. It's making me cynical, and I don't know what to do about it.
_kb 1y ago
Australia is doing its best to hardline digital (and more broadly social) authoritarianism too. It’s a sad future we’re accelerating towards.
abxyz 1y ago
You are approaching this from a uniquely U.S. perspective. The U.K. is pretty middle of the road as far as “surveillance” and while this may offend the freedom-at-all-costs sensibilities, it’s a fairly milquetoast change. Visiting the Heineken website in the U.S. requires that you assert you are over the age of 21. Texas has instituted I.D. verification for pornography. Regardless of how you feel about this law, it is not accurate to say the U.K. is unique in implementing it.
- aa-jv 1y ago
  >The U.K. is pretty middle of the road as far as “surveillance” Just, no. 5-eyes is the most heinous human-rights-destroying apparatus under the sun, and it wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the British desire to undermine cultures they have deemed inferior.
  - Steve16384 1y ago
    It's called 5-eyes because it's not just the UK.
    - aa-jv 1y ago
      It wouldn't be oppressive at massive scale, violating the human rights of billions of people, if the UK hadn't roped its lackeys into its co-criminal behaviour ..
      - Steve16384 1y ago
        Well, there was a world war going on!
- rubyAce 1y ago
  It his law combined with all the other iffy laws in the UK which make this nefarious. This is the issue about discussing anything about how draconian the UK is. If you compare any single law in isolation, it isn't that different. However if you take how the British authorities and how they operate it, and all the other laws you start to see a more draconian picture. That is what many people, especially those that do live in the UK don't appreciate.
citrin_ru 1y ago
> I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action Historically there is no formal constitution in the UK so Parliament is not limited in their power. IHMO it's the main factor why the UK is an outlier.
varispeed 1y ago
It's about corporate control - the more regulations like this - the more entrenched the market becomes. Higher barrier to enter for smaller players plus government gets all the surveillance apparatus as a sweetener. Basically Labour continues taking UK into corporate fascist utopia.
tim333 1y ago
>why the UK specifically is taking action We have a history of trying banning bad stuff. Magna Carta in the 1200s against the right of kings, slavery abolition in the 1800s, now porn being pushed to kids. I don't think child grooming or hate is particularly bad here but we tend to try to stop that kind of thing. We also had the first modern police force in 1829 and other innovations which have caught on in some other countries. Some of the US alt right media pushes broken Britain stories because we have some muslim immigrants or something. The majority of the public support the bill https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-adults-want-social-media-firms-to-do-more-to-tackle-harmful-content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-ad... I wonder if it's more the US is afraid of the their government that if they say they are promoting online saftey they are really going 1984 on the populace? Here people tend to assume they are in fact promoting what it says on the tin.
- giantg2 1y ago
  "Magna Carta in the 1200s against the right of kings" Seems like the pendulum has swung back now, doesn't it? Increasing authority/rights of the government instead of a king.
  - tim333 1y ago
    ~80% in favour of this stuff. Democracy for you.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      If opposing a bill could cause you to be put on a watchlist, it's pretty easy to get a "large majority" favoring it.
      - tim333 1y ago
        It's not at all like that. It's more the protect kids from sites 'that carry pornography as well as other “harmful” material that relates to self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.' I guess other counties are like screw the kids, I'm terrified of being IDd in case my government does bad things?
nickdothutton 1y ago
Politicians have not taken action on a wide spectrum of problems (some of which are crime related, other problems in society below the level of crime) for many decades now. While the economy is good, this doesn't occupy the mind of the public too much, life is OK. Now that the economy is not good, and has not been good since at least 2008, the public has begun to notice these things. The public has even started to notice domestic opinion management (nudge unit, 77th Brigade etc). Passing this sort of "manage the symptom not the cause" legislation has become popular. It's easier to do than deal with the cause, it pushes the actions onto 3rd parties, and superficially it sounds good to the general public. At least for a while. To get an idea of how "off target" the state itself is in managing serious crimes look no further than [1] (warning, pretty grim story, but very typical). [1]. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o Edited for typo.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Crime has, despite everything, gradually been falling. Scotland has a 100% murder clearup rate for the past several years. The incident you mentioned is yet another piece of fallout from Rochdale, but if you look closely the offences mentioned are from 20 years ago. I don't think that should be used to talk about the present. There is a lot more safeguarding these days. The main negative factor is the press, responsible for both "opinion management", doomerism, and sensationalist demands to Do Something in a way that doesn't help. The Online Safety Act and Brexit are both victories for the Daily Mail that are losses for the rest of the public.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    >Crime has, despite everything, gradually been falling. The rape rate has almost quadrupled in the last two decades: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-off...
rich_sasha 1y ago
Outside of techn journalism, this is a non story in the UK. I think it's hard to say much about the society's attitude when they don't know ow about this, never mind understand. Average UKian is, IME, surprisingly technologically unsavvy. This might be the root cause of lack of interest or protest. If I were to guess how this whole thing came to be, it would be thus: the UK government is increasingly dysfunctional and polarised. The attention of government and opposition goes increasingly into futile, high-stakes but always drawn battles. But that means that motivated and organised groups can push through things that look benign from the outside and don't trigger the Great Polarisation. Protecting children from suicide, what's not to like? The Parliament, where this should be shredded to pieces, is too busy trying to reshuffle deckchairs. Meanwhile this is printed on vellum, welcome to the new reality.
graemep 1y ago
> I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it. Other countries are moving in the same direction. The EU has repeatedly tried to push things like on device scanning or banning encryption. > Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government. Mostly a failure of democracy - we have two major parties that are hard to tell apart. They are both cynical and scared, and have for decades believed the future of Britain is managed decline. They also strongly believe the hoi polloi have to be forced to do what is good for them - e.g. the sugar tax and other "nudge politics", or the currently Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which is basically about imposing central policy on how children are brought up and educated.
- altcognito 1y ago
  > Mostly a failure of democracy Is it though? Are other forms of government more successful while remaining respectful of privacy? Or is it more of a reaction to social or societal changes? Why would these social or societal changes be different than previous changes?
- tweetle_beetle 1y ago
  The sugar tax is a strange example to pick as an example of British decline. As of 2022, the WHO reported on SSB (sugar-sweetened beverages): > Currently, at least 85 countries implement some type of SBB taxation. It feels to me like this was a rare step in the opposite direction - recognising that industry is the driving cynical force and pushing back on its over reach where it has failed. Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately to avoid the tax, with what net loss? (The class-targeting comments were a straw man) https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2022-who-calls-on-countries-to-tax-sugar-sweetened-beverages-to-save-lives https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2022-who-calls-on-countr...
  - Retr0id 1y ago
    In principle I support taxes that disincentivise production of negative externalities (in this case, adverse health effects). However the way this works out in practice is a reduction in consumer choice, one that I'm reminded of every time I walk into a shop. > Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately This is the problem, really. Rather than adding new "low sugar" product lines, in most instances they're modifying existing ones to replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. The "original recipe" is often no longer available to consumers at any price. As someone who struggles to consume enough calories to stay healthy, this sucks! (Mostly unrelated to pricing, just as a matter of practicality) Cigarette smokers for example can still walk into just about any shop and purchase their favourite cigarettes, they just have to pay more for them - this seems fine. Overall I'm quite on the fence about the whole thing, but on a purely emotional level it feels like an instance of government overreach.
MangoCoffee 1y ago
Westerners point fingers at China for its Great Firewall, citing a lack of freedom. Being a free society comes with both good and bad. This type of law, whether it's good or bad, is akin to China's Great Firewall
- poszlem 1y ago
  To me, the most disturbing part isn’t just the laws themselves, it’s the complete shift in the cultural zeitgeist. When I was younger, people distrusted the government by default. We stood for freedom of speech, anonymity, the right to speak without being censored. Now, even among software developers, people in tech who should know better, I see them practically begging Big Brother for more censorship, more control. It makes me sick. It brings to mind that old quote from Mussolini: “The truth is evident to all who are unblinded by dogmatism, that men nowadays are tired of liberty.” Scary times indeed.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    Is the dogmatism what blinded or unblinded? Considering the source I assume he meant that Italians desired fascism. I’m not familiar with the rise of Mussolini, was he genuinely popular or more of a Hitleresque thug that used violence to suppress his opponents and control measured public opinion?
    - poszlem 1y ago
      Both. But I didn't quote him to praise him, just to express distress that our current situation seems disturbingly similar to those dark times.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
stuaxo 1y ago
The government is doing this because it's scared of the press that runs all these scare stories.
dgroshev 1y ago
That's the combined power of the worst tendencies of the media and a deliberate propaganda campaign. Take this law: it's not new, it was passed in 2023 by the previous government. The law had a two year deadline attached to it, and companies didn't introduce any restriction before the deadline. The new government has a lot on its plate, so it's hardly surprising that repealing a law that was already passed with little attention to it was not high on the list of priorities compared to things like not defaulting or unblocking planning permissions. And yet, twitter and other places are full of very loud voices describing the law as new and designed to oppress them now, even though the deadline was set two years ago. On a more general note, we have our problems, but the UK is in a pretty good place. Sam Freedman covered some bases in his recent post [1] (crime is down, the economy is struggling but improving, etc), but I'll add some more: * We're probably the least racist, most integrated society in the world. The leader of the opposition is a black woman and first generation immigrant [2]. When Rishi Sunak became a PM, his race wasn't brought up once in any media, including very right wing; compare and contrast with all the bullshit about Obama and his birth certificate dog whistles. * First time in years we're reducing the backlog of asylum applications. People applying for asylum can't work because they haven't proved their status yet, so naturally they need to be looked after. All the noise you hear is caused entirely by the conservative party defunding and then outright pausing application processing. This means that people looking for asylum had to live in limbo for years, which caused multiple problems. No backlog, no problems. * We punch WAY above our weight in arts and theatre, and the industry is flourishing. Ever noticed how overrepresented British actors are in Hollywood? * Compared to our main ally overseas, we have a very effective parliament. The executive is kept in check even with the very large majority Labour has now, and the Lords proved their worth during Brexit, putting brakes at the worst impulses of the previous government. * We largely preserved our core military capabilities and alliances over the decade of austerity, slowly repairing, recovering, and expanding now. We're a major partner on nuclear programs, tier-1 partner on F-35, AUCUS is happening, we do a lot in Ukraine, and we're one of the only two nuclear countries in Europe and just signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with France. * We are helping people in Hong-Kong, Ukraine, and Afghanistan with targeted immigration programs. * We're rolling back anti-nuclear nonsense, building two large NPPs, and deployed wind generation at a massive scale. * A bunch of important reforms are going through the parliament [3], from enhancing renters right to a YIMBY reform. But very little of that filters into online environments. The most unhinged, xenophobic, paranoid voices get amplified, creating the impression that you cited, even though it can't be further from truth. Britain is a beautiful country, open to the world, with a globe-spanning network of alliances and relationships, and an incredibly resilient democracy. We should do SO MUCH MORE, yes! But it doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate where we are now, too. [1]: https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3luwmp2vpd62i https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3luwmp2vpd62... [2]: she was technically born in Britain, but she and her mother returned to Nigeria very soon after her birth [3]: https://labourreforms.uk https://labourreforms.uk
pyman 1y ago
Regulating porn, guns, gambling, tobacco, and alcohol has nothing to do with authoritarianism or a lack of freedom. It's about protecting people, just like we already do with seatbelts, speed limits, and food safety. Why do you think shops ask for proof of age when you buy cigarettes? Not because they care about cancer or want to sell less, it's because they're required to by law. Of course, teenagers can still find workarounds. They can ask an older friend to buy it for them, just like they can use a VPN to access porn. The difference is, regulation shifts accountability. It moves the responsibility from a greedy, insensitive business owner to the kids. And at least with the kids we can guide them, and help them spend their time and money where it actually matters. Note: I know people who love guns or porn are probably going to downvote this, but someone has to say it.
- speak_plainly 1y ago
  “It’s for your own good” is always a laughable argument. The state doesn’t regulate these things to protect people, it does so to manage risk to itself. Porn, guns, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, etc., are tolerated so long as they are contained, taxable, and politically useful. Regulating porn is this system likely trying to move the needle on declining birth rates. You can look to a host of pro-natalist efforts in China as the likely inspiration. And without a doubt, overreach by governments will continue.
  - pyman 1y ago
    Regulate porn to increase birth rates? How does that work? Less porn usually means less sexual activity overall, which would lower birth rates, not raise them. In China for example porn is banned, and their birth rates are still low.
    - graublau 1y ago
      This is over intellectualising degerate porn. It should be banned on account of poor taste.
    - speak_plainly 1y ago
immibis 1y ago
Every story about every law from everywhere paints that picture because those are the only ones that make it to stories.
mschuster91 1y ago
> The crimes they cite like child grooming or terrorism/hate being incited sound pretty terrible too, but I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it. When it comes to pedos in specific, the UK got absolutely shaken by the scandals of the last few years - Jimmy Savile, Epstein being involved right into the Royal Family, just to state the obvious ones. As for terrorism, the problem dates back a bit deeper, the UK has had the IRA conflict for decades, and to this day the conflict isn't resolved, the only thing that did happen was the IRA got formally disbanded in 2005.
- buyucu 1y ago
  So they crack down on the internet while letting Prince Andrew walk around without any real consequences?
Xelbair 1y ago
From tourist point of view UK felt to me like a police state, and I'm leaning more towards the former view. Cameras everywhere, non-stop reminders that you're being watched, being tracked everywhere(including which train car you're in now), constant reminders about possible dangerous bags being left alone etc. Tracking would feel helpful and useful, if not for constant oppressive reminders that "Bad Thing could happen any second, be vigilant!". While at the same time, it was vastly more unsafe than Eastern Europe.. and cities themselves were vastly dirtier. Whole trip felt more like what i would imagine visit to mainland China would be like rather than a trip to a free western country. To be honest and to give some context - they have been under threat of terrorism(due to The Troubles first - the name itself seems to reinforce this view, seems innocent..) roughly since end of WW2. well WW2 was a factor too. To add a bit more context: this wasn't my first nor last trip to UK, and each time i visit it the worse it feels in every aspect: Cleanliness of cities, safety, and oppressiveness.
- JFingleton 1y ago
  I always thought a police state would demand identification at every street corner (perhaps I'm wrong?) and any minor breaking of the law being dealt with severe justice. The UK has always been against a "state ID" unlike a lot of European countries, so I'm not completely convinced the description of "police state" is accurate. In fact I think it's the opposite given people can freely break the law despite cameras being on every street corner. The UK is basically an end-of-days advanced state: bureaucracy taken to the extreme, with a heavy dose of nanny-state "mind the gap" messaging. Bureaucracy kills any kind of infrastructure project (see HS2), so don't expect any improvements any time soon. We do have some nice cities: Manchester, York, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge. (I've probably missed a few from this list). London feels pretty far from 30 years ago - and not in a good way.
  - vaylian 1y ago
    > I always thought a police state would demand identification at every street corner (perhaps I'm wrong?) The facial recognition technology for that already exists. And the UK has a sufficiently dense CCTV coverage.
ur-whale 1y ago
> Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society Empires take a very long time to die, but when they finally do, it is never pretty. Historical example are abundant.
dheera 1y ago
> Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society I feel like this is 100% true of the US as well, the only difference is there are multiple factions (the blue EAs, the blue EAccs, the red pro-Trump, the red anti-Trump, the red EAccs, ...) scared and cynical of different things.
stouset 1y ago
The U.S. is only slightly less far down this path, but we are trying our best to catch up.
ezekg 1y ago
> There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever. - George Orwell, 1984
AdmiralAsshat 1y ago
Strange how close V for Vendetta got, even though Alan Moore was ostensibly complaining about Thatcherism at the time, innit?
golemiprague 1y ago
[dead]
kristianc 1y ago
The bureaucratic and security infrastructure built to manage colonial subjects didn’t disappear, it just refocused inward. You see it in policing, immigration policy, and intelligence. The Home Office runs on a suspicion-first logic rooted in managing threats—real or imagined. It's one of the reasons the UK has one of the highest concentrations of CCTV cameras in the world. Public tolerance for this took hold the IRA years and cemented post-9/11 and 7/7. The narrative of ever-present threat made "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" sound reasonable to a large portion of the population. The press, especially the Mail, Sun, and Express, also thrives on outrage. They set the tone for national conversation, whipping up fear and anger that politicians then "respond" to with legislation. The broad assumption is that people can’t be trusted with unfiltered access to information or autonomy, especially online. You also saw it in lockdown, where Britain had to endure one the harshest COVID lockdowns among Western democracies.
LennyHenrysNuts 1y ago
It's nothing to do with child safety. It's about control of what British people can see or hear on the internet.
SilverElfin 1y ago
Speed cameras were the start of this normalization of authoritarianism
Havoc 1y ago
Inequality, falling social cohesion and severe cost of living pressure has a lot of people down Plus really shit media that loves negative clickbait and low effort outrage stoking.
sjw987 1y ago
It does seem to me, British people are very quick to call for "bans" on anything that they don't like. I always believed it comes from the average British person's mediocrity (and acceptance of) and crab-in-bucket mentality. This country has so many (excuse my rudeness) lamearses, and they seem to revel in pulling everybody down to their level. Whenever they feel challenged by somebody else having genuine hobbies and interests (beyond consumption of food, drink, substances, and media), being fit and healthy, or being educated, they get threatened and start trying to pull that person down. I've seen it all my life. However when you do find interesting and talented people here, they shine through. It's just needles and haystacks.

kevinventullo 1y ago

Neither, they’re just the most convenient excuses for instituting draconian laws.

happymellon 1y ago

Because the media always paints other countries in certain lights, as it helps them build a narrative for their own governments? > complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government I disagree with this sentiment, however it does show how bad "democracy" can be when voting for a complete government change results in absolutely no change whatsoever.

MaxPock 1y ago
Authoritarian CCTV cameras in Shenzhen Vs democratic CCTV cameras in London
- happymellon 1y ago
  Heavily monitored London, freedom America. https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-prevalence-cctv-cameras-large-cities.html https://techxplore.com/news/2021-06-prevalence-cctv-cameras-... Oh wait, Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km. Narrative.
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    Paris and Seoul are much denser than London. A better measure is the cameras/habitant or the % of coverage. London has 100% coverage for instance.
    - happymellon 1y ago
      > better measure is the cameras/habitant How so? If I have a car lot, I'll have multiple cameras for a tiny area bumping the average camera per person without meaningful results. Sounds like the worst measurement unless you are trying to push a narrative.
      - Saline9515 1y ago
        Large parts if London are just forests, unlike Paris which is one of the densest places on earth. So of course density of population affects camera per sqm: you tend to place more cameras where there are people. This is also why I said that coverage is even a better measure: "what are the odds that I'm being filmed, now".
    - lavezzi 1y ago
      > London has 100% coverage for instance. What? > Large parts if London are just forests What?
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    > Paris, NYC, SF, Tokyo have more cameras per sq. Km You listed extremely dense cities. Of course they have more cameras per square. This isn’t a narrative violation, it’s basic math.
    - happymellon 1y ago
      I think its highly relevant when we have people pushing the faulty logic narrative that the UK is China and using CCTV as a measurement for their case. UK bad because online safety rules, let's ignore US states that already do this. > Don't mind what we are doing, the UK is worse. Not defending the UK, but they aren't the first and you dont get the same inflammatory racist language with other countries.

derelicta 1y ago

The Bourgeois love to divide the working class, typical divide and conquer. Indigenous worker vs imported worker, men vs women, queer vs straight, old vs young, car user vs bicycle rider. This is important because it weakens existing solidarities and prevent the emergence of class consciousness. It's part of their modus operandi and has been for centuries, only now they master it thanks to algorithms and machine learning. This increased surveillance also happens to be extremely useful at taming future strikes and protests, or rat out future pro-workers groups

mft_ 1y ago
This view (“the Bourgeois’, etc.) seems to imply there’s a group of very clever manipulators somewhere, overtly planning and executing this (presumably in a dark room with armchairs and cigars). But I just can’t imagine this, in the UK’s example. What I see instead is the other side of Hanlon’s razor —incompetence— coupled with a political class riven with pockets of self-interest, and very few seemingly with an intellectual hypothesis to explain the UK’s current predicament, or to chart a path out of it.
- KineticLensman 1y ago
  Elements of the UK media fulfil this role, continually advancing a corrosive narrative that the country is broken. E.g. frequently using the words ‘lawless’ or ‘tinderbox’ in any headline or op-ed title that also contains the word ‘Britain’
  - mft_ 1y ago
    The closest I can imagine would be media owners - the Murdochs, the Barclays, etc. And of course, they can all be in bed with their own special interest groups, or particular friends. But they're also acting differently, mostly out of self-interest, and in totally different uncoordinated directions.
- sapphicsnail 1y ago
  Have you read the Telegraph or pretty much any UK media lately?

mattlondon 1y ago

Not saying I agree with the legislation, but the UK experienced a lot of pretty bad domestic terrorism in the rememberable past (namely IRA bombs detonating in towns and cities etc, often with devastating impacts). Then there were the tube and bus suicide bombings more recently. And there has also been a constant pitter-patter of "radicalised lone wolf" type things like the Ariana Grande concert bomber, the guy who killed a load of 8 year old girls at a summer camp and so on. None of this is porn of course, but supposedly a lot of the lone wolf's are radicalised online so it creates a lot of "someone needs to do something!!!!" type attitudes (and no public gun ownership would not work like everyone says it would because the USA had that yet no one lifted a finger when they needed to recently, and now look what's happened), and sadly the older and more little-c conservative population carriers more clout in terms of policies because historically they tend to vote in greater numbers than younger groups. N.b. that 16 and 17 year olds have very recently been given the right to vote so things may change.

vaylian 1y ago
> Then there were the tube and bus suicide bombings more recently. That was 20 years ago. Not really recently.
- 4ugSWklu 1y ago
  If you read very carefully, you'll see that the word "more" is key in that sentence.
  - vaylian 1y ago
    Technically true, but also besides the point. These are not recent events.
    - mattlondon 1y ago
      Yes but they are part of the lived experience of a large part of the country. So these are not some dusty forgotten thing from history books that people might read about, it was stuff they saw on TV and is back in the news whenever a round-number anniversary comes up etc. The point I was trying to make is that quite shocking bad things happened semi-recently, and more shocking bad things continue to happen. It appears in the news over and over and over about people being radicalised online. I get why people think this is a good idea - you need to prove age to buy knives and cigarettes etc, so they think "why not" for porn and other "adult" things online.

cs02rm0 1y ago

The UK is becoming increasingly authoritarian in ways that feel increasingly antagonistic to the majority of the population, regardless of political party. Taxes are rising (with tax take falling), crimes are going unchecked, just mentioning increased immigration gets a lot of people's backs up, but as GDP per capita continues to stall and even fall, the pressure it puts on services is a factor for many. And we're seeing those with a few quid to rub together leave, but as long as those people leaving are straight, white males, or their families, they're being told "good riddance" regardless of the brain drain and loss of tax income. On the NHS, I tried for years to push for improvements to switch to digital cancer screening invitations after they missed my mother (offering to build the software for free), which is now happening, but suggesting the NHS isn't perfect is against the religion here. My sister who works in NHS DEI hasn't spoken to me since publishing a book on it. Every time someone with the finances, vision and ability leaves I think the situation gets a little bit worse, it increases the proportion of people remaining willing to put up with all of it. Anecdotally, many of my friends have already left, some of the older generation want to leave but feel tied in. My flight out is in 6 weeks. Good riddance, no doubt.

jerry1979 1y ago
Out of curiosity, where are people going?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- squidbeak 1y ago
  They aren't. The figures suggesting the rich are leaving come from Henley & Partners, who aren't impartial. Anecdotally, the loaded people I know are all still here and largely back up polling data that the rich tend to favour higher taxes on themselves.
piker 1y ago
> Every time someone with the finances, vision and ability leaves I think the situation gets a little bit worse, it increases the proportion of people remaining willing to put up with all of it. This is the issue.

willvarfar 1y ago

Its because the popular press has, for a very long time, been pushing a narrative of a country under siege. It sells papers, but to keep selling papers, it has to keep steadily upping the narrative over time.

badpenny 1y ago
I agree, but isn't that the case in lots of other countries? I think it's a contributing factor, but there's more to it.
- teamonkey 1y ago
  It is the case elsewhere, remember how close France once got to Frexit and how close the far right were to winning their most recent general election with the same claims. But the UK has always to some extent enjoyed a fantasy of being an island under siege from mainland Europe and it something the nationalist press like to drum up. As for its increasing poverty, the UK went all-in on neoliberalism since the ‘80s, and especially in on austerity since 2008. Entry-level wages barely grew for over 10 years. Blame the EU for that, get Brexit, more expensive goods and damage to the financial sector the country relied on. Then Covid…

crimsoneer 1y ago

While I appreciate the concern, it's worth pointing out that 30 or so years ago "government should mandate id checks for harmful content" was not some radical dystopian notion. The UK was also one of the first nations to ban indoor smoking and in cars with kids. I think this is very much in that vein (politically).

JdeBP 1y ago

Don't believe the things that you read. Our newspapers have been openly biased for centuries, and there's some very shoddy journalism at times. See, for example: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091

arrowsmith 1y ago
Idk I think the main cause of public discontent in the UK isn't what anyone is reading, it's the extremely obvious change in material conditions.

makingstuffs 1y ago

In a word, division. The UK is so divided that people are too busy pointing the finger at each other to realise the root cause of the deterioration of our quality of life is entirely generations of mismanagement of the public purse. Instead of questioning how MPs are entitled to a pay rise while your average person gets made redundant, people are questioning why people fleeing persecution should ‘be paid for with my tax money’. Brain fatigue and mixed signals combined with destitution and desperation drastically impede the average person’s ability and desire to fact check and extrapolate. We are moving towards a society of down and out people living with no hope serving the elite and those with a bit of money behind them. My fiancée and I have had enough and are also leaving in October. No idea where to all we know is we have a one way ticket away and will figure the rest out.

badgersnake 1y ago
MPs pay is a drop in a bucket there are many better things to question than that.
- makingstuffs 1y ago
  It’s an example, it’s not a mutually exclusive situation. The point is that people are busy pointing the finger at each other instead of the people whom are paid to actually improve their lives.
  - emptyfile 1y ago
    [dead]
fennecbutt 1y ago
>people are questioning why people fleeing persecution Except many of them are not, they are economic migrants. And some have even realised that claiming that they're persecuted for lgbt reasons is an instant in - there was a case with a guy (with a wife and a bunch of children) that claimed to have written a pro lgbt article and now he's persecuted. As a gay man the thought of that sickens me, economic migrants using who I am as a shortcut to entry, I have no problem at all with genuinely lgbt individuals seeking refugee status; we're still persecuted in so many places and there's not enough of us to make change happen in those places. But the economic migrants...all they're doing is ensuring their home country never improves and that a steady stream of migrants continues into Europe. It'll never end.

elric 1y ago

And the EU is following suit. Brexit has never looked so stupid. They could have worked on expanding an authoritarian regime together. It's making me cynical, and I don't know what to do about it.

_kb 1y ago

Australia is doing its best to hardline digital (and more broadly social) authoritarianism too. It’s a sad future we’re accelerating towards.

abxyz 1y ago

You are approaching this from a uniquely U.S. perspective. The U.K. is pretty middle of the road as far as “surveillance” and while this may offend the freedom-at-all-costs sensibilities, it’s a fairly milquetoast change. Visiting the Heineken website in the U.S. requires that you assert you are over the age of 21. Texas has instituted I.D. verification for pornography. Regardless of how you feel about this law, it is not accurate to say the U.K. is unique in implementing it.

aa-jv 1y ago
>The U.K. is pretty middle of the road as far as “surveillance” Just, no. 5-eyes is the most heinous human-rights-destroying apparatus under the sun, and it wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the British desire to undermine cultures they have deemed inferior.
- Steve16384 1y ago
  It's called 5-eyes because it's not just the UK.
  - aa-jv 1y ago
    It wouldn't be oppressive at massive scale, violating the human rights of billions of people, if the UK hadn't roped its lackeys into its co-criminal behaviour ..
    - Steve16384 1y ago
      Well, there was a world war going on!
rubyAce 1y ago
It his law combined with all the other iffy laws in the UK which make this nefarious. This is the issue about discussing anything about how draconian the UK is. If you compare any single law in isolation, it isn't that different. However if you take how the British authorities and how they operate it, and all the other laws you start to see a more draconian picture. That is what many people, especially those that do live in the UK don't appreciate.

citrin_ru 1y ago

> I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action Historically there is no formal constitution in the UK so Parliament is not limited in their power. IHMO it's the main factor why the UK is an outlier.

varispeed 1y ago

It's about corporate control - the more regulations like this - the more entrenched the market becomes. Higher barrier to enter for smaller players plus government gets all the surveillance apparatus as a sweetener. Basically Labour continues taking UK into corporate fascist utopia.

tim333 1y ago

>why the UK specifically is taking action We have a history of trying banning bad stuff. Magna Carta in the 1200s against the right of kings, slavery abolition in the 1800s, now porn being pushed to kids. I don't think child grooming or hate is particularly bad here but we tend to try to stop that kind of thing. We also had the first modern police force in 1829 and other innovations which have caught on in some other countries. Some of the US alt right media pushes broken Britain stories because we have some muslim immigrants or something. The majority of the public support the bill https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-adults-want-social-media-firms-to-do-more-to-tackle-harmful-content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-poll-finds-7-in-10-ad... I wonder if it's more the US is afraid of the their government that if they say they are promoting online saftey they are really going 1984 on the populace? Here people tend to assume they are in fact promoting what it says on the tin.

giantg2 1y ago
"Magna Carta in the 1200s against the right of kings" Seems like the pendulum has swung back now, doesn't it? Increasing authority/rights of the government instead of a king.
- tim333 1y ago
  ~80% in favour of this stuff. Democracy for you.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    If opposing a bill could cause you to be put on a watchlist, it's pretty easy to get a "large majority" favoring it.
    - tim333 1y ago
      It's not at all like that. It's more the protect kids from sites 'that carry pornography as well as other “harmful” material that relates to self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.' I guess other counties are like screw the kids, I'm terrified of being IDd in case my government does bad things?

nickdothutton 1y ago

Politicians have not taken action on a wide spectrum of problems (some of which are crime related, other problems in society below the level of crime) for many decades now. While the economy is good, this doesn't occupy the mind of the public too much, life is OK. Now that the economy is not good, and has not been good since at least 2008, the public has begun to notice these things. The public has even started to notice domestic opinion management (nudge unit, 77th Brigade etc). Passing this sort of "manage the symptom not the cause" legislation has become popular. It's easier to do than deal with the cause, it pushes the actions onto 3rd parties, and superficially it sounds good to the general public. At least for a while. To get an idea of how "off target" the state itself is in managing serious crimes look no further than [1] (warning, pretty grim story, but very typical). [1]. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o Edited for typo.

pjc50 1y ago
Crime has, despite everything, gradually been falling. Scotland has a 100% murder clearup rate for the past several years. The incident you mentioned is yet another piece of fallout from Rochdale, but if you look closely the offences mentioned are from 20 years ago. I don't think that should be used to talk about the present. There is a lot more safeguarding these days. The main negative factor is the press, responsible for both "opinion management", doomerism, and sensationalist demands to Do Something in a way that doesn't help. The Online Safety Act and Brexit are both victories for the Daily Mail that are losses for the rest of the public.
- logicchains 1y ago
  >Crime has, despite everything, gradually been falling. The rape rate has almost quadrupled in the last two decades: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-off...

rich_sasha 1y ago

Outside of techn journalism, this is a non story in the UK. I think it's hard to say much about the society's attitude when they don't know ow about this, never mind understand. Average UKian is, IME, surprisingly technologically unsavvy. This might be the root cause of lack of interest or protest. If I were to guess how this whole thing came to be, it would be thus: the UK government is increasingly dysfunctional and polarised. The attention of government and opposition goes increasingly into futile, high-stakes but always drawn battles. But that means that motivated and organised groups can push through things that look benign from the outside and don't trigger the Great Polarisation. Protecting children from suicide, what's not to like? The Parliament, where this should be shredded to pieces, is too busy trying to reshuffle deckchairs. Meanwhile this is printed on vellum, welcome to the new reality.

graemep 1y ago

> I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it. Other countries are moving in the same direction. The EU has repeatedly tried to push things like on device scanning or banning encryption. > Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government. Mostly a failure of democracy - we have two major parties that are hard to tell apart. They are both cynical and scared, and have for decades believed the future of Britain is managed decline. They also strongly believe the hoi polloi have to be forced to do what is good for them - e.g. the sugar tax and other "nudge politics", or the currently Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which is basically about imposing central policy on how children are brought up and educated.

altcognito 1y ago
> Mostly a failure of democracy Is it though? Are other forms of government more successful while remaining respectful of privacy? Or is it more of a reaction to social or societal changes? Why would these social or societal changes be different than previous changes?
tweetle_beetle 1y ago
The sugar tax is a strange example to pick as an example of British decline. As of 2022, the WHO reported on SSB (sugar-sweetened beverages): > Currently, at least 85 countries implement some type of SBB taxation. It feels to me like this was a rare step in the opposite direction - recognising that industry is the driving cynical force and pushing back on its over reach where it has failed. Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately to avoid the tax, with what net loss? (The class-targeting comments were a straw man) https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2022-who-calls-on-countries-to-tax-sugar-sweetened-beverages-to-save-lives https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2022-who-calls-on-countr...
- Retr0id 1y ago
  In principle I support taxes that disincentivise production of negative externalities (in this case, adverse health effects). However the way this works out in practice is a reduction in consumer choice, one that I'm reminded of every time I walk into a shop. > Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately This is the problem, really. Rather than adding new "low sugar" product lines, in most instances they're modifying existing ones to replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. The "original recipe" is often no longer available to consumers at any price. As someone who struggles to consume enough calories to stay healthy, this sucks! (Mostly unrelated to pricing, just as a matter of practicality) Cigarette smokers for example can still walk into just about any shop and purchase their favourite cigarettes, they just have to pay more for them - this seems fine. Overall I'm quite on the fence about the whole thing, but on a purely emotional level it feels like an instance of government overreach.

MangoCoffee 1y ago

Westerners point fingers at China for its Great Firewall, citing a lack of freedom. Being a free society comes with both good and bad. This type of law, whether it's good or bad, is akin to China's Great Firewall

poszlem 1y ago
To me, the most disturbing part isn’t just the laws themselves, it’s the complete shift in the cultural zeitgeist. When I was younger, people distrusted the government by default. We stood for freedom of speech, anonymity, the right to speak without being censored. Now, even among software developers, people in tech who should know better, I see them practically begging Big Brother for more censorship, more control. It makes me sick. It brings to mind that old quote from Mussolini: “The truth is evident to all who are unblinded by dogmatism, that men nowadays are tired of liberty.” Scary times indeed.
- mulmen 1y ago
  Is the dogmatism what blinded or unblinded? Considering the source I assume he meant that Italians desired fascism. I’m not familiar with the rise of Mussolini, was he genuinely popular or more of a Hitleresque thug that used violence to suppress his opponents and control measured public opinion?
  - poszlem 1y ago
    Both. But I didn't quote him to praise him, just to express distress that our current situation seems disturbingly similar to those dark times.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

stuaxo 1y ago

The government is doing this because it's scared of the press that runs all these scare stories.

dgroshev 1y ago

That's the combined power of the worst tendencies of the media and a deliberate propaganda campaign. Take this law: it's not new, it was passed in 2023 by the previous government. The law had a two year deadline attached to it, and companies didn't introduce any restriction before the deadline. The new government has a lot on its plate, so it's hardly surprising that repealing a law that was already passed with little attention to it was not high on the list of priorities compared to things like not defaulting or unblocking planning permissions. And yet, twitter and other places are full of very loud voices describing the law as new and designed to oppress them now, even though the deadline was set two years ago. On a more general note, we have our problems, but the UK is in a pretty good place. Sam Freedman covered some bases in his recent post [1] (crime is down, the economy is struggling but improving, etc), but I'll add some more: * We're probably the least racist, most integrated society in the world. The leader of the opposition is a black woman and first generation immigrant [2]. When Rishi Sunak became a PM, his race wasn't brought up once in any media, including very right wing; compare and contrast with all the bullshit about Obama and his birth certificate dog whistles. * First time in years we're reducing the backlog of asylum applications. People applying for asylum can't work because they haven't proved their status yet, so naturally they need to be looked after. All the noise you hear is caused entirely by the conservative party defunding and then outright pausing application processing. This means that people looking for asylum had to live in limbo for years, which caused multiple problems. No backlog, no problems. * We punch WAY above our weight in arts and theatre, and the industry is flourishing. Ever noticed how overrepresented British actors are in Hollywood? * Compared to our main ally overseas, we have a very effective parliament. The executive is kept in check even with the very large majority Labour has now, and the Lords proved their worth during Brexit, putting brakes at the worst impulses of the previous government. * We largely preserved our core military capabilities and alliances over the decade of austerity, slowly repairing, recovering, and expanding now. We're a major partner on nuclear programs, tier-1 partner on F-35, AUCUS is happening, we do a lot in Ukraine, and we're one of the only two nuclear countries in Europe and just signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with France. * We are helping people in Hong-Kong, Ukraine, and Afghanistan with targeted immigration programs. * We're rolling back anti-nuclear nonsense, building two large NPPs, and deployed wind generation at a massive scale. * A bunch of important reforms are going through the parliament [3], from enhancing renters right to a YIMBY reform. But very little of that filters into online environments. The most unhinged, xenophobic, paranoid voices get amplified, creating the impression that you cited, even though it can't be further from truth. Britain is a beautiful country, open to the world, with a globe-spanning network of alliances and relationships, and an incredibly resilient democracy. We should do SO MUCH MORE, yes! But it doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate where we are now, too. [1]: https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3luwmp2vpd62i https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3luwmp2vpd62... [2]: she was technically born in Britain, but she and her mother returned to Nigeria very soon after her birth [3]: https://labourreforms.uk https://labourreforms.uk

pyman 1y ago

Regulating porn, guns, gambling, tobacco, and alcohol has nothing to do with authoritarianism or a lack of freedom. It's about protecting people, just like we already do with seatbelts, speed limits, and food safety. Why do you think shops ask for proof of age when you buy cigarettes? Not because they care about cancer or want to sell less, it's because they're required to by law. Of course, teenagers can still find workarounds. They can ask an older friend to buy it for them, just like they can use a VPN to access porn. The difference is, regulation shifts accountability. It moves the responsibility from a greedy, insensitive business owner to the kids. And at least with the kids we can guide them, and help them spend their time and money where it actually matters. Note: I know people who love guns or porn are probably going to downvote this, but someone has to say it.

speak_plainly 1y ago
“It’s for your own good” is always a laughable argument. The state doesn’t regulate these things to protect people, it does so to manage risk to itself. Porn, guns, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, etc., are tolerated so long as they are contained, taxable, and politically useful. Regulating porn is this system likely trying to move the needle on declining birth rates. You can look to a host of pro-natalist efforts in China as the likely inspiration. And without a doubt, overreach by governments will continue.
- pyman 1y ago
  Regulate porn to increase birth rates? How does that work? Less porn usually means less sexual activity overall, which would lower birth rates, not raise them. In China for example porn is banned, and their birth rates are still low.
  - graublau 1y ago
    This is over intellectualising degerate porn. It should be banned on account of poor taste.
  - speak_plainly 1y ago

immibis 1y ago

Every story about every law from everywhere paints that picture because those are the only ones that make it to stories.

mschuster91 1y ago

> The crimes they cite like child grooming or terrorism/hate being incited sound pretty terrible too, but I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it. When it comes to pedos in specific, the UK got absolutely shaken by the scandals of the last few years - Jimmy Savile, Epstein being involved right into the Royal Family, just to state the obvious ones. As for terrorism, the problem dates back a bit deeper, the UK has had the IRA conflict for decades, and to this day the conflict isn't resolved, the only thing that did happen was the IRA got formally disbanded in 2005.

buyucu 1y ago
So they crack down on the internet while letting Prince Andrew walk around without any real consequences?

Xelbair 1y ago

From tourist point of view UK felt to me like a police state, and I'm leaning more towards the former view. Cameras everywhere, non-stop reminders that you're being watched, being tracked everywhere(including which train car you're in now), constant reminders about possible dangerous bags being left alone etc. Tracking would feel helpful and useful, if not for constant oppressive reminders that "Bad Thing could happen any second, be vigilant!". While at the same time, it was vastly more unsafe than Eastern Europe.. and cities themselves were vastly dirtier. Whole trip felt more like what i would imagine visit to mainland China would be like rather than a trip to a free western country. To be honest and to give some context - they have been under threat of terrorism(due to The Troubles first - the name itself seems to reinforce this view, seems innocent..) roughly since end of WW2. well WW2 was a factor too. To add a bit more context: this wasn't my first nor last trip to UK, and each time i visit it the worse it feels in every aspect: Cleanliness of cities, safety, and oppressiveness.

JFingleton 1y ago
I always thought a police state would demand identification at every street corner (perhaps I'm wrong?) and any minor breaking of the law being dealt with severe justice. The UK has always been against a "state ID" unlike a lot of European countries, so I'm not completely convinced the description of "police state" is accurate. In fact I think it's the opposite given people can freely break the law despite cameras being on every street corner. The UK is basically an end-of-days advanced state: bureaucracy taken to the extreme, with a heavy dose of nanny-state "mind the gap" messaging. Bureaucracy kills any kind of infrastructure project (see HS2), so don't expect any improvements any time soon. We do have some nice cities: Manchester, York, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge. (I've probably missed a few from this list). London feels pretty far from 30 years ago - and not in a good way.
- vaylian 1y ago
  > I always thought a police state would demand identification at every street corner (perhaps I'm wrong?) The facial recognition technology for that already exists. And the UK has a sufficiently dense CCTV coverage.

ur-whale 1y ago

> Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society Empires take a very long time to die, but when they finally do, it is never pretty. Historical example are abundant.

dheera 1y ago

> Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society I feel like this is 100% true of the US as well, the only difference is there are multiple factions (the blue EAs, the blue EAccs, the red pro-Trump, the red anti-Trump, the red EAccs, ...) scared and cynical of different things.

stouset 1y ago

The U.S. is only slightly less far down this path, but we are trying our best to catch up.

ezekg 1y ago

> There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever. - George Orwell, 1984

AdmiralAsshat 1y ago

Strange how close V for Vendetta got, even though Alan Moore was ostensibly complaining about Thatcherism at the time, innit?

golemiprague 1y ago

[dead]

kristianc 1y ago

The bureaucratic and security infrastructure built to manage colonial subjects didn’t disappear, it just refocused inward. You see it in policing, immigration policy, and intelligence. The Home Office runs on a suspicion-first logic rooted in managing threats—real or imagined. It's one of the reasons the UK has one of the highest concentrations of CCTV cameras in the world. Public tolerance for this took hold the IRA years and cemented post-9/11 and 7/7. The narrative of ever-present threat made "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" sound reasonable to a large portion of the population. The press, especially the Mail, Sun, and Express, also thrives on outrage. They set the tone for national conversation, whipping up fear and anger that politicians then "respond" to with legislation. The broad assumption is that people can’t be trusted with unfiltered access to information or autonomy, especially online. You also saw it in lockdown, where Britain had to endure one the harshest COVID lockdowns among Western democracies.

LennyHenrysNuts 1y ago

It's nothing to do with child safety. It's about control of what British people can see or hear on the internet.

SilverElfin 1y ago

Speed cameras were the start of this normalization of authoritarianism

Havoc 1y ago

Inequality, falling social cohesion and severe cost of living pressure has a lot of people down Plus really shit media that loves negative clickbait and low effort outrage stoking.

sjw987 1y ago

It does seem to me, British people are very quick to call for "bans" on anything that they don't like. I always believed it comes from the average British person's mediocrity (and acceptance of) and crab-in-bucket mentality. This country has so many (excuse my rudeness) lamearses, and they seem to revel in pulling everybody down to their level. Whenever they feel challenged by somebody else having genuine hobbies and interests (beyond consumption of food, drink, substances, and media), being fit and healthy, or being educated, they get threatened and start trying to pull that person down. I've seen it all my life. However when you do find interesting and talented people here, they shine through. It's just needles and haystacks.