3 ms·

The UK in particular seems to be headed into a terrible direction with regard to free speech, being a nanny-state, and surveilling its citizens. I wonder if the

The UK in particular seems to be headed into a terrible direction with regard to free speech, being a nanny-state, and surveilling its citizens. I wonder if these sorts of measures (broadly) are supported by their voters or if the voters really have no choice.

random9749832 10mo ago
In the UK any topics in regards to politics that are widely spoken about in public is to do with immigration / inflation / housing crisis. Because of these other issues this is happening under the radar and no political party cares.
- WackyFighter 10mo ago
  It is because the vast majority of the people don't understand really what the internet is, how it works and therefore cannot understand the consequences. However the effects of immigration (both positive and negative), inflation and not being able to afford a house is more easily understood by the layman.
  - random9749832 10mo ago
    Most people definitely do not understand those things beyond price up or more brown/black people. But they are easier to create narratives around that provoke an emotional response.
    - WackyFighter 10mo ago
      Quite a lot of people understand more nuance than you would give them credit for. You are falling for the narrative that most people can't understand these things. Many just understand complaining about it won't do any good. I was talking with my Mother last night about this very subject and she is social worker in her 60s.
VBprogrammer 10mo ago
Not sure where you are from but it's not exclusive to the UK. People directly quoting the US president following the tragic death of a right wing commentator also found themselves locked up. Not to mention the same president suggesting that people suggesting that the military should refuse illegal orders should be locked up etc. I think realistically we've grown up in an age where you could say almost anything online, free from any threat of any kind of reprisal. It probably reasonable that, given the internet is key to daily life these days, that we treat it as no different from standing on a park bench and shouting. If you're calling for the death of people based on their religion or some other characteristic then there are consequences to your speech. Unfortunately the most recent example of this kind of legislation, the laws surrounding age verification on websites, was introduced under a previous government so it really doesn't matter who you vote for on this anyway.

random9749832 10mo ago

In the UK any topics in regards to politics that are widely spoken about in public is to do with immigration / inflation / housing crisis. Because of these other issues this is happening under the radar and no political party cares.

WackyFighter 10mo ago
It is because the vast majority of the people don't understand really what the internet is, how it works and therefore cannot understand the consequences. However the effects of immigration (both positive and negative), inflation and not being able to afford a house is more easily understood by the layman.
- random9749832 10mo ago
  Most people definitely do not understand those things beyond price up or more brown/black people. But they are easier to create narratives around that provoke an emotional response.
  - WackyFighter 10mo ago
    Quite a lot of people understand more nuance than you would give them credit for. You are falling for the narrative that most people can't understand these things. Many just understand complaining about it won't do any good. I was talking with my Mother last night about this very subject and she is social worker in her 60s.

VBprogrammer 10mo ago

Not sure where you are from but it's not exclusive to the UK. People directly quoting the US president following the tragic death of a right wing commentator also found themselves locked up. Not to mention the same president suggesting that people suggesting that the military should refuse illegal orders should be locked up etc. I think realistically we've grown up in an age where you could say almost anything online, free from any threat of any kind of reprisal. It probably reasonable that, given the internet is key to daily life these days, that we treat it as no different from standing on a park bench and shouting. If you're calling for the death of people based on their religion or some other characteristic then there are consequences to your speech. Unfortunately the most recent example of this kind of legislation, the laws surrounding age verification on websites, was introduced under a previous government so it really doesn't matter who you vote for on this anyway.