7 ms·

I’d much rather get arrested in Britain than Russia or Iran. And I certainly wouldn’t put the UK in the same bucket as Russia and Iran. Not even close. Hate sp

I’d much rather get arrested in Britain than Russia or Iran. And I certainly wouldn’t put the UK in the same bucket as Russia and Iran. Not even close. Hate speech is a problem. If it wasn’t, why are Russia and China spending so much on troll farms? It’s a direct attack on a democracy’s ability to form consensus. I don’t think we’ve found the right, effective way to deal with this problem yet, but I applaud any democratic country that tries sth in that area. I also think Tor is great, just for the record.

throwfaraway135 10mo ago
The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is, and more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition. For Iran and Russia, it is what Khamenei and Putin don't want to hear, in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear.
- delichon 10mo ago
  Apparently it isn't very hard to define as you just did so quite accurately. It's just whatever those who control the definition don't want to hear.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    Murder is just the killing of people who are liked by those who control the definition of murder. But everyone still agrees murder should be illegal.
    - delichon 10mo ago
      Murder is a far brighter line than hate, and therefore a law against it enables far less arbitrary power.
      - immibis 10mo ago
        It means ICE officers can kill you but you can't kill ICE officers. This is arguably an even worse asymmetry than the one about speech.
- earthnail 10mo ago
  That comparison is not only highly inaccurate, it’s also harmful in that it distracts from the real problem at hand. Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win. I personally don’t think UK’s age verification thing is a good idea. I like Germany‘s idea of mandating PC and smartphone manufacturers to put simple parental controls in thar parents, not the central government, can enable for their kids. I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Let’s see where that leads. I don’t live there but am very excited for rhe outcome of that experiment. We can’t just sit here and simplify everything to black and white while Russian troll farms polarise our societies. We bear some responsibility here to have a nuanced debate about these things.
  - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
    > I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Talking about ruthless dictators and true democrats in the same post.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      Banning children from accessing things proven to be harmful to children does not a dictator make. Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol.
      - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
        > Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol Why? I don't have a threshold at 127 in my luminance channel. Just a reminder - what children are allowed or not is not any government's business, it's parents' one. Which requires tearing their asses off from sofas and their eyes from screens and actually talk to their children and be in the know of their circles and activities.
        immibis 10mo ago
- wartywhoa23 10mo ago
  It's not the puppets who don't want to hear, it's the puppet masters.
- teiferer 10mo ago
  > more often than not Do you have any evidence for that claim or is it a gut feeling? > in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear. In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. In a figurative sense, that's likely true. As a democratically elected representative of the people, what he wants censored reflects what the people want censored, so is in alignment with a democratic society. If the people change their mind or realize it's not actually what they wanted, they elect somebody else next time. Good luck trying that with Putin or Khamenei. In either case, your comparison does not hold up.
  - throwfaraway135 10mo ago
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-s...
    - teiferer 10mo ago
      So, use that information at the next election. If enough people care then it changes outcomes. Again, try that with Putin or Khamenei. (If such an article even gets published instead of ending the career or life of the journalist.)
  - JuniperMesos 10mo ago
    > In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. Well it might if people systematically vote for politicians who promise to change the hate speech definition.
- Defletter 10mo ago
  > The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark contrast to the common strawman touted by freeze peach types of "are you just going to compile a list of 'bad words'?!" Hate speech is not magic: you're not casting the self-incriminatus spell by saying the bad word. That said, I wont pretend like that aren't misuses of police powers in regard to speech, and expression more generally. We've seen a crackdown on protests over the past few years which is more than a little frightening. That said, it's become a pattern that anytime I encounter a discussion online about the UK trampling on freedom of speech or whatever, it always comes back to hate speech. It's almost never about protest or expression. I think that's interesting. EDIT: Correction, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 did not make stirring up or inciting "homophobic" hatred an offence, but rather hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. So one could get prosecuted for being inciting anti-straight hatred.
  - thinkingemote 10mo ago
    In the UK the arrests are mostly about "grossly offensive" speech. That's more of a grey area than the clearly defined hate speech. Often there are arrests and investigations but convictions on these are less. Convictions of hate speech also occur but are not news worthy and no one objects. The two different offenses are being confused and so it becomes news. In the US they don't have the grossly offensive category. It's an issue because people are being investigated because people are offended by some things while others are not, and others (like comments here) see the difference between offensive speech and outright calls for violence. The police in some areas are encouraged to actively investigate reports of offensiveness whether or not they seem to them serious. It's a good idea on paper but the ambiguities and unequal application of their policy is newsworthy. It leads to conspiratorial and political theories. There is also a related newsworthy issue of the widening of what hate speech means to encompass forms of offensiveness. So some may say it's a direct call to violence to say some things but others may say it's not. This ambiguity leads to an effect and discussions. "Silence is violence" and "From the river to the sea" are topical example quotes used in this debate.
- thrance 10mo ago
  Just read the damn law before spouting nonsense. There have been hate speech laws since the 1980s. There are simply just more and more insane neonazis groyper-types online to which it is applicable.
  - curtisblaine 10mo ago
    I don't think groyper speech is (or should be) automatically banned, though. It's a point of view that many find abhorrent, but it should be possible to express it. Same for far left messages encouraging the public to "eat the rich".
    - thrance 10mo ago
      Please do not equate demands for more taxations with calls to do more genocides of jewish people. The far right is uniquely problematic in our modern political landscape. And I disagree, free speech is a liberal value, you don't get to say nazi shit and hide behind free speech. Being a groyper is not a crime, but calling for genocide is and should be punished. Else we run the risk of normalizing these abhorrent ideas and repeating the worst times of our history, like the US seems on a course to doing.
      - curtisblaine 10mo ago
        > demands for more taxations That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value. > free speech is a liberal value That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not. > but calling for genocide is and should be punished And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing) I have this feeling you don't want to establish a line in the sand for free speech to be free - you just want to pick and choose the examples that you deem acceptable.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  It is really difficult to define what hate speech is, it certainly can be used as a cudgel to silence the opposition though I'm not sure about "more often than not" and bluntly everything can be used that way: my previous commute took me across the lines of what was officially known as (translated) an "anti-fascist protection rampart"* to keep people from leaving a country that put "Demokratische" in its name. For the UK, it's not even clear what Starmer doesn't want to hear, he's got the charisma of the 10th-worst-in-class GCSE-level presentation on a topic not of his own choice. This can be observed in the poll ratings which are both amusing and the kind of thing that should only be found in a farce and not reality. I'd instead point to Musk, who has openly said that "cis" is "hate speech" on Twitter now he owns the site. Starmer may or may not have such examples, but it's just too hard to figure out what they even are 'cause he lacks presence even as PM with all the cameras pointed at him. * And to English speakers, "the Berlin Wall"
- hdgvhicv 10mo ago
  It’s Badenoch wanting to deport a British Citizen for what he posted online, not Starmer.
  - qweiopqweiop 10mo ago
    More precisely, an Egyptian citizen who was given British citizenship recently without having visited the country, and his views (about Jews, killing police) clearly not being factored in when granting said citizenship. Whether right or wrong, your comment omits improtant details.
- flr03 10mo ago
  Law is always subject to interpretation and as imperfect as it sounds it is better than no law at all. And I'm not talking about hate speech specifically. Using this as a tool to silence opposition is possible and made easy in countries that do not value and nurture independence of institutions and have rampant corruption, often countries with authoritarian leadership. UK is not exempt of criticism, it would be unhealthy not to, but comparing Russia/Putin with UK/Starmer makes it evident that you are more concerned by pushing a political agenda that by facts and reason.
tarkin2 10mo ago
"[A] direct attack on a democracy’s ability to form consensus" is a wonderfully precise term. Splitting democratic nations through fearmongering targeted at everyone's online profile is an incredible weapon.
- naasking 10mo ago
  Democracies virtually never form a consensus, there are always dissenters on any issue. Democracies reach decisions by majority rule, not consensus.
kortilla 10mo ago
No, external influence is an attack on democracy’s ability to form consensus. No hate speech required to drive a wedge between constituents and make people focus on the wrong things.
sunaookami 10mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
fasbiner 10mo ago
So to be clear, your sole expectation of a liberal democracy is that it have a better judicial system than Russia or Iran. And beyond that, you applaud any democratic country's efforts to reign in speech by arresting their own citizens in order to combat foreign influence operations? And the fulcrum of this argument is that we believe that Russia and China have uniquely pernicious influence operations and there are no other state-level actors domestically or semi-domestically whose intelligence services also exert influence through the passage of laws restricting speech? Having seen the last two years of politics in the UK and the US, your impression is that there is an overwhelming Chinese-Russian troll farm operation which self-evidently justifies rolling back the last two centuries worth of hard-fought and incremental precedents won for free speech and free press. And again, the water-line we need to stay above is merely "this is still better than being arrested in Russia or Iran", keeping in mind that many countries we would not consider to be democracies at all also meet this bar.
- graemep 10mo ago
  > And beyond that, you applaud any democratic country's efforts to reign in speech by arresting their own citizens in order to combat foreign influence operations? The US has adopted policies based on that argument in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism and I think its generally agreed it was a bad thing.
- like_any_other 10mo ago
  > in order to combat foreign influence operations? They don't have to be foreign - domestic prohibited leafleting suffices: Samuel Melia: Far-right activist jailed after sticker campaign - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867
- earthnail 10mo ago
  I probably made my point not very well. I am indeed worried about freedom of speech, and your example about Mccarthy ism is very very valud. I come from Germany; the Nazis, and later the Stasi, were masters in suppressing freedom of speech, and both committed the most brutal atrocities that must never be repeated (and also, as a side note, completely ran the country they ruled into the ground). Freedom of speech is really, really important. And yes, we absolutely must defend it. But it bothers me that it is used as a complete killer argument when politicians try to talk about other problems. Our societies are getting more and more polarized. We are being bullied by various actors, and whenever someone points it out someone else (often the perpetrator) is quick to hide behind the false argument of freedom of speech. I personally really believe that we need to do something against that polarization. It’s an attack vector that’s very actively and very effectively being exploited by adversaries, foreign and domestic alime. It’s not a new thing, propaganda and misinformation is centuries old, but in the age of the internet the dynamics change, and we need to adapt. This is a super complex problem. And there is a huge risk that people abuse it to implement surveillance they always wanted to have. But yes, my general position is that I think it’s good that proposals are being made, and because of that, I don’t want to see Starmer in the same bucket as Putin in this discussion. It’s also good that there are fights about which proposals are good and bad. But my overall feeling is that we ignored the problem for too long, and now we have to catch up. Otherwise, we’ll just get more and more polarized societies, and this really, really worries me. It may at this point also be worth pointing out that the proposals really are very different. - The UK went for a centralist proposal on age verification around porn, which can very easily turn into a surveillance tool. I think it’s a terrible solution. - Australia opts for banning social media for minors. Doesn’t strike me as a big surveillance tool. Maybe extreme if you don’t share their view on the dangers of social media, but clearly a very different approach, and also a different problem they think they identified to the UK - Germany goes for better parental controls, i.e. mandating manufacturers to make it really easy for parents to enable a walled garden for their kids. I like it because it’s still up to the parents whether to enable it or not, and no government surveillance is involved at all. The cool thing of having different countries experiment with different approaches - not just solutions, but also assumptions on what problems would need fixing - is that you can run many experiments in parallel. The scientist in me is very happy about that. If we’re lucky, one or two of these will over time come out as great solutions and get widely adopted.
fruitworks 10mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
miroljub 10mo ago
If you live anywhere in the west, you should be more concerned by being arrested by your own government then by some government in the other part of the world.
- computerfriend 10mo ago
  This is true (modulo travel and extradition) regardless of where in the world you live.
llmslave2 10mo ago
I'd rather get arrested in the UK too, but that's completely irrelevant. > Hate speech is a problem. If it wasn’t, why are Russia and China spending so much on troll farms? Non-sequitur. The existence of troll farms doesn’t mean it's such a big problem that we should give up our rights surrounding speech and communication that we fought hard for.
- aetherson 10mo ago
  I don't think it's completely irrelevant. Can we admit some nuance where the UK's fast ramp up of arrests for previously legal speech is genuinely concerning, but also that raw number of arrests (not even convictions!) is not the only basis for comparison?
- immibis 10mo ago
  What are people saying that gets them arrested? This important but as-yet-unanswered question is crucial to evaluating the severity of the UK's censorship regime.
  - kolektiv 10mo ago
    Probably the most high-profile case was the Lucy Connolly one, where she posted: > "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it” For additional context (which was relevant during the prosecution and sentencing) this was posted during a time of riots and arson attacks centred on asylum accommodations, and very shortly following a highly publicised mass-murder of children which was (entirely wrongly) being blamed on asylum seekers. She also pleaded guilty to the charged offence, rather than contesting the charge, for clarity. While not all cases will be quite like this, it is definitely not the case that - as some parties of the right have claimed - she is a free-speech martyr, a political prisoner, and so on.
    - tyho 10mo ago
dmm 10mo ago
> Hate speech is a problem. I agree, 100%. Donald Trump should have the power to jail people for things they say online.
- dwb 10mo ago
  That is not how the legal system works in the UK or USA. That said, I am worried that we are going quickly in that direction.
- flr03 10mo ago
  No there is a thing call the law, those are passed by elected people and applied by a judicial system that is not the executive branch. Hope that helps.
  - dmm 10mo ago
    > applied by a judicial system that is not the executive branch You have the right to a trial. Defending yourself from a Federal felony charge only costs $250k+. Given recent events, I think undermining civil liberties to expand executive powers is crazy.
    - flr03 10mo ago
      I am nowhere advocating to expand executive power in my response. edit: apologies for not getting your point, I actually think I'm in line. Being able to defend yourself in the US looks too expensive.

throwfaraway135 10mo ago

The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is, and more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition. For Iran and Russia, it is what Khamenei and Putin don't want to hear, in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear.

delichon 10mo ago
Apparently it isn't very hard to define as you just did so quite accurately. It's just whatever those who control the definition don't want to hear.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Murder is just the killing of people who are liked by those who control the definition of murder. But everyone still agrees murder should be illegal.
  - delichon 10mo ago
    Murder is a far brighter line than hate, and therefore a law against it enables far less arbitrary power.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      It means ICE officers can kill you but you can't kill ICE officers. This is arguably an even worse asymmetry than the one about speech.
earthnail 10mo ago
That comparison is not only highly inaccurate, it’s also harmful in that it distracts from the real problem at hand. Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win. I personally don’t think UK’s age verification thing is a good idea. I like Germany‘s idea of mandating PC and smartphone manufacturers to put simple parental controls in thar parents, not the central government, can enable for their kids. I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Let’s see where that leads. I don’t live there but am very excited for rhe outcome of that experiment. We can’t just sit here and simplify everything to black and white while Russian troll farms polarise our societies. We bear some responsibility here to have a nuanced debate about these things.
- wartywhoa23 10mo ago
  > I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Talking about ruthless dictators and true democrats in the same post.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    Banning children from accessing things proven to be harmful to children does not a dictator make. Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol.
    - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
      > Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol Why? I don't have a threshold at 127 in my luminance channel. Just a reminder - what children are allowed or not is not any government's business, it's parents' one. Which requires tearing their asses off from sofas and their eyes from screens and actually talk to their children and be in the know of their circles and activities.
      - immibis 10mo ago
wartywhoa23 10mo ago
It's not the puppets who don't want to hear, it's the puppet masters.
teiferer 10mo ago
> more often than not Do you have any evidence for that claim or is it a gut feeling? > in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear. In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. In a figurative sense, that's likely true. As a democratically elected representative of the people, what he wants censored reflects what the people want censored, so is in alignment with a democratic society. If the people change their mind or realize it's not actually what they wanted, they elect somebody else next time. Good luck trying that with Putin or Khamenei. In either case, your comparison does not hold up.
- throwfaraway135 10mo ago
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-s...
  - teiferer 10mo ago
    So, use that information at the next election. If enough people care then it changes outcomes. Again, try that with Putin or Khamenei. (If such an article even gets published instead of ending the career or life of the journalist.)
- JuniperMesos 10mo ago
  > In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. Well it might if people systematically vote for politicians who promise to change the hate speech definition.
Defletter 10mo ago
> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark contrast to the common strawman touted by freeze peach types of "are you just going to compile a list of 'bad words'?!" Hate speech is not magic: you're not casting the self-incriminatus spell by saying the bad word. That said, I wont pretend like that aren't misuses of police powers in regard to speech, and expression more generally. We've seen a crackdown on protests over the past few years which is more than a little frightening. That said, it's become a pattern that anytime I encounter a discussion online about the UK trampling on freedom of speech or whatever, it always comes back to hate speech. It's almost never about protest or expression. I think that's interesting. EDIT: Correction, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 did not make stirring up or inciting "homophobic" hatred an offence, but rather hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. So one could get prosecuted for being inciting anti-straight hatred.
- thinkingemote 10mo ago
  In the UK the arrests are mostly about "grossly offensive" speech. That's more of a grey area than the clearly defined hate speech. Often there are arrests and investigations but convictions on these are less. Convictions of hate speech also occur but are not news worthy and no one objects. The two different offenses are being confused and so it becomes news. In the US they don't have the grossly offensive category. It's an issue because people are being investigated because people are offended by some things while others are not, and others (like comments here) see the difference between offensive speech and outright calls for violence. The police in some areas are encouraged to actively investigate reports of offensiveness whether or not they seem to them serious. It's a good idea on paper but the ambiguities and unequal application of their policy is newsworthy. It leads to conspiratorial and political theories. There is also a related newsworthy issue of the widening of what hate speech means to encompass forms of offensiveness. So some may say it's a direct call to violence to say some things but others may say it's not. This ambiguity leads to an effect and discussions. "Silence is violence" and "From the river to the sea" are topical example quotes used in this debate.
thrance 10mo ago
Just read the damn law before spouting nonsense. There have been hate speech laws since the 1980s. There are simply just more and more insane neonazis groyper-types online to which it is applicable.
- curtisblaine 10mo ago
  I don't think groyper speech is (or should be) automatically banned, though. It's a point of view that many find abhorrent, but it should be possible to express it. Same for far left messages encouraging the public to "eat the rich".
  - thrance 10mo ago
    Please do not equate demands for more taxations with calls to do more genocides of jewish people. The far right is uniquely problematic in our modern political landscape. And I disagree, free speech is a liberal value, you don't get to say nazi shit and hide behind free speech. Being a groyper is not a crime, but calling for genocide is and should be punished. Else we run the risk of normalizing these abhorrent ideas and repeating the worst times of our history, like the US seems on a course to doing.
    - curtisblaine 10mo ago
      > demands for more taxations That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value. > free speech is a liberal value That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not. > but calling for genocide is and should be punished And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing) I have this feeling you don't want to establish a line in the sand for free speech to be free - you just want to pick and choose the examples that you deem acceptable.
ben_w 10mo ago
It is really difficult to define what hate speech is, it certainly can be used as a cudgel to silence the opposition though I'm not sure about "more often than not" and bluntly everything can be used that way: my previous commute took me across the lines of what was officially known as (translated) an "anti-fascist protection rampart"* to keep people from leaving a country that put "Demokratische" in its name. For the UK, it's not even clear what Starmer doesn't want to hear, he's got the charisma of the 10th-worst-in-class GCSE-level presentation on a topic not of his own choice. This can be observed in the poll ratings which are both amusing and the kind of thing that should only be found in a farce and not reality. I'd instead point to Musk, who has openly said that "cis" is "hate speech" on Twitter now he owns the site. Starmer may or may not have such examples, but it's just too hard to figure out what they even are 'cause he lacks presence even as PM with all the cameras pointed at him. * And to English speakers, "the Berlin Wall"
hdgvhicv 10mo ago
It’s Badenoch wanting to deport a British Citizen for what he posted online, not Starmer.
- qweiopqweiop 10mo ago
  More precisely, an Egyptian citizen who was given British citizenship recently without having visited the country, and his views (about Jews, killing police) clearly not being factored in when granting said citizenship. Whether right or wrong, your comment omits improtant details.
flr03 10mo ago
Law is always subject to interpretation and as imperfect as it sounds it is better than no law at all. And I'm not talking about hate speech specifically. Using this as a tool to silence opposition is possible and made easy in countries that do not value and nurture independence of institutions and have rampant corruption, often countries with authoritarian leadership. UK is not exempt of criticism, it would be unhealthy not to, but comparing Russia/Putin with UK/Starmer makes it evident that you are more concerned by pushing a political agenda that by facts and reason.

tarkin2 10mo ago

"[A] direct attack on a democracy’s ability to form consensus" is a wonderfully precise term. Splitting democratic nations through fearmongering targeted at everyone's online profile is an incredible weapon.

naasking 10mo ago
Democracies virtually never form a consensus, there are always dissenters on any issue. Democracies reach decisions by majority rule, not consensus.

kortilla 10mo ago

No, external influence is an attack on democracy’s ability to form consensus. No hate speech required to drive a wedge between constituents and make people focus on the wrong things.

sunaookami 10mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

fasbiner 10mo ago

So to be clear, your sole expectation of a liberal democracy is that it have a better judicial system than Russia or Iran. And beyond that, you applaud any democratic country's efforts to reign in speech by arresting their own citizens in order to combat foreign influence operations? And the fulcrum of this argument is that we believe that Russia and China have uniquely pernicious influence operations and there are no other state-level actors domestically or semi-domestically whose intelligence services also exert influence through the passage of laws restricting speech? Having seen the last two years of politics in the UK and the US, your impression is that there is an overwhelming Chinese-Russian troll farm operation which self-evidently justifies rolling back the last two centuries worth of hard-fought and incremental precedents won for free speech and free press. And again, the water-line we need to stay above is merely "this is still better than being arrested in Russia or Iran", keeping in mind that many countries we would not consider to be democracies at all also meet this bar.

graemep 10mo ago
> And beyond that, you applaud any democratic country's efforts to reign in speech by arresting their own citizens in order to combat foreign influence operations? The US has adopted policies based on that argument in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism and I think its generally agreed it was a bad thing.
like_any_other 10mo ago
> in order to combat foreign influence operations? They don't have to be foreign - domestic prohibited leafleting suffices: Samuel Melia: Far-right activist jailed after sticker campaign - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867
earthnail 10mo ago
I probably made my point not very well. I am indeed worried about freedom of speech, and your example about Mccarthy ism is very very valud. I come from Germany; the Nazis, and later the Stasi, were masters in suppressing freedom of speech, and both committed the most brutal atrocities that must never be repeated (and also, as a side note, completely ran the country they ruled into the ground). Freedom of speech is really, really important. And yes, we absolutely must defend it. But it bothers me that it is used as a complete killer argument when politicians try to talk about other problems. Our societies are getting more and more polarized. We are being bullied by various actors, and whenever someone points it out someone else (often the perpetrator) is quick to hide behind the false argument of freedom of speech. I personally really believe that we need to do something against that polarization. It’s an attack vector that’s very actively and very effectively being exploited by adversaries, foreign and domestic alime. It’s not a new thing, propaganda and misinformation is centuries old, but in the age of the internet the dynamics change, and we need to adapt. This is a super complex problem. And there is a huge risk that people abuse it to implement surveillance they always wanted to have. But yes, my general position is that I think it’s good that proposals are being made, and because of that, I don’t want to see Starmer in the same bucket as Putin in this discussion. It’s also good that there are fights about which proposals are good and bad. But my overall feeling is that we ignored the problem for too long, and now we have to catch up. Otherwise, we’ll just get more and more polarized societies, and this really, really worries me. It may at this point also be worth pointing out that the proposals really are very different. - The UK went for a centralist proposal on age verification around porn, which can very easily turn into a surveillance tool. I think it’s a terrible solution. - Australia opts for banning social media for minors. Doesn’t strike me as a big surveillance tool. Maybe extreme if you don’t share their view on the dangers of social media, but clearly a very different approach, and also a different problem they think they identified to the UK - Germany goes for better parental controls, i.e. mandating manufacturers to make it really easy for parents to enable a walled garden for their kids. I like it because it’s still up to the parents whether to enable it or not, and no government surveillance is involved at all. The cool thing of having different countries experiment with different approaches - not just solutions, but also assumptions on what problems would need fixing - is that you can run many experiments in parallel. The scientist in me is very happy about that. If we’re lucky, one or two of these will over time come out as great solutions and get widely adopted.

fruitworks 10mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

miroljub 10mo ago

If you live anywhere in the west, you should be more concerned by being arrested by your own government then by some government in the other part of the world.

computerfriend 10mo ago
This is true (modulo travel and extradition) regardless of where in the world you live.

llmslave2 10mo ago

I'd rather get arrested in the UK too, but that's completely irrelevant. > Hate speech is a problem. If it wasn’t, why are Russia and China spending so much on troll farms? Non-sequitur. The existence of troll farms doesn’t mean it's such a big problem that we should give up our rights surrounding speech and communication that we fought hard for.

aetherson 10mo ago
I don't think it's completely irrelevant. Can we admit some nuance where the UK's fast ramp up of arrests for previously legal speech is genuinely concerning, but also that raw number of arrests (not even convictions!) is not the only basis for comparison?
immibis 10mo ago
What are people saying that gets them arrested? This important but as-yet-unanswered question is crucial to evaluating the severity of the UK's censorship regime.
- kolektiv 10mo ago
  Probably the most high-profile case was the Lucy Connolly one, where she posted: > "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it” For additional context (which was relevant during the prosecution and sentencing) this was posted during a time of riots and arson attacks centred on asylum accommodations, and very shortly following a highly publicised mass-murder of children which was (entirely wrongly) being blamed on asylum seekers. She also pleaded guilty to the charged offence, rather than contesting the charge, for clarity. While not all cases will be quite like this, it is definitely not the case that - as some parties of the right have claimed - she is a free-speech martyr, a political prisoner, and so on.
  - tyho 10mo ago

dmm 10mo ago

> Hate speech is a problem. I agree, 100%. Donald Trump should have the power to jail people for things they say online.

dwb 10mo ago
That is not how the legal system works in the UK or USA. That said, I am worried that we are going quickly in that direction.
flr03 10mo ago
No there is a thing call the law, those are passed by elected people and applied by a judicial system that is not the executive branch. Hope that helps.
- dmm 10mo ago
  > applied by a judicial system that is not the executive branch You have the right to a trial. Defending yourself from a Federal felony charge only costs $250k+. Given recent events, I think undermining civil liberties to expand executive powers is crazy.
  - flr03 10mo ago
    I am nowhere advocating to expand executive power in my response. edit: apologies for not getting your point, I actually think I'm in line. Being able to defend yourself in the US looks too expensive.