Online Safety Act

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I think you can choose a different type of democracy.
One that is more direct and gives the populous more say, or bigger policy announcements should be legally binding.
If the Tories say they will reduce immigration and they don’t, allow voters to take legal action against them personally.

Ah yeah, the reductionist approach.

Disregard the interconnectedness of the global economy and global events.
Disregard that conflicts in which the UK have been a major player, or ex-colonial areas where UK have imposed historic rule, have both been directly responsible for mass migration.

That kind of isolationist thinking brought us Brexit. Sadly, the undereducated just cannot understand that the UK is not "an island" in a global economy or within the context of global events. Sadly, shallow thinkers actually believe bad actors such as Farj, who claimed publicly that "Brexit is the only way to stop migration" when everybody who understood observable reality said that was categorically untrue. And so it came to pass that Brexit actually increased migration. Informed people knew and fully understood this beforehand.

Next it will be "gotta leave ECHR to stop migration". Except it won't. It can't. That's a lie. But a larger than ought to be credible segment of the "populous" will fall for that lie, and actively promote the lie. Because they "want to" believe it. Regardless of observable reality dictating otherwise. We truly live in the upside down.

Online safety is potentially a step forward in defeating the misinformation, disinformation and deliberate lies.

Meanwhile, our democratic system is still the worst governance possible. Except for all of the other governance systems.

 

[Sideways]

That kind of isolationist thinking brought us Brexit.

That is a sweeping assumption and you can't support it.
People voted brexit for a lot of different reasons and you cannot possibly know what was in everyone's head, so don't try and ascribe reasons to them.
It is annoying how many commentators make the same mistake. In general, I think you tend to call out muddy thinking and poor logic so please don't fall into the trap here.
Just sayin'.

 

[Ozi]

One thing I have noticed that has only happened recently is that a number of my wifes posts on Face Book have been blocked as potentially offensive then unblocked a few hours later. Nothing in those posts that we could identify as the cause. I assume that they have tightened the criteria of some algorithm which will probably self calibrate over the next few weeks but that human moderators are getting the final say.

Perfectly happy to put up with slight irritation if it stops or more likely reduces the spread of disinformation or any of the offensive things the current legislation seems aimed at. The list has been quoted above in several posts, I haven't seen anything on this site which would fall into any of those categories so if it happens then the moderators are clearly doing their job and have been as long as I have been here, thank you Sideways et al.

We still live in a country where I can express the opinion that this or any other of our previous governments are silly people without fearing a knock on the door. Personally I have no concerns about this legislation, I can only see it as a necessary check on antisocial behavior.

 

[picsnbits]

I absolutely disagree with this!

Was Hitler's state sponsored violence OK? Was Stalin's state sponsored violence OK? Is Israels state sponsored violence OK?

Don't presume to speak for me or "everyone" about state sponsored violence.

Hitler and Stalin originated violence. Israel responded to violence inflicted upon it.
A difference perhaps too subtle for you to comprehend.

 

[Sideways]

Hitler and Stalin originated violence. Israel responded to violence inflicted upon it.
A difference perhaps too subtle for you to comprehend.

But the violence in the middle east has been going back and forth for over a thousand years. Which came first : the chicken or the egg ? Subtle maybe not, complex absolutely ...