Their ultimate goal is to gatekeep and paywall the exchange of ideas and information. If you want to see how that works today, look at how much control is placed upon and excessively expensive peer reviewed journals are.
There's no way of distributing a digital copy legally unless direct from the publisher or with their express consent. And the only people they're going to give that to are companies that riddle it with DRM.
Ultimately this ruling could also affect physical media and physical libraries. One of the arguments is that libraries allow individuals to consume content without royalties being paid as would be if that individual purchased a copy. Where we are going to get into difficulty is where a work is out of print and there is no legal way to purchase it first hand (they want second hand sales of media criminalised too for the same reason as the lending of media, no royalty payment).
I remember video game companies went in heavy regarding loaning of games to the point they boycotted stores such as Blockbuster Video or if they couldn't do it, they did like The Lion King did on 16-bit systems, made the second level so hard it dissuaded people from loaning and nudged them to purchase the game.
Every media has a warning that loaning is prohibited. They want everyone to purchase an individual copy for themselves.
If you want an idea of where things will go, see the control and prices for peer reviewed papers. The publishers want to gatekeep and paywall the exchange of ideas and information.
And it looks like most of the people tangentially related like Tim, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson (the three I checked) are still fine and still have their channels.
We live in a time of guilt by association. I wouldn't say they're safe yet.
It's likely they'll go down the same road the UK is expected to go shortly and just outright ban VPN's. Payment processors won't touch the paid VPN providers who won't operate in Brazil if they aren't getting paid. As for crypto payments for VPN service, at some point you'll need to turn fiat currency into crypto and they'll likely target that too.
I've noticed that the Lotus Eaters have been more cautious and more supportive of religious authoritarianism as of late. Maybe they're dropping the libertarian aspects of themselves to blend in and not be taken offline. As Esther McVey MP is potentially going to find out for criticising the Government yesterday. Someone has already reported her for being "grossly offensive" which is the same thing Count Dankula got arrested and charged with.
Reminds me of what's happening in Hong Kong as a result of the new sedition law. I suspect sedition will be reintroduced into the UK. In my opinion (caveat, not a legal expert), if the law remained today, those arrested would have been charged with sedition too.
If there is one thing the UK Government will not tolerate and will make an example of, it is dissent.
Once the extreme misogyny review and inevitable legislation comes into play, you're going to find England flag wavers, elderly grannies complaining on Facebook and unattractive, socially awkward single men all sharing prison cells that were once filled with the most (what we would consider) egregious criminals.
That's starting to change as young women start to outearn their male peers. When the state, family and society provide income (via wealth transfer from men to women), parenting and all the benefits of what a "beta bux" used to provide without the disadvantage of having to live with said man, they will in increasing numbers refuse to let the beta bux into their life and remain alone.
I feared that games would turn to the as a service model because everything else is following suit. Where you don't own the game you purchase and they finally deal with the "Linux problem" as anti-cheat is notorious for not being able to run. I've heard a few developers bad mouth Linux users usually along the lines of entitled and skinflints.
There's also the assumption that if people pay for something and handsomely, they will treat the service with more respect, self-censor and be far more cautious, particularly if they impose a minimum term agreement where if you are banned, you are still paying for the service.
It isn't new. Even before social media, even before the Internet, people wanted to compare and compete with one another by lying about their social status. It's the reason for the sitcom Keeping Up Appearances in the 90s and the phrase "keeping up with the Jones's". It's just now on a macro scale, you're competing worldwide and everyone thinks they are a celebrity.
One of the things I warned would happen in the long run would be countries implementing national Intranets that were walled gardened from the Internet. Like North Korea's Kwangmyong but not as strict (citizens can still contact other people worldwide but under heavy surveillance whereas North Korea forbids all communication with the outside world).
Brazil seems to be heading down that road with the UK following closely behind and the EU in tow. "For your safety".
These polls are usually worded in such a way to lobby for what the Government wants. Ultimately what they want are national Intranets but that will take time so until then it's a heavily regulated Internet where Government decides what is "truth" and what is "safe".
People like draconian action by the Government against others. They'll even engage in cognitive dissonance when the state turns against them to justify their treatment.
I think the vast majority of people enjoy being ordered around, told what to think and have the metaphorical boot placed firmly upon their head.
He warned that the rioters took the bait set up by the lack of a motive to the Southport stabbings as well as the spread of a false name on social media and that the Government would use this unrest as an excuse to clamp down on certain groups. They have been waiting for an excuse to deal with the "manosphere", Andrew Tate, "creepy" single men in society, the "far right", Nigel Farage, Reform UK, Tommy Robinson, misinformation, dissent and criticism. Now they have been given their legitimate mandate by the rioters with public support.
Further cemented by a new study from the Muslim Women's Network claiming three quarters of Muslims are scared of the far right and specifically pointing out that the unrest was ultimately aimed toward women and girls.
And Government hasn't reconvened from summer recess yet!
Alongside a VPN ban. Labour tried to push an amendment into the Online Safety Bill when they were in opposition and it failed. They're now in power with a large majority. Ultimately they despise the concept of user generated content and deem it to be a grave mistake they would like to revert.
Ironically, one of the things that radio commentators were asking for was for the state to intervene in unattractive men (a.k.a. "creeps") asking out women, approaching women or being in the presence of women in a public place.
We know of the "halo effect" where attractive individuals get preferential treatment and can get away with much more compared to their unattractive peers. Ultimately what they are asking for is the removal of unattractive men from society under the belief their existence incites terror and therefore can be classed as (extreme) misogyny.
The other thing they called for is the abolition of pornography as you'd expect from such commentators on both sides of the political spectrum.
So we have a society that denounces men for not approaching women under the slogan of "you miss 100% of the shots you don't make" while denouncing men for approaching women if they are don't meet attractiveness and social status. We're going to create more radicalised single men in the same way that jailing anyone deemed "far right" will radicalise them.
Going to be a fun conversation for men living alone when police knock on their door and tell them "the local authority has noticed that you've been claiming the Single Occupancy Discount for a while and you should have found a partner by now so we're referring you to the Prevent programme".
Or a formal email from Tinder telling you that you have been banned and reported because a woman has complained about your "misogyny" (having to reject you).
Not just that. If you read the proposed review, it's wide reaching. Not just incels and Andrew Tate but also MGTOW, advocacy of bachelorhood as a legitimate lifestyle choice, being single for a extended period of time, unrequited love and being rejected on dating apps. They are giving themselves far more reach on the back of civil unrest in recent weeks.
In effect, unless you are married, co-habiting or slaying it on the dating apps, you face having your liberty decided by what women think about you.
If you read the article, you merely have to consume content from Andrew Tate to be considered a radicalised extremist. Even being a single adult male for a long time (ie. someone who claims the Single Occupancy Discount for a period of time) could end up being referred to Prevent.
to combat the radicalisation of young men online.
They're going after Andrew Tate. They're also going to go after the manosphere, incels, MGTOW, anti-feminism and the lifestyle choice of bachelorhood. Lumping them all in as "extreme". In effect, your position in society and whether you are deemed worthy of liberty will be deemed by how women see you if this proposal becomes law. If you ain't married, co-habiting (common law married) or slaying on the dating apps, you should be concerned for the future.
Being an adult male without a girlfriend for a longer than normal period of time will now be seen as radicalised extremism by the UK Government. Dating apps, already facing the prospect of having to screen out men for online safety now also face being told to report individual men who make women feel creeped out, offended or rejected by any of them to Prevent or the Police.
I did warn come September, you ain't seen nothing yet. They're using the recent unrest to bring in draconian laws to shut down groups they despise such as the far-right and bachelors.
ETA: Archive (now Archive Today will finally load): https://archive.ph/ymUxn
JK Rowling could also be arrested for posting "inaccurate information" under the Online Safety Act. The allegation would be incitement of hatred on the grounds of gender. In one way, I hope she does get arrested because it's going to wake up a lot of people around this issue and make a martyr of her.
Their issue is with the loaning of media. They don't make a royalty from every loan and they want every individual to purchase that media outright. They actively put a warning on every media that loaning is prohibited. That includes physical libraries too and they're now under threat too.