In 2020 we had dissenters labelled as a "threat to granny" if they refused to comply with lockdown. Beforehand we had "hate", "abuse" and "harassment". In 2021, we had "anti-vaxxers" as part of the worldwide mRNA vaccine rollout. In 2022 the word paraded around was "harm" as part of new laws in numerous countries, the emotional argument of protecting children which will also affect adults.
In 2023, we are seeing the word "disruptive" become the new buzzword off the back of the Public Order Act in the UK. You're not just being a threat or against the establishment or hateful, you're now disruptive. Disruption is defined as the concept of going against or preventing the status-quo or the norm from continuing as usual or as expected. A word that is easily extrapolated to cover a wide range of behaviours, ideas and beliefs. But will only be applied to things that are For example, automation will be disruptive to employment and the workplace but as they agree with automation, it's an opportunity and not disruptive to them.
Free speech is now disruptive. All peaceful protest is now disruptive. An idea not in the status-quo is now disruptive. Disruption is a threat. On Saturday, days after that act became law, women's safety campaigners, environmental protesters and republicans were all deemed disruptive - a threat to safety, not because of their actions, but because of their ideas. Their "disruptive" ideas causing offence. Their "disruptive" presence could cause something bad to happen, regardless of how small the probability of that thing happening is. End-to-end encryption is "disruptive" to law enforcement and the security forces. Therefore to keep people "safe" and to ensure "security", all individuals, organisations and ideas must be removed. Republic, the republican campaign group, got raided and had their property seized, its CEO and a number of protesters arrested in what could only be described as pre-crime and it's only a matter of time before the Government shut them down. For your "safety" and the "security" of the nation.
We've known of individuals in the past who were opposed to lockdown and inquiring of the mRNA vaccine, not necessarily anti-vax, being spied on and kept surveillance on by security forces. Spiked, an online publication who are normally on the anti-woke side of the debate, are now seeing the wind of where things are going and throwing Andrew Bridgen MP under the bus and denigrating anyone who agrees with him, including their readership, a "conspiracy theorist" and "dangerous". "Disruptive", even?
The opposition Labour Party is now pretty much a carbon copy of the Conservatives who are bringing these laws in. maybe also sensing the wind of where things are going and now wishing to maintain the status-quo. The shock jocks and radio commentators are also towing the line now, actively being staunchly pro-police and towing the Government line.
Governments have also enacted the concept of effective banning as opposed to outright banning. Where laws are written to have a chilling effect and stigma on a unwanted behaviour, idea or concept - such as restrictive and bureaucratic requirements - whilst allowing a defence should someone come out and confront them about banning something where they can actively said they haven't banned it. Peaceful protests in the UK, end-to-end encryption including VPN's in some countries and age verification for pornography in a couple of US states (for now) are three recent examples.
And what is black pilling is how the average person outside of discussion forums like here is not just embracing this, but actively suggesting that both the Police and Government are not going anywhere near far enough. Lee Anderson MP was suggesting people emigrate if they don't agree with a monarchy. He got flak from republicans but far outnumbering them, he also got flak from a lot of people who suggested that he should bring in a new law to strip citizenship from any republican and expelling them from the country. They are also staunchly pro-police, pro-safety laws and pro-security laws on the concept that keeping people "safe" and "secure" where everyone agrees with everyone else will bring about a utopia, peace and order. Free speech, dissent and civil liberties are now deemed disruptive and a threat and must be ended by most people in the real world, no matter how big or small. Advocating for the abolition of privacy based on the phrase "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". And there is a desire to implement pre-crime strategies in the same name of safety and security. What was used to justify lockdown is being repeated.
I'm hearing a lot of "I'm a feminist/environmentalist/republican, but..." now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65388255
Bit of a turn up for the books. Turns out, particularly if an amendment passes in the House of Lords, Wikipedia could fall foul of the age verification bill. Turns out it isn't just pornographic websites that will have to implement it. This could affect any website, including Twitter, that allows linking or hosting of NSFW content. Never mind the threat of all the instant messaging apps to block the UK when the law is implemented. Even this website will have to either age verify or block UK residents. And we still have the prospect of residential VPNs being regulated to the point of being pointless and effectively banned.
Unlike the similar EU Digital Services Act, there will be no exception for encyclopedic and educational content.
I can imagine a few people will not shed a tear if Wikipedia is blocked in the UK.
The list of amendments for the Online Safety Bill:
https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/50781/documents/3332
Highlights (or lowlights) include:
-
A requirement for all Internet services to ban access and promotion to anything the Government deems to be "health misinformation". Labelled the "anti-vax" amendment. This will have a chilling effect on censoring scrutiny and criticism of pharmaceutical companies, of scientific papers that do not align with the Governments beliefs and the scientists themselves who are at odds with the Government line. Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock has been proudly gloating of this amendment today on Twitter.
-
New definition of harms which will also include not just content but also contact, conduct and commercial harms.
-
Protections for women and girls (but not men and boys) from harms. With the above, even unwanted communication (including sexual pictures and messages) and unrequited love on a dating site can be classed as "harms" under the coverage of this proposed law. Internet service providers are required to report any such behaviour to the Crown Prosecution Service.
-
Requiring companies that operate online and available to UK citizens to implement the law into their terms of service. Including VPN's. Who will not be able to comply without destroying the whole point of their existence. Making their use pointless. Not a ban as threatened by Labour but effectively banned in all but name.
-
Companies will be liable for anything published by anyone within their comment sections, forums, discussions or posts. Machine generated content will also be included.
-
The pornography definition now expands to any website which allows user submitted adult content in any form to be uploaded and they must implement age verification on their site. All content must be R18 rated or lower or it gets classed as "prohibited material".
-
The proposed punishment for a business and its directors is a fine of £18 million, 10% of their worldwide revenue, whichever is greater and/or up to 51 weeks in prison.
-
Ofcom will be given powers to inform payment processors of breaches of the new law to have them stop processing payments. The amendment talks of adult content but could easily apply to everything covered in the proposed law.
-
Online video games will come under the scope of this proposed law and will also carry age ratings.
-
New technologies will automatically come under the scope of this proposed law.
-
False communication (ie. lying, mis/disinformation or fake news) and threatening communication carries both a fine and a prison sentence.
-
Internet service providers accessible in the UK must refer all cases of online racist abuse and harassment to the Crown Prosecution Service.
-
App stores are now specifically mentioned in the proposed law.
There are also attempts to protect free speech and end-to-end encryption but they're likely to be defeated. One thing that might delight people on here is that the definition of risk to individuals will potentially also include loot boxes and pay-to-play content but also includes notifications by default, infinite scrolling, auto-playing videos, time-limited content and exchanging of virtual gifts. There is also likely to be consideration in the law for the amount of time someone spends online.
This is just my reading of the amendments, I don't pretend to be a law expert or fully accurate but what I can make out of what is being proposed is terrifying for freedom and liberty.
Since the arrest of Jack Teixeria, I have noticed that the mainstream media not only have an agenda regarding Discord but have looked into his private life and three other things. All the media outlers seem intent on labelling Discord a purely "gaming platform" for "gamers" as opposed to a social messaging and communication platform. I would consider the likes of Steam as a gaming platform, not Discord. Regardless, the mainstream media is already putting pressure internally and externally around Discord.
He is also being labelled as having an obsession with God as well as a fascination with the military and sharing "racist" memes and as we know, these things equal far right in the eyes of the mainstream media. He's also being accused of anti-semitism as well.
CNN changed their headline to remove the word loner but still carry anecdotes such as "a lot of people were wary of him" and "he made me nervous" that attempts to paint Teixeria as a threat to individuals and society because of his loneliness. If anything, to paint him as an involuntary celibate in the eyes of the reader. Another group of people that the mainstream media wants Government to take action against. They also made sure to bring attention around his enthusiasm with guns and linked it with his loneliness.
Regardless of your view of Teixeria, the conclusion of this is that the mainstream media are painting the four groups above as a threat to national security and society which will inevitably lead to knee-jerk, bad and illiberal laws to target said groups but will as history shows, expand beyond that. The current allegations will allow defenders to be maligned as is already happening to Marjorie Taylor-Greene. And it allows the authorities to implement surveillance and censorship of discussion and communication spaces such as Discord. A narrative is being brewed for an agenda because Teixeria fits the mould of whom they see as their outgroup and boogeyman.
CNN: https://archive.is/G3dXG Daily Mail: https://archive.ph/g2dCx Sky News: https://archive.is/hPGu4 and https://archive.is/PI0AG
From the discussion on TalkTV today (just before half past eight this morning):
https://youtu.be/J1hwJlM-wSI?t=6964
The Chief Legal Counsel of the Free Speech Union believes that in order to comply with the law that is due to be passed in days toward Royal Assent, every single company could become liable for the conduct of patrons and customers toward their employees. In turn, employees could sue their employers. And as a response, companies will introduce a Code of Conduct applicable to everyone including patrons and customers.
Toby Young from the Free Speech Union uses the term "banter bouncers" to describe the same thing.
The concept that in order to enter a store, pub, gym, any other establishment or use a service, you are going to be bound by a Code of Conduct. That could soon become a reality in the UK. It's not just websites and FOSS projects any more.
