Unless they criminalise it and go for the payment processors. Would paid VPN providers be happy to provide their service for free to UK residents? Probably not. Can't see them going down the crypto route either when the majority of their customers don't use crypto and may not even know how it works. It would be like how porn sites have been hit hard with payment processors refusing service to them.
Virtually all the violence committed by lonely men is against themselves. But that doesn't make a scary mainstream media narrative to create a us vs them dynamic to break apart society. They are desperate to water down the definition of incel to just single men (that creates potentially a few million threats as opposed to a few thousand in closed forums), paint them all as a threat to women and national security as a group and declare Andrew Tate as the leader (which he will denounce as he opposes them) which allows the generation of a moral panic and the Government to take action.
That was always the goal. You may have noticed, with a few exceptions on the right, political parties have effectively merged into a uniparty because they see what's coming, are doing what they need to survive when these laws roll out in western countries and to also create a veneer of democracy, an illusion of choice.
Criticism, inquiry and disagreement was always on borrowed time in a world that has embraced the mantra of "be kind". Western countries are heading toward authoritarianism and shedding liberty because of both a Government and corporate desire to instil control on its citizens and selling it to a majority of the public, who would tragically welcome it, as a way to deal with anti-social behaviour, joblessness or underemployment, unhealthiness and breaking social cohesion through punishment (inability to use public transport, bank accounts closed, imprisonment) or mandation (looking for full time work, gym membership, dentist check-ups).
These are likely the same people calling for the abolition of female imprisonment and punishment for crimes, effectively making the law one sided and applicable only to men (biological men at birth, including men who declare themselves women to get into a women's prison). The same people will also demand "gender equality" and demand women be treated equally to men.
What annoys me is the pure and total hypocrisy of it all. People who tell you they support gender equality in their rhetoric who then don't practice what they preach. The majority of the public are the same, if much less extreme in their views - as in they do support punishment and imprisonment of women for crimes. But even your average person in the street quietly opposes gender equality even though they tell you they support it because of social-desirability bias and the fear of being judged as hypocritical, though more vocal mainstream commentators are starting to come out and actively state their preference for two-tier treatment.
Elon disapproving link to the tweet (you're probably not able to view it on Twitter without an account because it's marked as age restricted): https://nitter.privacydev.net/ybanez_rodrigo/status/1678928376403496961
Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do. It's a concept known as social desirability bias.
Those wanting a 6'6" male are chasing 0.2% of the US population. And the vast majority of them will be in relationships.
I expect AI to be used to go beyond active moderation and censorship, I also expect it to detect behaviours and apply a risk score to every individual in a form of digital pre-crime.
I know virtually every website outside of this one considers me too much of a risk, hence the bans, shadowbanning and heavy moderation of block by default which is effective shadowbanning.
The UK and Scottish Government obsess over them too. So much so, Scotland is introducing a new misogyny law, one of the key promises of the SNP leader, to finally deal with the "incel problem" with the rest of the UK to follow.
"Temporary". Like Elon's rate limiting on Twitter. Or the "special military operation". Or two weeks to flatten the curve.
I fear we are going to end up with western countries adopting a North Korean Kwangmyong style system by 2030. You, a member of the public will only have access to a highly regulated and controlled intranet via an ISP (forget encrypted communication, social media or adult entertainment). VPN's are pointless because they won't work. Only licensed corporations (think online stores, banks, operating system manufacturers and the likes) and the state will have the ability to serve data to end users to other countries and use encryption for communication. France and the UK will lead the way for others to follow.
Sounds like a plot that would come out of the mind of Charlie Brooker for an episode of Black Mirror. But it is increasingly looking like countries are heading that way and it will be a long and arduous fight for those who appreciate freedom to push back.
Don't celebrate yet. The good old UK is already brewing a narrative that will get the EU's attention.
So, there have been a number of news stories about how replacement batteries in devices, predominately but not exclusively e-scooters, have set on fire and caused house fires. There are now calls for all lithium-ion batteries, including for phones, to be banned from sale to the public and to ban the right to repair and modify the device you paid for and own because - say it with me - "it's for your own safety". Ultimately putting control of your device completely in the hands of the manufacturer. I hope Louis Rossmann is paying attention to what is being brewed across the pond because if it succeeds here, it will be attempted elsewhere including in the EU and the US.
Can relate. It's only this site and another discussion forum where people can notice what I say. Everywhere else I am banned, shadowbanned or heavily moderated that I have practically zero chance of being seen by anyone else.
Looking through the various terms and conditions, one of the things you have to agree to is that you won't cause offence or behave improperly in any setting, including in a private place, not just while using their product or communicating with their staff. In effect, we now have privatised behaviour and speech codes enforced in unison by private companies.
From the Yorkshire Building Society terms and conditions:
"Closure without notice
We can close your account immediately if any of the following apply: a) The relationship between you and us has irretrievably broken down, for example, you have used threatening or abusive language to our staff.
We are a diverse and inclusive organisation and are hugely proud that this is reflected in our membership, so we’re committed to ensuring that everyone is treated with respect. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, ableism or any other form of discriminatory language or behaviour."
Bear in mind wilful violation of that condition is classed as obtaining an account by fraud and gets a CIFAS marker added to your account, barring you from practically any financial or utility for six years. Should you sue for discrimination (assuming you can find the money to pay for it from elsewhere), the bank will ask to have the proceedings done in private to tell the judge why they banned you (for fraud) and ensure you can't hear that because by law, you the former customer can not find out why you've been banned by a bank or building society.
This is how much power the banks and building societies have.
I also found out that Germany has a right to a bank account law.
It's so absurd that someone could hit their limit by reading a feed of the people they follow in less than a minute.
There is more to this story than just forbidding freeloaders, now its affecting registered users too. This is the action of a site owner who is potentially in financial trouble and hasn't paid the hosting bill.
Businesses have already succeeded in making the argument that they should have the right to discriminate, that was the point of the Supreme Court ruling yesterday and in the UK is legal as long as it is within the Equality Act. That includes the right for businesses to individually and collectively ban anyone they wish.
Watching a barrister on this issue tonight, the banks have an easy way to ensure they win any court case brought against them on discrimination grounds. They can easily argue that your politics makes you a risk to any financial institution or business and ask for the court proceedings to be done in private. Subsequently if they succeed, every business that deals with finance and money will deem you too much of a risk to do business with.
We need to ask how have we got to a point where one bank or building society been given so much power that they can in one move, destroy a person's life, purely because they have opposing political opinions or beliefs?
With the forthcoming obesity strategies that the west will be rolling out this decade, I can see tackling obesity in society as one of the ways states will get commentators and the public, including those who were anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine mandate, to support a social credit system.
Yes, you're right in stating that many ministers are resigning and not standing for the next election which will likely be a Labour win now that Corbyn isn't leader. You're right about the military and as for the police, they seem to be focusing on easier crimes where those arrested do not put up a fight or give grief and are likely to result in a monetary punishment.