Strange that this is framed as a national sovereignty issue not an issue of UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. This is exactly the thing we don’t want democratic governments to do - congeal with corporate power against their people. Appealing to legality when the laws are themselves unjust is not a defense. The online safety act is broad and vague and not in the interests of UK citizens, so sovereignty appeals are completely disingenuous here. When we talk about sovereignty what we are really referring to is the power of the UK government over its people and the subservience expected of entities like 4chan to that end.
We see these exact same mechanisms in the US and that’s precisely why we should not manufacture rationalizations for this kind of policy - the societal decline as a result of this cynical trend is clear.
It is an issue of national sovereignty because the UK is trying to force foreign civilians to enforce their laws outside of their jurisdiction for free, by way of bullying, threats, and illegal fines.
What the UK does within their own borders is their business. They don't have any right to force foreign entities to censor themselves or tl block UK citizens, as if that's even a technically feasible request.
The UK's free speech situation is bad, yes, but that's not the problem we're talking about here. The matter at hand is the UK trying to censor free speech by foreign citizens outside the UK and is using illegal threats to do so.
This is all theatrical. They already know that what they want is a section on what can be see or not within its borders. After this case has been processed and maybe some others some genius will say that internet should be a subset of the whole internet.
That's nothing new. For years during war times the post office had followed letters from and to specific destinations/people for conference.
> UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end.
If the citizens of the UK wish to express discontent, they are free to vote for a different parliament so they enact different laws. We who live outside the UK have no say on their laws.
The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests to the point that governments engage in suppression of free speech and mass surveillance against their populations. (What’s unique to the UK is that it’s government is largely subservient to the US in the international dragnet.) We are all human and share the same human rights regardless of our nationality.
> The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests
A judge will not find this comment amusing, or a justification for breaking the law. You can, of course, engage in civil disobedience, but keep in mind it doesn't shield you from consequences.
This is true but it is still ultimately up to the British people to fix. 4Chan cannot change the free speech situation in the UK but they can refuse to help the government censors because they are not under their jurisdiction.
That is not the case. The government was elected with 33.7% of the vote.
You were trying to make a distinction between "government" and "executive" -- that's not how it works here, matey. His Majesty's Government is the party in power (or whichever grouping of MPs can hold the confidence of parliament), it is not all the other MPs - they are the opposition.
We don't have an "Executive". We have His Majesty's Government, they head all the departments, they command the civil service, they control the legislative timetable. The rest of the MPs and Lords are just plebs who get to vote on things. The opposition don't get to propose legislation, except when the Government feels generous and lets them (opposition days).
FPTP creates individual constituencies of roughly 70,000 voters, and the candidate who gets the most votes in one constituency wins a seat. The other candidates in that constituency get nothing, and all votes for them are completely wasted (unlike in other voting schemes). Candidates are usually a member of a political party. The party with the most seats gets first opportunity to form a government.
The 2024 general election was won by Labour with 9,708,716 votes (33.70%) out of 28,924,725 cast. Turnout was 60%, there could've been 48,208,507 possible votes.
The 2019 general election was won by the Conservatives with 13,966,454 votes (43.63%). 2017 was 42.3%. 2015 was 36.8%. 2010 was 59.1%. 2005 was 35.2%. 2001 was 40.7%. You can see the last result was the lowest vote share in decades.
And yet, 33.7% of the vote nets you 100% of the power. Thanks, FPTP!
> That is not the case. The government was elected with 33.7% of the vote.
My point is that all votes were counted. Some people disagree with the winning choice, but it’s still their legitimate government chosen in a free and democratic election.
I notice you didn't use the word "fair" though. Probably because FPTP is not fair.
In FPTP, if your vote doesn't elect the winner in your constituency, it was wasted. Even if you voted for the eventual government party in a seat that the party didn't win. Your vote did not count. In other electoral systems, it does count.
FPTP means that one vote in one area (e.g. a "safe seat") is not equal to one vote somewhere else. Knowing the geographical distribution of preferences makes gerrymandering possible, and elections have been won not by fair voting, but by unfair redistricting.
FPTP massively punishes any "similar" parties with a vote-split, meaning parties have to become mega-alliances and ultimately they are ground down to just 2 parties. That's the only stable configuration. Any third party has to be mercilessly destroyed, otherwise it will start taking votes from the party it is most similar, leaving their opponent an easy victory.
That's what happened in the 2024 election: Reform UK no longer had the electoral pact they had with the Conservatives in 2019 (where Reform UK voluntarily withdrew from any seats the Conservatives were likely to win), and as a result, the vote-split between Reform UK and Conservatives let Labour romp home to victory.
* Labour got 63% of the seats with 33% of the vote.
* Conservatives got 18% of the seats with 23% of the vote
* Reform UK got 0.8% of the seats with 14% of the vote
* Lib Dems got 11% of the seats with 12% of the vote
That is manifestly unjust. Reform got 5 seats for 4,117,610 votes while Lib Dems got 72 seats for 3,519,143 votes. If that's democratic then I'm a banana.
There are polls for different aspects of OSA but not the OSA itself. For example protecting kids online is popular (big surprise). Yet no polls I can find that frame the OSA itself or the OSA with its trade offs. Seems like the standard practice of asking leading questions so that pollsters can frame popular opinion in some already-decided way.
We see these exact same mechanisms in the US and that’s precisely why we should not manufacture rationalizations for this kind of policy - the societal decline as a result of this cynical trend is clear.