Pondering routing more of my traffic via nodes outside the UK

If they can't be arsed to answer you, then you shouldn't be arsed to vote for them, at least in my opinion.

The current UK government don't actually care about children, if they did then they would actually investigate the child SA gangs, or holding people to account on the Epstein lists. We have seen other countries such as Australia [1] "magically" have the same idea at the same time, so this is likely a global group influencing this push.

> The current proposal to ban people under 16 - who also have the rights to freedom of expression and privacy - from some (as yet not fully delineated) social media services is likely to result in wide-spread verification.

This is the real objective, it will be just like the UK porn verification [2]. To express yourself online, you will soon need to associate your activity with your real identity. With the discussion of clamping down on VPNs, it won't be long before you need to verify your ID just to connect to the internet.

This has been a long time coming. Years ago you could buy a sim card with money already on it, use it, and then throw it away. Now you need to associate some credit card or ID with the sim card and perform some verification process.

> And so, for the first time, I am considering locating something (perhaps a WireGuard node, or a SOCKS proxy, or a recursive DNS server / DNS proxy, or perhaps all of them) somewhere on the Internet outside the UK, so that I can route some traffic through that, as needed, to maintain my access to the web.

It won't be enough. At some point the UK government will just mandate that they should be allowed to perform deep packet inspection, and then there will be nowhere left to hide. These changes are also being rolled out everywhere - which Country do you trust to run your data through?

I remember the New Zealand Christchurch attack on a mosque, and how multiple governments around the world pressured Facebook to remove it entirely [3]. They were more worried about people seeing and sharing the attack, than the attack itself. The manifesto was entirely banned [4], and people were left entirely dependent on the state to convey a narrative about the attack.

I have a feeling that this all fell out of the "Christchurch Call" [5]. I don't think this recent push spearheaded by them, but I believe it had a large influence on the efforts now ongoing.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo

[2] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/a...

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47620519

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/24/censor-bans-ma...

[5] https://www.christchurchcall.org/

I should have written "state", not "government", you're right. Does that change anything? But, article 35 of the Chinese constitution guarantees their citizens freedom of speech and of the press. You're beyond naive if you believe they're independent.

> If I were a betting man I'd place a bet that you are further misinformed about the prosecutions you believe are happening and why.

UK politicians admitted the Online Safety Act was: “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse” - https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...

Even viewing "terrorist" material carries a potential 15 YEAR jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41479620

It's OK to be white and similar stickers landed a man in jail: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/04/the-tyrannical-jail...

I don't know how much worse you need it to be.

I’ve come to the conclusion the only thing you can really do is leave when you disagree with the direction of your country, but of course not everyone has the ability to do that.