Staying ahead of censors in 2025

Post by pclmulqdq » Mon, Dec 29, 2025, 4:06 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #96

cs02rm0 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He’s a proper democrat. The same Starmer who's cancelled local elections? Who's not looked at the polls and thought maybe it's time to go, because the demos clearly don't want me? The same Starmer who said no rise in NI in the manifesto, only to increase NI? The same Starmer who raised the threshold of votes required for an MP from within the Labour party to challenge his leadership? He's no proper democrat. People…

> The same Starmer who's cancelled local elections? False: https://fullfact.org/online/council-elections-war-cancelled/ > Who's not looked at the polls and thought maybe it's time to go, because the demos clearly don't want me? You seem to have missed the "did actually win power" and "this is how democracy works in the UK" parts. I agree he should go, but I could say that about all of the UK politicians, they're all…

Post by webdoodle » Mon, Dec 29, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

jmnicolas wrote: post #171

commandersaki wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to how CIA has a technology fund that gave money to Signal; because they use it?

> because they use it? My hunch is because they have a backdoor in it.

Post by daveguy » Mon, Dec 29, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

sanskritical wrote: post #230

daveguy wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can explain it away all you want. Those sources are garbage. They pay for stories, don't confirm sources, or do anything else required of journalism. I get you may be GenZ and have been fed garbage soup your whole life about how "all news bad", but fyi there are still some publications with journalistic standards. You might as well add the National Enquirer from the US. Your sources are such sensationalist rags t…

Firstly, IB Times is one of the biggest news sources in existence. They own Newsweek. They do not pay for stories, and they do confirm sources, as they are an institutional capitalized outlet operating out of the UK (the friendliest jurisdiction for libel litigation in the world) that does not want to be sued out of existence. They are not a politicized outlet and generally swing left-wing, in contrast to some of the…

Post by seattle_spring » Mon, Dec 29, 2025, 4:27 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #192

Defletter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark c…

> which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. If you point out that one racial demographic is responsible for more crimes than another, would that run afoul of the statute? If not, what if you additionally point out that the reason these crimes were committed is likely because that behaviour is normalized in their culture? This seems like it would definitely run afoul of the statute, and if this logi…

Post by darubedarob » Mon, Dec 29, 2025, 4:32 PM UTC

throwfaraway135 wrote: post #17

Considering the staggering number of arrest for online/offensive communications in England & Wales, we should add Britain to the list of Russia and Iran 2017: ~5,500 arrests 2019: ~7,734 arrests 2023: ~12,183 arrests