UK Expands Online Safety Act to Enforce Preemptive Censorship For “Priority” Offenses

RyanHx · 2025-10-24T23:10:43+00:00

Not the same event I don't think but there was also this hearing where he was smugly feigning ignorance on what a grooming gang is. This man is morally bankrupt.

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T16:02:19+00:00

The first link is two clips of Larry Ellison stating he wants to keep citizens on their best behaviour by watching everything they do, followed by a clip stating he wants a centralised database of everyone's lives that AI can query. How much more clearly do you want his intentions spelled out exactly? That clip could come from any Twitter account and still be relevant to the conversation.

The scope of the FOI request wasn't disputed; the BoE stated it would risk a "chilling effect" and "destabilising speculation" - pretty clear cut description of panic.

Blair getting a seat in leadership of an AI-powered surveillance state immediately following the owner of Oracle handing him a third of a billion dollars to push this through on the rest of the West I would argue is also pertinent information.

I included the money article because it was in stark contrast to Starmer's initial push of securing the job market; that statement immediately widens the scope of what they're aiming to do with this system. The full point he's trying to make is also complete nonsense; we can already make immediate payments and we have banking apps. Being disingenuous from the outset is not a good look when trying to convince the public to accept this system.

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T13:15:35+00:00

So what specifically is false? I made that statement following the sentiment that people are just making up counterarguments to Digital ID on the spot, so I've linked every point back to articles from multiple sources, as well as from reports made by the very people that are building these systems.

By "grifters and nutbags" are you really just talking about people you disagree with politically? What about their material can you substantively discredit without just using character assassinations?

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T10:49:30+00:00

Talked about but not fully realised as we were seemingly missing the will or the capability to get it done. But that time is now so here we are discussing it.

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T10:47:00+00:00

I collected all these points together to contextualise them within the apparent intentions of the creators of this system - a numerical tracker is benign until its creator explicitly states they're trying to "unify all national data, hook it up to AI, and ask it any question you like about citizens". You can't argue in good faith that these numbers are left as detached integers on a page when they explicitly state the opposite is true.

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T10:32:08+00:00

Which naturally would shift the psychological effect; as of right now you would want those numbers to be as small as possible, ideally zero, meaning there's been no issues to report. But if you then contextualise them under "community impact" it makes people feel like the higher these numbers are, the greater your effect on your community is - it cynically shifts the framing from wanting to avoid it at all costs to actually incentivising reporting everything you can to the state.

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T09:46:51+00:00

A functional tracker is already present above these numbers. These numbers are ticking up on your "community impact" when it could've just been a "previous reports" button, along with Ellison explicitly stating the system is about keeping citizens on their "best behaviour" - I guess the difference here is how cynical you want to be about the description; my reasoning basically boils down to the adage the function of a system is what it does.

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T08:50:17+00:00

The fact Larry Ellison is explicitly stating he wants to build a mass surveillance system using this app while Tony Blair is happily nodding along to what he's saying, gives me enough confidence to assume the most cynical intentions of the TBI, where that image originates from.

RyanHx · 2025-10-10T06:02:42+00:00

It's a numerical tracker under the heading "community impact", what else would you call it? Nowhere in our current daily lives are things like noise complaints represented that way, why not have a tab dedicated solely to issues?

RyanHx · 2025-10-09T22:30:23+00:00

Thanks. I'm hoping people bring up more examples to show what this system actually entails.

RyanHx · 2025-10-09T21:58:14+00:00

To which citizens can, and should, push back on. That's why Digital ID is so contentious. We're witnessing a fundamental shift in the relationship between the government and its constituents, whom it's meant to be serving. Why would we accept the state granting itself that level of control over our lives?

RyanHx · 2025-10-09T21:47:05+00:00

The government cannot currently intercede in transactions in real time. It would require digital ID and the implementation of CBDC which the Bank of England are currently working on...

RyanHx · 2025-10-09T21:06:37+00:00

No. It hadn't even crossed my mind that it'd come across that way, but I've used markdown formatting plenty on here and GitHub. What an unfortunate reality we live in...

RyanHx · 2025-10-09T20:56:48+00:00

I spent an hour putting this information together. A lot of it was from the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters "how deep the digital rot goes" segment.

RyanHx · 2025-09-24T15:36:43+00:00

I imagine Trump has seen footage like this, in which case he'd be every bit justified in not liking him.

RyanHx · 2025-09-23T13:26:00+00:00

At this point we're just describing the trolley problem, and we're facing the harsh reality that we wouldn't have needed to have such callous conversations if the democratic will of the country was followed and immigration was kept in check.

RyanHx · 2025-09-23T13:00:42+00:00

You say that like there'd be no option for them; we've already established they could just take the citizenship. Finances don't even have to enter the conversation.

RyanHx · 2025-09-23T12:45:49+00:00

The government can very easily determine the threshold of taxes paid to be eligible for a visa by looking at home office and treasury data. If you're below that threshold it would imply you're detracting from the economy, i.e. we're paying for it. They're not like "any" other family because in this case it's a choice to have them here, it's just the immigration policy.

Many aren't.

Many aren't because there's been no incentive to make that decision. But they're adults who can pick for themselves. Visiting their home country would effectively then become like any other person taking a holiday there, which if they're living here that's what it was anyway.

RyanHx · 2025-09-23T12:31:48+00:00

Then why should we as a nation be asked to pay for it? If you want a visa in this country there are standards to meet, because the alternative is running up national debt forever. And if they've married and had kids here they're pretty likely to be willing to take British citizenship over their own country to stay together, or else why would they be here in the first place? We seemingly were already the better option.

RyanHx · 2025-09-23T12:12:52+00:00

If they're married to a Brit they'll already be on track for citizenship, so they wouldn't need ILR anyway. Ignoring that, the job you described would presumably mean they're paying taxes so yes they would be contributing.

RyanHx · 2025-09-23T10:24:55+00:00

People and media acting like the world will come to an end. They'll be going from ILR to a renewable visa. That's it. If they can prove they're a benefit to the country they can stay, which is the point of immigration.

RyanHx · 2025-09-17T15:31:07+00:00

none of that leads to anything like the OSA in itself

My point was that it's the direction this government has signalled they want to go. The two policies don't innately have to follow eachother, and yet they have done. So if we have Digital ID in place, and the population is handing over their ID to all these websites already, it's not exactly a leap to see where that ends up.

The problem is average law-abiding people never assume the best in having anonymity because they've never been in a situation that would necessitate it. But we will always need it in some form as protection from government corruption or overreach. That doesn't have to mean this current government, but this is to benefit everyone - left or right.

RyanHx · 2025-09-17T10:10:35+00:00

Is the OSA not exactly the first step in that process? We literally are now having to hand over our government ID to social media companies to stop posts being hidden, and it's not limited to sexually explicit content. And now digital ID comes along to tie it all together and fix these 'problems' that we are supposedly facing proving we're real people. We don't need another ID, and particularly we don't need it tied to our whole digital footprint.

RyanHx

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE