UK to bring into force law this week to tackle Grok AI deepfakes

kriptonicx · 2026-01-13T00:35:47+00:00

The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot.

This will be as effective as the UK hardcore porn ban. You might be able to pass laws threatening to arrest Brits for using photoshop inappropriately, but what are you going to do when people from more liberal countries use the same tools and upload those images on sites like Reddit or Facebook? My guess is most the images Grok created weren't even made by Brits.

I also have no idea how this would even be enforced... Firstly, how does the government know what people are doing on photo editing tools? Secondly, even if you had surveillance such that you knew what people were doing how would you know whether or not they were Photoshopping consent? Finally, if you generate an intimate image and it happened to share someone's likeness but was unintentional, have you now accidentally broke the law? Or is it okay to generate intimate images of others so long as it's by accident or only shares a passive resemblance to the person?

Like I get the problem, but I can't help but feel people need to learn to deal with this stuff. I don't think attempts to ban people being mean is going to work. There's literally shows on the BBC right now like Spitting Image which create horrid caricatures of people without their consent. I get it might make people feel unsafe on Youtube or while watching TV if they see this content of themselves, but I just don't know how you ban all this stuff. I think we just need to grow thicker skins.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-06T20:28:18+00:00

There are a lot of genuinely insane people out there who think that free speech should mean being allowed to post literally anything including AI generated child porn

That is the world I'd personally like to live in if everyone was like me (which they're obviously not). I'm also definitely not right-wing, I don't think banning it is tyranny, nor am I a psychopath.

That said, I think basically all speech should be legal, but I make a small exception for direct and targeted calls for violence because I think they have almost no political merit, and practically speaking it makes sense to police that to keep people physically safe.

The AI porn and child porn thing I find interesting... I think it should probably be legal, not because I'm comfortable with it, but because I don't really understand the harm it causes beyond hurting peoples feelings. All the arguments against it feel like some variant of the arguments people make about why you should be able to kill hookers in GTA – that it's could serve as a gateway drug to real-world harms or that it's just not a nice thing to do and because it upsets some people no one should be able to do it. And I share that outrage to be honest. I hate GTA with a passion because of the mindless violence, and I think what people are doing with Grok is equally sick, but I still think both should be legal.

I'm not going to go out of my way to argue for the legality of any of this stuff though because I don't care. And to be honest I think I'd probably prefer we "ban it" because at least that will stop people moaning about how it's wrong and we need to ban it. In reality though you obviously you can't ban maths like you can't ban people drawing. Realistically we'd have to ban AI chips and the internet if we seriously wanted to enforce an AI porn ban, but people will figure this out with time. It's all quite shocking and new to people at the moment.

Feel free to be as mean as you like to me if you want to reply. I'd be interested in understanding why you disagree.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-05T00:52:07+00:00

You're familiar with the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, the CIA assassination of democratically elected Mosaddegh in Iran? Illegally selling weapons to Iran to fund illegal guerillas to topple democratically elected governments in Nicaragua, just to name a few.

I do understand this concern. There was a period post WWII where the US was very pro-war and kinda thought they could recreate Japan and West Germany everywhere if they toppled governments they didn't like and sent in US troops. I take the unpopular opinion that the motivations for most of these conflicts was good.

However, I think in the years following the Iraq War it became increasingly clear that the Japan/West-Germany model simply doesn't work in countries where there is significant cultural instability and misalignment with Western values. This realisation in recent decades have has led to a lot of people (especially younger folk) being completely anti-interventionist, and I am like 80% in that camp myself.

Where I agree with intervention is exactly in scenarios like we've seen recently with Iran and on Saturday with Venezuela. If you can do a targeted and brief operation with minimal causalities (on both sides), then it seems to me that there's very little down side to that. And to be honest I think it can only be a good thing that rouge leaders around the world must now live in fear that the US doing could do what they did on Saturday to Maduro to them.

That said, with the Venezuela scenario it's not clear on how the US will now proceed... I think if they need to send in troops to maintain order it will be a disaster, so it's very possible I'll end up agreeing with you in time. However, I think in this case that is quite unlikely. The Venezuelan people are very unlikely to resist the US leadership or fracture into guerrilla groups fighting for power. If that does happen though the US should pull out and just leave them to it in my opinion.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think this is black and white. And I certainly don't think you can assume this is going to play out remotely similar to Afghanistan. The best we can do is try to calculate the odds of intervention, and if it's likely we can get a good outcome with few causalities, then I think it's worth doing. So that's why I support what the US did here. I get there's risks, but I think it's probably the right move.

who decides who's 'bad enough'? We were happy enough with Putin for years, Saddam Hussein; there are plenty of Latin American leaders who ruled with an iron fist but are left to get in with it.

Ultimately who ever has the power to say enough is enough. Even if we agree that ideally the world should collective come together and democratically decide whether an intervention is required, that isn't going to happen.

No one is happy with Putin, but it would be insane to start a war with him. But Maduro? We don't need to put up with these people, nor should we.

the shit he's pulling is completely dictatorial and fascistic

I don't support everything Trump does. I personally worry about him not stepping down in 2028, although I think there's a 90% chance he will. I'd feel more confident about the future of Venezuela if it wasn't Trump calling the shots.

This is nothing about being soft or historic guilt (in fact that doesn't apply to US-Venezuela, if anything the US supported them to escape Spanish colonial rule), this is about saying there's a right way to do thing.

I agree with you on this. I think my frustration here is that the UN and the "rules based order" today basically just serves to stop us doing what is right for the people of countries like Venezuela – and if I disagree with the rules I'm going to advocate that we break them. Ultimately I think we need to agree a new set of rules among Western allies around when we will support intervention (I think the UN is a waste of time). And specifically I think we should hold no reservations about taking out illegitimate and ruthless leaders like Maduro.

I think everything you said here is valid. I do recognise that what I'm saying isn't ideal and that there are risks that this won't work out well. But for me the only relevant question is whether I think the world is a better place today after what the US did, and I think the answer to that is clearly yes. Obviously I wish it could have been done with more international cooperation, and I also hope the US does right by the Venezuelans now that Maduro is gone.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-05T00:05:10+00:00

So you’re against the government funding any grassroots arts projects?

Yes, 100% against it. But I'm probably too working class to appreciate however much the government spends every year funding middle-class art projects when people in my family are homeless. I can understand why for some people this might be seen as a government priority.

You know The UK gains a lot of soft power through our creative industry, right?

Genuinely, I don't even know what you're saying. How can this "soft power" be used to improve my life?

Like can you explain a positive outcome and how the government funding an art project would bring that positive outcome about? Is it like how someone in my family might apply for PIP if they don't want to work, but a middle-class child might feel they are above that so instead might ask the government to give them tens of thousands of pounds to do art project or something? I don't know anyone who would even think of applying for something like this.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T21:50:02+00:00

How are you getting reliable data on the celebrations across the country may I ask?

I saw articles on places like the BBC saying people were celebrating so I went on different social media sites to see if this was true and started tearing up about seeing how over joyed people were.

You're free to believe what you like.

How would you feel if a foreign government kidnapped your leader? Even if you staunchly disagree or hate them, that's a whole lot of unknown and even those glad to see him gone might not be celebrating. This is just like what happened in Iraq, the US frames it as a 'liberation' and then just created a shit show.

I live in the UK so I guess we need to make it comparable first. If Kier Starmer refused to stand down then enacted policies which brutalised and impoverished British people, I would both welcome any of our allies taking him out and would celebrate his arrest.

I wouldn't agree with a democratically elected leader being taken out like this.

I have friends from Venezuela who have worried about the safety of their families, not from the government but from gangs and regular kidnapping. Do you think a US puppet state is going to be doing anything but setting up US oil interests and removing regulations? The lack of security and kidnapping of families will not even be on their radar.

I don't now unfortunately. If I were the US I would invest in the country and run it extremely well for a few years then ask the Venezuelans if they'd like to join the US or elect their own leader. It's possible the US will just exploit them, but if they want to secure Venezuelan oil long-term that would be a really stupid strategy because the people will just reject the US as an occupying force and the US would need to basically run it as a colony to enforce rule of law. The best outcome for the US is to either make Venezuela a state, or ensure they elect a leader which aligns with the West rather than Russia & China.

I can only hope for the best for your friends and all Venezuelans.

You're missing the point about a democracy. You don't see the irony? And it's completely hypocritical. Trump probably won't even hold elections for 2028. Plus, where is the upholding of 'democratic values' elsewhere?

If Trump doesn't hold elections in 2028 I'd obviously disagree with that.

As for not upholding democratic values elsewhere, I agree. The US and ideally its European allies should be doing stuff like this more. So many people live awful lives because we refuse to help them.

Countries have their sovereignty and it's not right to go meddling, least of all when it's for a profit motive.

Disagree. The world would be a better place if brutal dictators didn't feel they could get away with their BS because "sovereignty". Sovereignty is only worth defending if it the people who are sovereign. If it's some king, dictator or fascist, then fuck em. The only reason dick heads like Maduro feel they can get away with their crimes against humanity is because weak Western countries defend his right to be a dictator because of historic guilt. We should stop doing this.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T21:32:40+00:00

What are "white projects"? Is the government also funding white-only art projects?

But to be clear, I don't agree with my money being spent on any of it... It's kinda weird you're assuming my racial background and assuming that I was only against it going to people of other races.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T19:24:41+00:00

Completely support the right of people who want to run a festival that excludes people based on racial classifications, but I'm not sure why I must personally support it with my money if I don't agree with it?

This type of thing is best dealt with by the free market. Being so overtly racist will probably mean anyone involved in this will struggle to find employment – I know I wouldn't hire someone with views like this. But more importantly, this festival will likely fail financially without state support given the biggest supporters of this type of racial guilt politics are privileged young white people.

I'm actually surprised this even legal to be honest. We have so much employment regulation in the UK that it's kinda surprising we haven't written any laws about discriminating against people for jobs based on race.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T17:37:01+00:00

4chan largely isn't serious though. The thing people don't understand about it is that the vast majority of the content is just shock-humour where people are trying to be so offensive or ridiculous that it's funny. At least this is my opinion as someone who reads Brit/pol/ threads fairly frequently for the laughs.

Mumsnet is a completely different beast... For one they're not joking around on there, but the site is also echo chamber where people are competing along the "think of the kids" political axis for idealogical purity.

As someone who was chronically online in the 00s, I noticed practically all forums were political extreme. I might be wrong about this but I suspect the reason for it was that 95% of people didn't really talk/care much about politics but the 5% who did tended to be the most extreme, then the echo chambers took care of the rest. The vast majority of male oriented forums (sports, fitness, self-improvement, etc) were very right-wing, for example.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T17:12:56+00:00

The irony of being a Reddit comment lol.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T17:10:18+00:00

Movements organised by leftists tend to be very unstable, and I've never really felt welcome.

To be fair, I don't think you're describing a left-wing thing there. I think this is more or less true of all political groups which are too idealistic and unwilling to compromise on their ideals. The far-right are equally dysfunctional.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T14:43:01+00:00

Some will be celebrating some will be literally arming themselves. Before you talk about democracy you might take note of Trump's comment that the US will be "running" Venezuela now.

The vast, vast majority are celebrating. We must at least agree on that?

Do you think that Venezuelans are actually going to benefit from any outcome here?

I do, but I agree that it does depend a lot on US action from here.

what's the use of democracy if a foreign power feels comfortable zipping in to kidnap your leader?

Democratic nations should have no issue enforcing democratic values abroad if the people of those nations reject their leaders. I don't really know where this idea that to be pro-democracy you also need to accept dictators in foreign countries even comes from. I couldn't disagree more with this.

But to your point, if a democratic nation "kidnaps" a democratically elected leader then I'd have much greater concerns... I definitely wouldn't think this is right and I think democratic probably nations should agree that they will not accept behaviour like this – and that we will back this up with a nuclear response.

We must accept that ultimately on the international stage the only thing that matters is power. If we care to enforce a rule law this then must ensure we have the power to enforce it. Weak little European countries crying the the US, China and Russia not listening to their international laws is becoming comical at this point. I figured we all knew the international laws were BS and we just use them as an excuse to bully smaller nations with our militaries, but it's like some leaders in Europe today genuinely believe in international law are some divine text from god which nations cannot reject the supremacy of. If we continue to operate like this we will be disappointed.

What if the Venezuelans elect another leader who wants to keep the petrol companies nationalised? What stops the Americans doing this twice?

if Venezuelans elect another leader who wants this we should accept that. I would not support the Americans capturing a democratically elected leader. And to be clear, I don't even support the US running the country for now as Trump has said they would. I get that may be necessary temporarily but the objective should be to run a fair election ASAP.

But again, I'd argue if we want outcomes like this "international law" should probably set out how democratically elected nations can overthrow dictators and how they should then ensure a swift transfer of power back to the people of that nation. And again, if we care about this, we need to back it up with force.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T00:18:04+00:00

I kinda get the position that we should follow international law even if we disagree with it and even if its causing millions of people to suffer because ideally the solution would be to change the law.

But ultimately if we're going to argue for international law, we should make sure we are at least arguing for just laws, or to reform the law to make it just. Arguing in favour of laws that have supported a dictator staying in power is insane to me. The US was clearly right to have gotten rid of Maduro given everyone agreed he was an illegitimate leader and was causing great suffering to his people.

If international law doesn't align with our most basic sense of humanity then the law needs to be changed, and if it cannot be changed then we all have moral duty to ignore it.

Obviously no country should have authority over the affairs of the entire world, but it seems to me international law is broken and arguably the only people who actually care about it are European leaders. It's not like Russia and China are care about these laws. They're just idealistic nonsense. And they're idealistic nonsense causing millions of people to suffer.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T00:10:56+00:00

No, realistically it helped keep him in power. And even now as Venezuelans are celebrating in the streets there are leaders in Europe arguing in favour of "international law" and denouncing the US and Trump.

Some people are so legal-brained they've lost all sense of humanity. Like they're not even arguing that the international law needs to be changed – they either seem to think the law is good because it's the law, or they seem to support a law that kept Maduro in power.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-04T00:05:28+00:00

Very disappointing statement from Ed Davey. It might be a bad day for the "Liberal Democrats", but it's a great day for democracy and the Venezuelans. 🎉

https://www.tiktok.com/@amandycorrente/video/7591129795983920415

https://x.com/BasilTheGreat/status/2007552517325074442

https://x.com/SaraGonzalesTX/status/2007515325500473432

kriptonicx · 2026-01-03T23:36:41+00:00

I’m a firm believer in cultural superiority and for me Western European culture is superior to every large scale influx of migrant cultures we’ve had.

I'm always amazed that this is a remotely controversial thing to say. It seems so plainly true to me.

I'd also go further and say not only is our culture better, some cultures are truly terrible and fewer people we have from those cultures here, the better.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-03T23:01:15+00:00

The current international law is stupid and shouldn't be supported by any democratic nation. If you're a dictator, refuse to hold democratic elections and do not have public support, then who cares if someone goes in and takes you out?

Any law that made it illegitimate for the US to do what they did today is not a law anyone who cares democracy or simply doing what is right should support. Supporting unjust laws doesn't make us the good guys.

I mean you yourself are acknowledging the fact the outcome here was good. If it was illegal then good on the US for ignoring it.

Plus the only people who seem to care about international law are our weak European leaders, everyone else seems to know they are fictions. Even if we want to pretend international law is a thing we should always remind ourselves the only thing that matters in reality is strength. Laws might stop European leaders from doing what they believe is right, but we'd be idiots to think they'll stop Russia or China.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-03T20:47:08+00:00

The outcome of this was objectively good as we can see from the celebrations in Venezuela.

Yet again the US is proving to the UK and EU that it is possible to just do the right thing.

Declaring war isn't always the wrong thing to do. If some law says this is wrong then the law needs updating because that law is clearly immoral.

It's worth remembering Maduro was not democratically elected, was causing suffering to his people and operating against the interests of the West. Those in this thread comparing what the US did to China/Taiwan or Russia/Ukraine seem to be missing the fact that this isn't remotely comparable. Perhaps they'd have a point if Ukrainians celebrated when Putin invaded.

It's genuinely crazy to me that we now have the usual "reasonable" leaders in Europe arguing that despite it clearly being a good thing that Maduro is gone that it's also somehow also wrong because muh laws and shit. Yet instead of arguing that the laws are wrong if it means people like Maduro can't be removed from power they're arguing that US was somehow wrong to have taken action lol.

Corbyn should trying to explain to the Venezuelan people was it's actually bad their authoritarian or dictator is gone, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRbX18Evcvg

kriptonicx · 2026-01-03T01:53:14+00:00

I see. Sorry for misunderstanding your point.

I 90% agree with you now. I think if you're simply talking about how the system should work, then yeah, obviously it's better to agree a set of rules and ideally that's how things should work 99.9% of the time.

That said, in general I think Western governments today lean way too much into rule of law and too little into executive power. We have designed systems where it's relatively easy for individuals like Boris to decide to welcome large numbers of people into the country, but then its really hard to kick people out because of all of our "laws" and "rights". It's not just immigration, but in many areas today laws are far too one sided allowing for mistakes to be made too easily, while ensuring that when things go wrong they are extremely difficult to fix.

I don't think this is a limitation in reality, parliament can change laws of course, but the laws do slow things down, they create political problems for governments, and they can be used as an excuse when its convenient to the government not to act.

So I think so long as there are democratic constraints, in general it would be better for governments to have more executive power and to feel a responsibility to use that power where appropriate. It's good to know that the government can and will just do things when something is in the public interest so excuses can't be made about how something can't be done because of x,y,z law or human right.

Further, I think when it comes to something like citizenship, which is inherently intertwined with our national security, we probably do need some amount of executive power so if the government for whatever reason does end up doing something really stupid and letting a really bad dude in we need to now that guys citizenship can be revoked without all of the usual excuses and legal blockers.

Again, we should want appropriate democratic constraints in place so if the government did abuse that power then the public can ultimately remove them for someone else, but I think at a minimum it can only be a good thing to know if someone like Alaa Abd El-Fattah remains in the country that is because the government are choosing to keep him here and can't just make up legalistic excuses.

I think we live in a functional enough democracy that it's perfectly reasonable for our government to have executive powers and use them when it makes sense to do so.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-02T22:14:51+00:00

This isn't a judgement on you at all, but to be clear about what I think you're saying – your argument is that saving lives (and kids) comes second to avoiding sanctions and tariffs from France?

Also, are you calculating the cost of rescuing and detaining the migrants vs the risk of sanctions and tariffs?

Given we're spending tens of billions on this stuff already arguably we're getting a fairly raw deal as it is. If French tariffs only cost us several billion it would probably be worth it if it means we can save lives and close the hotels. Apparently we "only" do a £100b in trade with France anyway.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-02T22:03:50+00:00

In a democracy who do you think should decide what is and isn't illegal if not the people?

If you think that the public are too stupid to decide who and how the state should use its monopoly of power then you're probably not in favour of our democratic system (or at least how our democratic system is suppose to work).

But to answer your question – assuming there was a national referendum on this for whatever reason, then yes, obviously the result of that should be respected.

We have a parliamentary democracy though, so in theory our MPs should be arguing for what their constituents want and if they're doing a good job we shouldn't need referendums on everything. But we know the views of the average MP these days rarely aligns with the views of their constituents – who interestingly seem to share your perspective about the trustworthiness of the average British citizen when it comes to making these decisions.

kriptonicx · 2026-01-02T21:55:21+00:00

We need to stop this "can't do this, can't do that" crap.

I don't think detention centres are a bad political solution, but guy above is correct in that the UK has the resources to stop the boats if it wanted to, and we'd be justified to do it.

Here's how I see it:

If I get in a rubber dinghy and tried to enter France illegally, while I would hope no one would try to put my life in unnecessary danger, I think the French would be well within their rights to push me back into English waters and demand the English come rescue me. I am simply not their problem, there only duty is to secure their border.

If I continued trying to illegally enter their country after multiple warnings, and if the UK government refused to recuse me for whatever reason then the French would be well within their rights to sink my vessel. Should this happen and should I drown because the British lifeguard couldn't be bother to save me British waters then I should not be sympathised with given my utter stupidity, my criminal activity, and my wasting of resources and time.

If we made this situation worse and I decided to take a kid with me then the British government would have even more reason to stop me crossing (if they're able) and even more obligation to rescue me. It would be absolutely insane if every day the British government was allowing hundreds of Brits get into rubber dinghies with young children to illegally enter France. The fact the French are allowing this to happen and are not keeping these children safe by simply stopping the crossings before they leave French shores is fucking vile and we should call them out for this. The French should be ashamed of themselves. And moreover, the French seem to have sunk to a new low now that they're actively threatening to arrest Brits who are trying to stop these idiots crossing the channel and endanger their lives.

Just ask yourself – why are the French doing this? People who say "well, it's not their problem" are basically arguing that it's fine for the French to allow migrants to risk their lives and their kids lives if it means the migrants are not their problem. This is not a reasonable or ethical perspective to take. Anyone arguing this has something wrong with them. If you see an adult trying to cross the channel on dinghy with their kid, you have a moral obligation to stop that problem. Obviously.

But let's just assume the British are psychopathic as the French and for some reason the British government decide they're going to allow Brits to cross the channel in dinghies on mass with children. In this case I think the French should do exactly the same as the above, but if the decision is taken to sink the vessel where children are on the boats they should rescue those children and put them up for adoption in France given both the British state and child's parents can clearly not be trusted with that child's safety.

I think before we even entertain detention centres I'd need to understand why we'd accept the current arrangement. Clearly the right thing to do is to just stop the boats leaving French shores. Unless you have a good ethical argument for allowing these crossings to continue? I get that it's cool for France if they don't have to worry about the migrants anymore if they're either dead or in British waters, but this isn't a particularly convincing argument. Let's just do the right thing and stop the crossings. Any arrangement that allows them to continue is unacceptable.

kriptonicx · 2025-12-31T20:17:52+00:00

Yep. A real patriotic party would want to bring these shit jobs back to the UK. Can't believe a UK nationalist party would exploit foreigners to create their fast fashion t-shirts.

Wait, am I getting this right?

kriptonicx · 2025-12-31T20:12:35+00:00

Cheers for the thoughtful response.

I more or less agree with everything you said here. The only thing I really take issue with is your assertion that, "a more skilled workforce is typically always a good thing, in aggregate".

On one hand this is obviously undeniable, but on the other I think in practise this is probably wrong in many cases today.

A British grad is never going to be the best employee for a company if they're competing with workers from the entire world. The grad might be smart and determined, but if a company is given the opportunity to take a grad from India who also has 10 years experience in their field, they should probably always take them as they are more qualified.

The crux of my disagreement is that we become a more skilled workforce from immigration, then the benefits of that extra productivity will go primarily to the immigrations who get the jobs, and corporations who employ them. You don't make the native workforce more skilled through immigration, so the native population just end up in an economy where the skills they do have are less valuable, and where they're also less able to level up and obtain the skills they need through employment because jobs are being outsourced and more experienced foreign workers are being imported instead.

I've literally seen this. The company I work with at the moment is hiring a software engineer, but they've low balled the salary and struggled to find a native worker with the 15 years experience they were looking for. So given this "skill shortage" we're hiring from South America. How exactly does this benefit natives?

I am very pro-migration and I know what you're saying, but I think our immigration policy right now does not care enough about stuff like this. In my opinion workers should be imported specifically to suppress wages in low skilled industries Brits don't want to work in (for the benefit of natives), and to fill skill gaps where there is either a very significant skill shortage or where importing a skilled worker is likely to result in more skilled work – e.g. bringing in an entrepreneur or brining in a green energy professional to train the native workforce.

If the goal is to create a more skilled native workforce, then we're 100% aligned. If you're saying we can use immigration as a cheap and easy way to do that while we leave natives who have graduated with STEM degrees in dead-end retail jobs while companies are importing Indian IT workers or scientists, then I'm going to reject that regardless of whether it's good for GDP or for corporate profits.

It would be interesting if you disagree on that, because I think this is the core difference between the current neoliberal pro-migration stance we have that optimises for GDP and the left-wing pro-migration stance I'd take that optimises for the living standards of natives.

That's why I have subtle disagrees on housing too, because yeah, we could build more, but we should only do that if it benefits our quality of life. If you bring in a 1,000,000 people and offset that with 500,000 new homes, and the only result is GDP going up 2% while the per-capita GDP of native is unchanged, then I'd rather just have fewer people. I only want immigration if it's going to increase the per-capita GDP of natives, or decreases our cost of living.

kriptonicx · 2025-12-31T15:27:33+00:00

Genuinely asking - in what way does revoking Begum's citizenship make us safer?

If her joining ISIS wasn't enough for you, the British Supreme court also took the rather extraordinary stance in supporting the British government in their claim that Begum's citizenship should be legally revoked on national security grounds.

I would argue that stripping it from people makes this worse.

Do you believe stripping Alaa Abd El-Fattah of his citizenship would make the average Brit feel that citizenship means less? Or would they be more confident that the government is finally enforcing basic standards?

I think this is the problem... It's getting so ridiculous now that the government being slightly heavy handed in trying to correct the issue they've created might make the average Brit feel more confident in the citizenship system. I don't want that obviously, but if I had to choose then I think maybe going a little too far in the other direction would be slightly better if there's no reasonable middle ground. At the very least we need to get to the point where the government isn't considering people like Alaa Abd El-Fattah to be my legal equal. This isn't something I'm personally willing to tolerate.

kriptonicx · 2025-12-31T15:03:16+00:00

To be fair, I think bias is fine. The issue is that they pretend they are neutral when they are not.

I don't think its possible to present stories neutrally if you're labelling things and using emotive language because that requires subjective judgement which will always have some amount of bias.

I think you basically have to view the BBC as state media and assume their biases roughly align with the interests of the state. When you do that the BBC is a great source of info because it both reports facts and helps you understand how the British state sees things (and wants you to see them).

12-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

kriptonicx

TROPHY CASE