We're bringing it up because it's not being mentioned and we think it's important.

I that once freedom of speech and freedom to communicate and freedom to decent are gone they are gone for good.

I dislike very much that politicians like Peter Kyle and Jess Philips have tried to shut down dissenting voices by comparing them to paedophiles or saying this is just about access to porn.

I'm really angry about this. I don't want to live in a "nanny state" and will probably end up voting for a party I otherwise dislike just get this crap repealed.

Labour, Tories and Greens don't seem to care about personal freedom. I do and I'm fed having politicians and journalists that don't listen to me.

Destroying freedom isn't a fucking compromise. If algorithmic feeds are as bad as say, heroin, then the correct response is to regulate or ban them. You're arguing for the Internet version of legalising heroin and installing a physical surveillance state to target the addicts, it's absolute fucking insanity.

Assigning infinite weight to one factor or consideration is sort of the definition of fanaticism, yes?

The monopoly on violence is trying to solve this problem, that's a bigger problem.

> I'm stunned when people can't reason about a tradeoff between two principles because they assigned infinite weight to one of them.

I couldn't tell if this post was satire at first read.First it complains about not weighting tradeoffs, then it follows up with a demand that we ignore the tradeoffs as noise and just push through with the regulations.

You see the irony, right? You're stunned that people can't weigh tradeoffs, then you switch to dismissing tradeoffs as noise:

> People are trying to solve this problem; trying to scare them with other problems they may have later--which they can solve separately!--is just irrelevant noise.

Considering the second order and higher order consequences of regulations is the entire point.

You're just waving them all away with an assumption that they will be solved in the future.

Trying to shut down discussion about the consequences of government action as noise is scary. We've reached levels of moral panic that people like you are happy to close your eyes to any consequences and insist we let the government take control and do whatever they want right now, without considering the consequences.

It's terrifying that people think this way.

It's interesting that we suddenly can't regulate anything because of "freedom" and "speech" and it just happens to align perfectly with big tech interests.

The whole freedom and speech shit online is starting to feel like a big lie we have been sold so that big tech can just get richer.

Hey, if it's irrelevant noise then why are you crying about it?

Anyway, to make it the UK's problem even more, I will be doing what I can to eliminate the UK's traffic to as many services as possible. I have no interest in supporting the small island or it's people or their great red coat firewall.

Enjoy your wall.

> Police state=bad. Industrial scale drug addiction in kids=also bad. Some compromise must be made.

False. The whole point of fundamental rights is that they aren’t compromised on based on outcomes.

“Torture is bad, but not being able to get information out of criminals is also bad. Some compromise must be made.” That’s just not how it works, is it?