They think (like many Americans right now) that it will only be done against ‘those other people’. When they realize it’s been applied to them, it’s too late (they’ve been ‘othered’ now) and people will ignore them - or they’ll have to blame themselves or cover it up in order to fit in.

It’s classic.

Eventually, enough people will have been fucked by it that the numbers will shift back the other way - and then the opposite end of the pathology (not being able to recognize the main groups own needs enough to defend them or pull together as a coherent group) starts building.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's disturbing to me that so much of this type of legislation originates with the "Conservatives", and the only viable alternative in Labour thinks this type of legislation doesn't go far enough. I guess at least things will be interesting with Farage in Number 10.

It does mean exactly that. If parents want to control what their kids see online they can take control of the situation and limit screen time to where it can be supervised. It might even make sense to have legislation to ensure that that is possible (that schools can't require devices for young children, that device makers need to implement effective parental controls, etc.).

But that's not what the OSA is. Instead it's the government deciding how all kids should be parented. And of course it doesn't just affect the kids now because to be effective all adults need to prove they are not kids to view "harmful" materials, with all the chilling effects and collection of sensitive data that that entails.

> I notice most of the outrage in HN is from foreign entities wanting freedom to push whatever.

Hence the original acknowledgement:

> The thing you have to understand is that the average Brit wants and possibly needs the government to tell them how to live their lives.

The Brits can go bugger off and build their own China Firewall™.

Immigration is sucking support more from the tories than labour. They rode into power based upon a promise to do something about it and then massively increased it.

Labour are recently leaning into being anti immigration because it's one of the few wealthy-donor-friendly policies they can pursue which will potentially gain them votes.

Decided not to, but continued to actively campaign on. It’s created a really weird situation where the actual policy choices are hugely disconnected from the rhetoric and emotion in the debate.

Legal immigration from South Asia dominates illegal immigration by an order of magnitude, but nobody wants to lose seats in Birmingham, so essentially doesn’t figure in the arguments about small numbers of afghans in miserable hotels in Essex.

For the Conservatives it's all about irregular/illegal immigration. Labour are hugely unpopular on that having apparently no idea what to do about it but they also have massive challenges on the economy/cost of living and the state of publicly funded services.

Well, I offered my observations and a few people agreed with me to varying degrees. You asserted I'm wrong, ignorant, and stupid. Perhaps that is true; it is not, however, an argument.

Going by that reasoning someone must be clearly doing something wrong considering they seem to voice their political will at about the same rate as the politically active Americans.

Turnout in the latest presidential/general elections:

2025 German federal election 82.5%

2024 United Kingdom general election 59.7%

2022 French presidential election 73.69%(I)/71.99%(II)

2022 Italian general election 63.85%

2023 Spanish general election 66.6%

2024 United States presidential election 64.1%

You should give a shit because Europe is on its way to implementing its own horrible legislation [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Comb...