Strange that this is framed as a national sovereignty issue not an issue of UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. This is exactly the thing we don’t want democratic governments to do - congeal with corporate power against their people. Appealing to legality when the laws are themselves unjust is not a defense. The online safety act is broad and vague and not in the interests of UK citizens, so sovereignty appeals are completely disingenuous here. When we talk about sovereignty what we are really referring to is the power of the UK government over its people and the subservience expected of entities like 4chan to that end.

We see these exact same mechanisms in the US and that’s precisely why we should not manufacture rationalizations for this kind of policy - the societal decline as a result of this cynical trend is clear.

▲

estimator7292 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is an issue of national sovereignty because the UK is trying to force foreign civilians to enforce their laws outside of their jurisdiction for free, by way of bullying, threats, and illegal fines.

What the UK does within their own borders is their business. They don't have any right to force foreign entities to censor themselves or tl block UK citizens, as if that's even a technically feasible request.

The UK's free speech situation is bad, yes, but that's not the problem we're talking about here. The matter at hand is the UK trying to censor free speech by foreign citizens outside the UK and is using illegal threats to do so.

	▲	motbus3 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is all theatrical. They already know that what they want is a section on what can be see or not within its borders. After this case has been processed and maybe some others some genius will say that internet should be a subset of the whole internet. That's nothing new. For years during war times the post office had followed letters from and to specific destinations/people for conference.

▲

rbanffy 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end.

If the citizens of the UK wish to express discontent, they are free to vote for a different parliament so they enact different laws. We who live outside the UK have no say on their laws.

▲

grafmax 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests to the point that governments engage in suppression of free speech and mass surveillance against their populations. (What’s unique to the UK is that it’s government is largely subservient to the US in the international dragnet.) We are all human and share the same human rights regardless of our nationality.

▲

rbanffy 17 hours ago | parent [-]

> The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests

A judge will not find this comment amusing, or a justification for breaking the law. You can, of course, engage in civil disobedience, but keep in mind it doesn't shield you from consequences.

	▲	grafmax 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Precisely, mine is a moral not legal argument against shallow moral appeals to “sovereignty”.

▲

nvarsj 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The government got 33% of the vote. Please tell me how I can vote for a sensible government.

▲

rbanffy 16 hours ago | parent [-]

The government as it is, was elected by 100% of the vote. The party heading the Executive branch had fewer than 100% of the vote.

▲

amiga386 15 hours ago | parent [-]

That is not the case. The government was elected with 33.7% of the vote.

You were trying to make a distinction between "government" and "executive" -- that's not how it works here, matey. His Majesty's Government is the party in power (or whichever grouping of MPs can hold the confidence of parliament), it is not all the other MPs - they are the opposition.

We don't have an "Executive". We have His Majesty's Government, they head all the departments, they command the civil service, they control the legislative timetable. The rest of the MPs and Lords are just plebs who get to vote on things. The opposition don't get to propose legislation, except when the Government feels generous and lets them (opposition days).

FPTP creates individual constituencies of roughly 70,000 voters, and the candidate who gets the most votes in one constituency wins a seat. The other candidates in that constituency get nothing, and all votes for them are completely wasted (unlike in other voting schemes). Candidates are usually a member of a political party. The party with the most seats gets first opportunity to form a government.

The 2024 general election was won by Labour with 9,708,716 votes (33.70%) out of 28,924,725 cast. Turnout was 60%, there could've been 48,208,507 possible votes.

The 2019 general election was won by the Conservatives with 13,966,454 votes (43.63%). 2017 was 42.3%. 2015 was 36.8%. 2010 was 59.1%. 2005 was 35.2%. 2001 was 40.7%. You can see the last result was the lowest vote share in decades.

And yet, 33.7% of the vote nets you 100% of the power. Thanks, FPTP!

	▲	okeuro49 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		FPTP forces coalitions to form before the vote, as otherwise they never get power. In alternative systems, you vote and then coalitions jostle to form a majority afterwards.

▲

int_19h 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My impression is that most UK citizens do in fact support their nanny state and its policies, so this is rather an example of democracy in action.

▲

Ylpertnodi 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Your 'impression'.

	▲	int_19h an hour ago \| parent [-]
		From the polls, yes.

▲

motbus3 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In few years agreeing with you will be considered unsafe

Consider this a glomar response.

	▲	grafmax 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Obeying in advance makes them stronger.