The issue isn't how much free speech online is being punished. It is how surveillance could be used to reinforce authoritarianism.

The UK does a lot of prosecuting people for having said nasty things online that someone else didn't like.

Hungary is far more inclined to surveil political opponents, put people in their network in jail without fair trial, surveil successful businesses whose bribes were insufficient, find excuses to punish those businesses.

▲

christkv an hour ago | parent [-]

Sources please

	▲	btilly an hour ago \| parent [-]
		UK prosecutions happen in public. So I presume that the Hungary accusations need justification. Lack of fair trials: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251120IP... Illegal surveillance of political opposition: https://rm.coe.int/pegasus-and-similar-spyware-and-secret-st... Strong arming companies into bribes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Fidesz Not only are there not similar reports about the UK, but its better position in international corruption rankings points to a culture that would be less likely to tolerate this. Any further questions about why there should be concerns about how Hungary would be likely to abuse a law like this?