Goodbye Internet. Hello Intranet. UK Gov silences the rest of the world.
It's a sad day, when a first world country thinks it's a GOOD thing to be the "leader in regulation of the internet". As the UK continues with it's oppressive regime, laws such as the Digital Economy Act ruining adult media, complete and utter loss of privacy thanks to RIPA, and now it gets so much worse.
"Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet," it states. "We disagree."
In the next year, the UK will likely be cut off from the rest of the world, in the same way that North Korea is. No longer will we be able to communicate with our friends in the US, Asia, and Europe. A complete and utter echo chamber.
Image source: blackholezoo.com
Because that's what she wants. Theresa May, who was our previous Home Secretary (a fancy word for "government head of destroying privacy"), ended up our Prime Minister (president) after David Cameron quit.
Despite her new role being focused on the entire country, instead she's using it to push through more and more ridiculous breaches of privacy. Soon, as they cut us off from the rest of the world, we probably won't even be able to use VPNs or TOR.
After May cuts off our communication with the outside world, it's likely she might go further, possibly imposing travel bans to "prevent international terrorism", and giving more power to the GCHQ (the UK's NSA).
If the Conservative party wins the election this June, it's likely that we won't be competing with other European countries for standards of living, rather, North Korea. She plans on making the UK "the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet".
If you're a UK citizen. For the love of the internet, DO NOT VOTE FOR THE CONSERVATIVES. Please. Any other party. It's likely that Steemit would be considered "too open" and banned within the next few years in the UK, should Theresa May stay in power.
Good read m8
I'm dreading the results tomorrow!
This is indeed terrifying. A couple of years ago I read a book called, Civilization:The West and the Rest by Niall ferguson. He does a good job explaining the world in the 1300. If you were to look at the world back then, comparing Europe to China, you'd have never believed Europe would be the one dominating the world for the next 500 years. The reason China failed, at a time it was more advanced than everyone else, was because it decided to close itself in from the outside world. Europe, on the hand, focused on exploration, international trade and thrived. Reading this worries me that Europe will make the same mistake China did 700 years ago.
I suspect this might backfire somewhat!
That's an epic poster.
These rules come from, & has to be approved by Elizabeth. Their queen is not pleased with "Pandora's Box" telling all their secrets as it has & shall continue to do. So, she is shutting the people down and readying them for more tyranny. Only this time she will bend them over that golden carriage of hers.
I have already voted your post but now I have time to reply. I am not able to vote but in the same time I won't vote her. A person that was elected because after Cameron left she was saying that was against the Brexit and once elected she changed mind. Now this bad new that I wasn't aware of... disgusting only disgusting.
Don't forget that all the incentives for Renewable energy have been cut off... I mean instead of a progression I can only see a regression.
Poor us mate... we are at the same level of North Korea now :(
Does it mean that you could not also access websites outside UK?
That's pretty much the point. Imagine how China uses their own services like Baidu instead of Google, WeChat instead of Whatsapp/Telegram, etc.
Something similar could happen here, in order to make it easier for the government to control our communication.
I read this piece a few days ago, was also planning to make a post about this proposal. Privacy is something we must keep, we have to hold on to. This idea gives me the feeling we are going back to the times people were not allowed to say anything, censorship on everything that is written.
I agree, please make sure this does not happen!
about the Porn Prohibition
No worries - neither the internet or porn can be censored and any attempt to do so will just create better bypass channels.
Worry about internet censorship is in itself fear porn. Neither Jacob Rotchild, nor "the queen" can even censor torrents let alone porn (if they really want to)
This is my most popular webpage out of 1200:
http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sift/the-biggest-free-porn-site-in-the-world/
I do not believe UK will be cut off from world. I like that we focus more and more on internets and modern ways. But take with pinches of salt of what UK govs declare. It is only words and the people have more power than they often realise. The people will not let UK get into such a state. Certainly nothing close to North Korea!
Plus i feel it very unlikely Torys will win election.
I suppose we just have to sit back and wait for it to unravel, deal with problems as they occur. Try not to worry/think about worse case scenarios. Else you will lose your mind trying to guess outcomes. Stay calm. Carry on ;)
As a responsible and new user of Steem, I would like to dissuade the author from rhetoric that only serves as its own echo chamber of scare mongering.
Do you really believe that the UK will be "No longer [...] be able to communicate with our friends in the US" or "probably won't even be able to use VPNs"??
Those kinds of over-the-top, in your face, cheap shots are the mainstay of the trolling trolls that troll all of the major media websites.
I do not debate the points you bring up about censorship and government controlling the web. That does concern me. But to lump all of that together and have this call to action (DO NOT VOTE FOR THE XYZ PARTY) is in itself a concerning problem. There's hardly a party out there, or a politician in any major position, who consistently upholds human values, privacy, and property rights at the expense of government power.
Voting the conservatives out, I hate to tell you, is not going to magically fix anything.
So while I dislike your post a lot, I am not here to condemn you. I'd like you to ease off your rhetoric a notch or two. Projecting your ideas so vociferously is not good for Steem, in my opinion. I would much rather see you lampoon and ridicule your opponents with candor and respect than with all that bluster.
🐝 If you want more flies, why don't you try honey instead of vinegar?
It's actually proven that flies are in fact drawn to vinegar over honey.
Just as humans crave drama more than boring articles that don't inspire emotions.
I absolutely believe it. Theresa May is insane. She is the kind-of person who would "turn off the internet" during a terrorist attack.
We're the #1 most surveilled country in the world, China/North Korea only comes second to us.
Theresa May believes that we need to keep that #1 position, as if it's a good thing.
We're living in a society where your browser history isn't protected by law any more, it can be accessed warrantless by many government agencies including the NHS (our health care), the fire services, and many others.
To think it couldn't get to the point where we're cut off from the outside, is ridiculous. The conservative party, along with Theresa May, believe the only way to stop terrorism is to lose our privacy. Her reason for leaving the European Court of Human Rights, is clearly to drop "the right to privacy" which has been a roadblock to her invasive surveillance laws. I have zero respect for May or the Conservatives.
Ok, so you are confident in your polemics. I got that. And yes, the UK government is certainly a snoopity snooping on her citizens.
But your "content" revolves around a Parade of Horribles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parade_of_horribles of what allegedly will happen unless we sack T. May. Please stick to the facts, present your case for surveillance and privacy problems, and produce content ripe for discussion.
I am willing to discuss issues. You make valid points and intersperse them with "she is the kind of person" sweeping generalisations and "zero respect" dramatizations.
What you posted here is just a rant and a diatribe. It's not interesting content.
It stinks.
You disagree that my pointed criticism will improve STEEM? Downvoted for poor and unreasonable content. Consider this my curation for the day.
There's all kinds of "content" here on Steemit, and you'll find a lot of diatribe amongst it. I support your vote usage, do whatever you like, but I don't think a statement like this can be respected.
I also agree with you this is a little echo chambery, like you might find on Facebook. However it's perfectly valid to extrapolate that a government which has consistently moved to increase surveillance and internet controls, will restrict the kinds of technology which can be run on the internet, up to and including a Great British Firewall.
Why do you think this is unreasonable?
It's unreasonable because of the disconnected thought pattern.
We all have a tendency to jump to conclusions. But when that knee-jerk reaction in the author's mind (The Internet is going to be shut off any moment now!!) is disconnected with facts (The conservatives have pushed for regulation and censorship), then the author is guilty of fantasizing.
This diatribe is fantastic. It's fantasy.
Why debate fantasy?
I say it's fantasy because the author can show no proof of these predictions, nor could I assent or dissent from made-up, fantastic, unsupported speculation.
My point is that in order to have a fair and reasonable debate, we should at least have some framework, some rules, and some parameters. The alternative is to shout each other down, invent false premises and straw men, and fabricate things.
May the best un-sourced, un-attributed, un-founded speculation win?!?
My contention with the author's points of speculation are precisely that they are ... literally ... un-reasonable, meaning that they are supported with no reason, no reasoning, except as naked assertions.
My opinion is that the author needs to change the naked reasoning into clear and convincing reasoning. Then I will debate the premises and conclusions.
ECHO.... ECHO ... echo ... echo
Hi uruiamme. I'm new here too and wondering how to spot trolls through steem ... there's a lot of people using it to just make money and troll important topics.
That actually sounds about right. I think a lot of platforms are designed to put Trolls in the driver seat. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I think that some of the most lucrative YouTube channels are based on the fact that people want controversial, off-beat, unconventional content. Many of the major media personalities in the US are essentially accused of hyping their positions to the point that drama ensues. It's all about the ratings.
It's pretty lucrative for the talking heads, bloggers, vloggers, radio talk show hosts, political pundits, and Hollywood gossipers.
I think it's the monetization of gossip. Hello Web 3.0.
(Most) truth is relative and wholly based on perspective. The opinions expressed in the author's blog are strong, but so are those to the contrary, and the mainstream media is more or less an echo chamber, along with every social media outlet.
On trolls : On the one hand, it would be amazing if Steem could be troll free (not calling author that) - but there's no way to ensure that without clamping down on personal freedom, and drawing a bunch of arbitrary lines as to what's appropriate and what's not, what's good for the steem community, what's not...and then, bam, it's rules and regulations here too.
(deeper question - why do humans constantly need to create systems and rules that oppress us and go against our nature...or is it our nature to classify and condemn?)
I agree that the author's post is one sided, he doesn't pretend it isn't. I agree with some of his points. Now, as an American, I'm not fluent by any means in UK politics, aside from what I hear in my own echo chamber across the pond. (Every thing we learn is colored by the lens of nationalism to some degree - whether we despise our country's leaders or embrace them...whether we are conscious of it or not simply being American or British or Chinese is a lens...)
My natural reaction was to take everything he said with a grain of salt, and research it before I form an opinion. And that's the heart of the matter - censoring everything or saying people shouldn't speak their mind implies readers are too dumb/lazy to do their own research (yes, many are. maybe not dumb, but lazy).
The problem isn't what's written and where it's written it's the entire culture of wanting to have our news with our coffee - hot and ready to go.
I don't think steem pretends to be a community of hard news journalists, and the assumption should be that readers aren't so weak as to lap up every word someone writes and take it for gospel ...
That said, journalism was my first career path - as a student I was taught not to include my personal biases in articles - but I realized thats impossible. Every adjective we choose adds a slant to the story - think about Trump visiting Saudi via the lens of CNN vs Fox.
Anyway, I like the freedom of Steem. I think dialogue is important. Your comments, other critics comments, the writer's opinions, etc . Restricting any of that would be a real problem.