Liz Truss Wants a Pony: A Magic Internet Where No One Ever Says Any Bad Things
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
Sunak might not have said something as transparently daft as two internets, but he still wants two thirds of the websites in the world to age verify their British visitors, and that's not a million miles off the same thing.
Ok so on this point - and please, if you must, wear a tin foil hat for what's coming.
I'm sort of convinced that Sunak isn't daft, nor is he surrounded by daft pipe-smoking unicorn-chasers.
So I'm sort of convinced that when such a wide and sort of untenable request is made, it is expected that:
1. It will be pushed as morally necessary ("what about the children? we must protect them!")
2. There will be more pushback, because it's too stupidly hard to enforce national mandates on a global level ("the UK demands, but we don't care")
3. Voices of reason harmonising (1) and (2) will say, the necessity isn't questioned, but perhaps the onus of IDing the users should be on the nation that imposes the (morally acceptable, technically unfeasible) requirement
4. The compromise is reached with a UK national ID card (blockchained, if you want to add garnish), which Brits then must use to access anything and everything online and offline.
Perfect security [state], if you ask me.
Apologies, it's hot and I just couldn't resist -- I'll run and hide from the toh-mah-toh-s now :-)
Honestly, I think he is daft, or just underbriefed about this.
There is a lot of lobbying money going into suggesting this scenario is a positive. The NSPCC are spending literally almost their entire lobbying budget on it due to the personal obsession of key staff, and the Age Verification Providers Association is telling MPs that the UK has a chance to build loads of successful businesses selling age verification to the world as they'll have first mover advantage, so it will be a net plus to the economy rather than a massive fiscal drag.
These arguments are self interested nonsense from a delusional group that does not want to lose it's terrible investment, but they are absolutely been taken seriously by the current government.
Useful lobbying by UK businesses needs to focus on this being a pipe dream - if age verification worked, the money would not be made by UK businesses (if it genuinely takes off do you really not think Google and Facebook would eat that market? Really???), and in the meantime it is rent seeking that will cripple UK start-ups.
If we're still wearing our tin foil hats, I have to ask how did these people become key staff, and what links do they have to GCHQ?
> A mandatory age verification layer
Probably only achievable by introducing a National ID card and the issuing of free card readers to every citizen. I hope she's not reading this: it might just happen.
> this very much creates a “splinternet”
It's a pity she's dissed China so publicly: I'm sure the CCP would have been only too pleased to rent her a copy of their Internet system with all the dystopian controls that it comes with as standard.
That's about to be required for elections, and it's already a requirement for resident non-citizens[0].
The system might be a little more complicated for people just visiting the UK on a holiday/business trip, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had to enrol their devices as part of the "pre-screening" process that will tie into the new facial recognition database.[1]
[0] https://www.gov.uk/biometric-residence-permits
[1] https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2022/07/21/uk-...
Let's just say that if Liz Truss gets to be elected Prime Minister of Britain, that the British have learned nothing from the Johnson debacle.
I'm not comparing her to Donald Trump, but there's the same sense of incredulity that the political system would install someone so populist and devoid of substance in such a position of power.
The office of Prime Minister is decided by the ruling party. Due to the timing of party politics and General Elections, she'll have been elected by the Conservative party, not by the actual UK electorate.
Unless you’re espousing an opinion?
So, not really.
Until the cards are drawn, both are quite literally options.
The entire Conservative party are "non-options" from my perspective, but they're the government, so they were someones choice.
He managed to be prime minister.
But Wetherspoons used to have a “Rishi’s Dishes” deal thing, and that’s quite a lot of brand recognition from a very conservative voter base.
Democracy is an active, ongoing process, it doesn't stop at the election booth.
You deserve better than unelected leaders (unelected as by the people, not by a few selected Tory party members).
Unfortunately, the upper echelons of the Tory Party - and thus every candidate putting themselves forward to be PM - is filled with these vacuous puppets largely guided by the ERG[1] because they've somehow managed to capture the party, much like the Tea Party took over the GOP.
The UK electorate does not elect a Leader, it elects a Party. Currently, the elected party is the Conservatives, and that does not change even if the party leader (and as they are the party in power, the de facto Prime Minister) of the Conservatives change. There is no requirement for a General Election, as the elected party isn't changing.
I DO have issue with the process to whittle the clutch of candidates for the role down to two, as that process is restricted to tory MPs only who as we always observe, do endless back room deals to secure their own places in the new regime. I feel that this should have been a standard popularity election with all hopefuls listed on the ballot and the entire tory party membership voting.