King Charles III signs off on Online Safety Act with unenforceable spying clause

MediaBiasFactCheck rates them as "High" on their factuality scale: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-register-uk/

(though MediaBasFactCheck's statement that "we rate The Register Least Biased based on minimal editorializing" seems to be based on their lack of a political bias, but El Reg is certainly biased towards iconoclasm, but that's the way I like 'em)

International audience might interpret it exactly like that.

When all the websites were reporting on my "discovery" of a security issue, The Register has been the first (by over a week) and one of the few to ask me by email about the details and the only to publish article with correct information. I know they weren't rushing to publish it as they were far from the first. Also they have been fast to respond back.

Some other website that I will not name have made a lot of mistakes in their reporting and when asked for fixing, the reporter replied 3 days later and complained that my article has been too complicated! I also have a small suspision that they copy-pasted it from some much smaller website without mentioning it, as that website published earlier than them and had the same exact mistakes, which were very hard to make, unless you decided to skip random paragraphs and stop in the middle.

All the other websites have copied from that one without ever checking the authoritative source that was my article and I know this because I explicitly had put a warning to clarify the misinformation :).

Some other big website emailed me after all the other ones have published and I answered their questions and I even told them to not put X as a title as that's not what the issue is about as I saw others doing that. Guess what? They did that exact title :).

Especially after Brexit the British people have learned the lesson of fucking around for years when it comes to any change, this will happen with lightning speed and determination.

Realistically it will just be passed anyway one way or the other. e.g. the UK will become a republic, or they will bypass the monarch like they did in Belgium when the king refused to sign the abortion law (parliament declared the king "incapacitated" in which case the PM could sign things in to law, and a few hours later they declared him "capable" again – whether this really was keeping with the spirit or even text of the law is dubious, it's not in my reading, but no one really cared; the only reason Belgium still has a monarchy is because the king didn't object to this hack).

essentially whether or not he'd be on the side of whoever won the next election (that would be swiftly triggered)

if the same government was re-elected he'd be made to abdicate

otherwise he'd be ok

He would probably be either asked to abdicate, or it would be the end of the British monarchy altogether.

It would cause a massive constitutional crisis in the UK where not only the monarchy would be called in question, but also the nobility (i.e. House of Lords)

In the US you have the second amendment to protect you against the state, but in the UK we have the Monarch. In theory the Monarch could tell the government to get lost, but their ability to do that in practise would depend on whether the police and military would side with them.

If Charles withheld consent for this he would probably be overruled in one way or another, but if it was about entering an unpopular war you could see how his consent would become much more important.

Charles can withhold consent in the same sense as he can shoot himself in the face.