The trade-offs and how many people care and about what specifically.
E.g., you say "Privacy is a human right", so why is it that half the websites I visit ask for permission to share details of how I use those sites with more corporate "trusted partners" than there were students and staff combined in my secondary school? I'm all on board with just banning this kind of analytics, but there's a lot of people who are more angry with the EU for forcing companies to at least ask for permission before they sell your data to all those analytics firms.
Because capitalism itself is the enemy.
And information assymmetry is a potent tool, as is constant and persistent surveillance. All of these enable extracting more money.
Most of this end-stage crapitalism was warned by Adam Smith, and then by Marx.
And what did economists do? Fucking ignore it. Or named it trickle down.
So, yeah. When the capitalists control the government, you get all the abuses written about it for the last 300 years. And it fucking shows.
Computation and copyright was just dropping helicopter loads of gasoline on the already terrible fire.
Let's be real here. It's investor-monopoly capitalism that is the problem. Individuals worth less than $100,000,000 owning private property or their businesses isn't the problem, it's the Financial-Industrial-Complex with its Dodge vs Ford ruling (established duty to maximize shareholder returns) that is the problem. People owning their homes, cars, agriculture fields, tractors, semi-trucks, and small/medium business are not the cause of our ills. The cause is the financialization of everything, turning everyone into rent-paying debtors always on the precarious edge. Free enterprise is good, but monopoly enterprise is not. Quit making people race to the bottom in competition for basic survival, and start making the moneyed monopolists do it instead!
Example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Thames_Crossing - the planning application is 360,000 pages and not a single shovel is in the ground. Or HS2. The list goes on. This is a really, really minor example of the same sickness that infests British politics for the last few decades.
What are the actual numbers here? If there’s lots of fuss about vpns but actually while there’s been a big jump in use it’s not under 18s anyway it wouldn’t help.
> Privacy is a human right, and one which is essential for effective democracy.
And does this get broken enough for age gating something? We age gate alcohol to reasonable success, sometimes that involves showing id.
I’m not arguing for age gating here but I do think understanding the tradeoffs may require more evidence.
We shouldn't.
>sometimes that involves showing id.
Then the yokel checkout attendant proceeds to punch the 8 digit birthday into the keyboard, which serializes you as one of less than 30,000 customers in the area. Birthdays are leaky identifiers.
Probably how they can best attach a license to VPN use like they're doing with TV.
For example the vast majority of the UK residents is against the ongoing support and complicity of the UK in the genocide of Palestinians, to which the government orchestrated the whole operation to turn the protest into act of terrorism (!).
Etc.
Polls from Opinium, YouGov, even earlier ipsos, showing that UK general public does not support the genocide, but immediate ceasefire, stopping sale of arms to Israel, back ICC, et.
You'd struggle to find anything that would show that UK public support aiding and abetting.
If anything, (western) governments are late to this game.