this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
1036 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

73503 readers
3739 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
1036
UK households could face VPN 'ban' after use skyrockets following Online Safety Bill (www.birminghammail.co.uk)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
360 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Prominent backbench MP Sarah Champion launched a campaign against VPNs previously, saying: “My new clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of the Bill’s passage, a report on the effect of VPN use on Ofcom’s ability to enforce the requirements under clause 112.

"If VPNs cause significant issues, the Government must identify those issues and find solutions, rather than avoiding difficult problems.” And the Labour Party said there were “gaps” in the bill that needed to be amended.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'd tentatively say, casually available heroin, morphine and laudanum/opium.

It obviously caused problems and pushed the market underground but it seems to have worked out.

I'm not aware of any studies in to this though, so it's only conjecture/guesswork.

I'll also clearly state I'm not putting them on the same level as this current dystopian bullshittery.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It obviously caused problems and pushed the market underground but it seems to have worked out.

"Worked out" is people dieing from tainted drugs of a unknown potency? Youre a fucking monster.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago

Hey now, that's a lot of animosity for a statement that doesn't do much to make a good point.

The original question was

Show me a ban that didn’t came with 10x problems

I posited a conjecture based guess with some basic reasoning and as i said , it was opinion more than provable fact.

By "worked out" i meant the overall situation is better after the ban, despite the negative consequences.

It seems that was lost on you, but now you know.

So let's address your reasoning, such as it is.

People died from tainted drugs before the ban, probably a lot from tainted drugs of the type in the ban.

Unless you have any evidence those numbers changed significantly after the ban, I'll chalk that up to your opinion.

Not a very reasonable one to my eyes, but such are angry people on the internet.

I was not aware i needed to provide an example of a ban that resulted in everything being completely fixed after the fact (mainly because that's not how the question was worded) but if that was, in fact, the requirement, my bad.

If I'm a monster (in your opinion) because i think the reduction in access to terribly addictive drugs might have overall brought down fatalities and other negative consequences, then i can live with that.