Technology

PART 2/2

It’s about confidence. People in this thread expressed with no hint of doubt that the politicians who wrote the legislation did it for kickbacks from big tech. This is in spite of the fact that they have no direct evidence of this and it’s implausible on account of big tech being unhappy with this law. This isn’t simply healthy skepticism, it’s the same old useless cynicism.

I have stated multiple times i do not hold this view.

I have also stated that the sheer difference between what this bill says and the stated intent leans toward either technical incompetence and/or some other reason.

Big tech doesn't like the encryption stuff, fine, but that doesn't mean the other stuff won't benefit them.

If i had to guess at a reason other than idiocy I'd guess it's a governmental overreach thing.

This will vastly increase the powers and control available to the government in this space (at least the ones publicly utilised) , that isn't conjecture.

The context was that you can’t just air your personal fan-fiction about politicians’ motivations and personal beliefs as if they were something more than that,

See [POINT A]

so an excuse that “it’s just an opinion” doesn’t wash when the video linked by OP is putting this idea (that the law was written at the behest of big tech) forward seriously.

The OP links to an EFF page , i'm not seeing a video , but that might just be my browser.

The text however makes no reference to big tech pandering afaict.

By all means have your justified beliefs about politicians. But so far the only politician you’ve actually mentioned convincingly as being corrupt is Boris Johnson. You haven’t, for example, leveled any attacks at Oliver Dowden who was the Minister for DCMS at the time of passing the Act. His register of interests does not mention any gifts or meetings with big tech firms.

I have been arguing from a perspective on politicians (and people) in general, Alexander was the easiest example because he's such a prominent example of a lack of consequences breeding shitbaggery.

And again, i've also not been arguing the big tech direct intervention angle.

I shall point you to [POINT A] in general because it applies here but i'll also add something brief about this guy specifically.

From a quick peruse I'm seeing his Wikipedia and he seems like a standard conservative stereotype, if somewhat laid back in his upset at "wokeness".

Not my kind of person but not moustache twistingly evil or anything afaict.

This is a long form "Won't somebody please think of the children?".

It isn't necessarily wrong, but it is putting great deal of emphasis on the perceived problems and basically no thought into how to do it.

Contextual incompetence rather than maliciousness.

If this singular person was responsible for the writing, presentation and ability of the bill to get this far through the system, i'd be open to it just being technical idiocy.

Unfortunately it will have to have gone through the entire British political system to get there, which makes it subject to the will of many.

See [POINT A]