Topic: Reddit may be banned in the UK.
Green !BEERiVqJJw started this discussion 10 years ago #50,199
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #651,643
That is because UK is not Amerika, with free speech.
Metæ⭐️ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,644
Serious question: when did the UK become this prudish? I thought they were supposed to be a bit more progressive than America.
Green !BEERiVqJJw (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,645
@previous (Metæ⭐️)
Watersports and face sitting porn are banned in the UK. The current Tory government are the most evil government we have ever had in this country.
Watersports and face sitting porn are banned in the UK. The current Tory government are the most evil government we have ever had in this country.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,646
@651,644 (Metæ⭐️)Tackling non-problems is a great way for politicians to make it seem like they are doing their job.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 30 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,647
@651,645 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
> face sitting porn
Explain. You telling us Cuntilingus porn is illegal in UK?
> face sitting porn
Explain. You telling us Cuntilingus porn is illegal in UK?
Green !BEERiVqJJw (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 17 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,648
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,649
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
> where a woman sits on a mans face
> woman squirts.
Ridiculous, to not allow a woman to express herself.
Is she supposed to put a cork in it?
> where a woman sits on a mans face
> woman squirts.
Ridiculous, to not allow a woman to express herself.
Is she supposed to put a cork in it?
Metæ⭐️ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,650
@651,646 (D)
I know but this is a country where the conservative party is in favor of gay marriage and single payer healthcare. A country where the political discourse doesn't revolve around Jesus and fetuses. A country where online gambling is legal and no one goes to church anymore.
I know but this is a country where the conservative party is in favor of gay marriage and single payer healthcare. A country where the political discourse doesn't revolve around Jesus and fetuses. A country where online gambling is legal and no one goes to church anymore.
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,652
@previous (Metæ⭐️)
The power of the "Think of the children!" fear mongering knows no bounds. It strikes at something deep.
The power of the "Think of the children!" fear mongering knows no bounds. It strikes at something deep.
Green !BEERiVqJJw (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,654
@651,650 (Metæ⭐️)
It was better with the coalition, but so far the Tories seem to want to make 1984 a reality. It's only been a year, but so far they have introduced these gems;
-Psychoactive Substances Bill: a bill which bans all psychoactive substances until they are exempt.
-Investigatory Powers Bill: if passed, ISPs will have to store a record of every site you have visited for a year and authorities will be able to view it.
-Banning porn.
-Considering a sugar tax.
It was better with the coalition, but so far the Tories seem to want to make 1984 a reality. It's only been a year, but so far they have introduced these gems;
-Psychoactive Substances Bill: a bill which bans all psychoactive substances until they are exempt.
-Investigatory Powers Bill: if passed, ISPs will have to store a record of every site you have visited for a year and authorities will be able to view it.
-Banning porn.
-Considering a sugar tax.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #651,657
Troubling. Not something I'm happy to hear about.
Still, I think that trying to censor the Internet in a free, modern country is a pretty futile thing. Sure it's bad, but it should be possible to bypass if anything too bad happens.
@651,645 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
That's actually not true. Producing it is, but not viewing it.
Not that that's much better, mind you. It's still a implicit, frightening example of censorship for flimsy "moral" reasons.
@651,650 (Metæ⭐️)
Agreed, it's an odd disconnect, when you put it that way.
It should be noted, the Tories (Conservative Party) are still quite conservative, in some ways. That gay marriage law you mentioned had to be pushed through with the help of the left-wing opposition party, if memory serves. Because many Tories did not like it. And David Cameron still makes statements (but not anything more substantial) about the UK being "a Christian nation", or something. So there's still very much an element of wanting to appeal to rightists too.
Still, I think that trying to censor the Internet in a free, modern country is a pretty futile thing. Sure it's bad, but it should be possible to bypass if anything too bad happens.
@651,645 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
That's actually not true. Producing it is, but not viewing it.
Not that that's much better, mind you. It's still a implicit, frightening example of censorship for flimsy "moral" reasons.
@651,650 (Metæ⭐️)
Agreed, it's an odd disconnect, when you put it that way.
It should be noted, the Tories (Conservative Party) are still quite conservative, in some ways. That gay marriage law you mentioned had to be pushed through with the help of the left-wing opposition party, if memory serves. Because many Tories did not like it. And David Cameron still makes statements (but not anything more substantial) about the UK being "a Christian nation", or something. So there's still very much an element of wanting to appeal to rightists too.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #651,659
god damn it stop making anti-freedom laws and start after actual theives and shit like that
I recommend getting good looking chicks to protest by peeing all over these laws while posing artfully
I recommend getting good looking chicks to protest by peeing all over these laws while posing artfully
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Green !BEERiVqJJw (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #651,660
@651,657 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Would you entrust your credit card details to porn site owners? The 'think of muh children' argument seems to help push through any draconian laws. It's not about protecting children, it's about the government wanting to interfere with our lives. I don't know why we just haven't banned the entire internet yet. I am seriously considering downloading tor.
Would you entrust your credit card details to porn site owners? The 'think of muh children' argument seems to help push through any draconian laws. It's not about protecting children, it's about the government wanting to interfere with our lives. I don't know why we just haven't banned the entire internet yet. I am seriously considering downloading tor.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #651,663
@651,657 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> That's actually not true. Producing it is, but not viewing it.
So if all the porn is produced outside the UK, than no recourse to mess with it.
> That's actually not true. Producing it is, but not viewing it.
So if all the porn is produced outside the UK, than no recourse to mess with it.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #651,664
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-porn-crackdown-could-7380745
> force Reddit users to prove they are over 18
@OP
'banned' on it's own in that context implies banned for all UK citizens
> force Reddit users to prove they are over 18
@OP
'banned' on it's own in that context implies banned for all UK citizens
Anonymous G double-posted this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #651,665
https://voat.co/ is better; less censorship ( https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yk8an/eli5_how_are_iq_tests_biased_against_black_people/cyeh8jm https://archive.is/WnANa ).