If we can get the voters to understand the things you mention, then maybe we’d have a chance.
Imagine a society so stable it doesn't need new laws or rules. All the elected representatives would just sit around all day and twiddle their thumbs. A bad look in their eyes.
This is how it should be of course.
Things change - e.g. 50 years ago no online chats, no drones, very little terrorism, travel was more costly and slower, medical drugs were less efficient, live span was shorter.
The next UK general election is ~5 years away so this makes no sense.
The more likely reason is that it's simply good policy. We have enough research now that shows that (a) social media use is harmful for children and (b) social media companies like Meta, TikTok etc have done a wilfully poor job at protecting them.
It is bizarre to me how many people here seem willing to defend them.
The problem is that the real problems are very hard, and their job is to simplify it to their constituents well enough to keep their jobs, which may or may not line up with doing the right thing.
This is a truly hard problem. CSAM is a real problem, and those who engage in its distribution are experts in subverting the system. So is freedom of expression. So is the onerous imposition of regulations.
And any such issue (whether it be transnational migration, or infrastructure, or EPA regulations in America, or whatever issue you want to bring up) is going to have some very complex tradeoffs and even if you have a set of Ph.Ds in the room with no political pressure, you are going to have uncomfortable tradeoffs.
What if the regulations are bad because the problem is so hard we can't make good ones, even with the best and brightest?
It seems far too common that regulations are putting the liability / responsibility for a problem onto some group of people who are not the cause of the problem, and further, have limited power to do anything about the problem.
As they say, this is why we can't have nice things.
You don't think Meta, TikTok etc are the cause of the problem ?
I appreciate that Lfgss is somewhat collateral damage but the fact is that if you're going to run a forum you do have some obligation to moderate it.
To begin with, the premise would have to be challenged. Many, many bad regulations are bad because of incompetence or corruption rather than because better regulations are impossible. But let's consider the case where there really are no good regulations.
This often happens in situations where e.g. bad actors have more resources, or are willing to spend more resources, to subvert a system than ordinary people. For example, suppose the proposal is to ban major companies from implementing end-to-end encryption so the police can spy on terrorists. Well, that's not going to work very well because the terrorists will just use a different system that provides E2EE anyway and what you're really doing is compromising the security of all the law-abiding people who are now more vulnerable to criminals and foreign espionage etc.
The answer in these cases, where there are only bad policy proposals, is to do nothing. Accept that you don't have a good solution and a bad solution makes things worse rather than better so the absence of any rule, imperfect as the outcome may be, is the best we know how to do.
The classical example of this is the First Amendment. People say bad stuff, we don't like it, they suck and should shut up. But there is nobody you can actually trust to be the decider of who gets to say what, so the answer is nobody decides for everybody and imposing government punishment for speech is forbidden.
Or go further.
Sometimes the answer is to remove regulations. Specifically, those laws that protect wrongdoers and facilitators of problems. Then you just let nature take its course.
For the mostpart though, this is considered inhumane and unacceptable.
"children are getting raped and we aren't going to do anything about it because we want to protect indie websites" sounds a lot worse than "this is a significant step in combatting the spread of online child pornography", even if reality is actually far more complicated.
CSAM is NOT a hard problem. You solve it with police work. That's how it always gets solved.
You don't solve CSAM with scanners. You don't solve CSAM with legislation. You don't solve CSAM by banning encryption.
You solve CSAM by giving money to law enforcement to go after CSAM.
But, see, the entities pushing these laws don't actually care about CSAM.
My dude, I’m sorry to tell you, but the problem usually is law enforcement. For so many things. You try barely training people who already like beating people up and then give them a monopoly on legal violence.
Btw, the reason the cops were invented in Britain was to put down riots by the populace bc they were so poor[1], and in America it was to divide poor whites and poor blacks and turn the poor whites into slave catchers.[2]
[1] https://novaramedia.com/2020/06/20/why-does-the-police-exist...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/13/876628302/the-history-of-poli...
Everything else you listed are right wing conspiracy theories.
Apparently this isn't:
"Just seven electric-vehicle charging stations have begun operating with funding from a $5-billion US government program created in 2021, marking “pathetic” progress, a Democratic senator said on Wednesday."
https://nypost.com/2024/06/05/business/democratic-senator-bl...
I doubt this. Legislation is written by committee and passed by democracy. Most of the voting public don't look up the voting records which are available to them. Most of the voting public can't name a third of the members of parliament.
If there is a conspiratorial take, the one about regulatory capture is more believable.
