It has occurred to me in the last 6 months that disconnection is the way forward.
No way the nation will do it, but this would stop it.
Either misinformed or uninformed…
Re. disconnecting. The longer I delay glancing at a device the better my day goes. The weird part is how my mind tries to con me: gotta keep touch with the real world. As if that is somehow reflected in the Black Mirror.
The older I get the more I realise just what a slippery customer “reality” is!
#LoS
I don’t think the so-called elite are all that worried about their public rituals being shared online. It’s the pushback that will be labelled dangerous and erased. Which implies that the visible lack of criticism equates to approval. Johnson was a master at bulldozing through rules and regulations without any consultation or those tiresome formalities like parliamentary debate. States of Emergency etc etc.
Thanks for the posts Rich.
Despite Kit Knightly’s attention I’m unclear on a few things as there were late changes.
In your second post Katie Hopkins refers to a requirement for social media to censor content that is “legal but harmful” but I understood that had been dropped. Maybe it’s still there for legit kid protection stuff but that doesn’t seem to be what KH was looking at.
Also where is this private intrusion she refers to.
Link to bill from Off-g, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0209/220209.pdf
She may not have had the latest version.
This stuff would be bad enough without making Hopkins right AS WELL 
But even what Knightly says (which will be right) is pretty bad 
A quick delve into the bill itself, here’s a definition of harm:
201 “Harm” etc
(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Act, apart from Part 10
(communications offences).
(2) “Harm” means physical or psychological harm.
(3) References to harm presented by content, and any other references to harm in
relation to content, include references to harm arising or that may arise from
any one or combination of the following—
(a) the nature of the content;
(b) the fact of its dissemination;
(c) the manner of its dissemination (for example, content repeatedly sent
to an individual by one person or by different people).
(4) References to harm presented by content, and any other references to harm in
relation to content, include references to harm arising or that may arise in the
following circumstances—
(a) where, as a result of the content, individuals act in a way that results in
harm to themselves or that increases the likelihood of harm to
themselves;
(b) where, as a result of the content, individuals do or say something to
another individual that results in harm to that other individual or that
increases the likelihood of such harm (including, but not limited to,
where individuals act in such a way as a result of content that is related
to that other individual’s characteristics or membership of a group).
(5) References to a risk of harm, or to potential harm, are to be read in the same
way as references to harm.
Harm that may arise…
So…opposing or criticizing public health policy - could cause physical harm, or psychological harm?
It may be that social media will be obliged to have policies that deal with such “harm”, or face big fines. I certainly saw on the run up to the bill that they would be expected to be very proactive exaggeratedly so, to avoid the risk of fines.
So while you won’t be fined (yet) for saying “the vaccine is dangerous as hell”, posts like this will likely be zapped by the platform.
Somewhere else to rummmage: