Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Online Safety Act is Not About Online Safety | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

UK Online Safety Act is Not About Online Safety | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:30
Speaker 1: My name is Jim. This is germ warfare, the Battle
0:33
Speaker 1: of ideas. Guys. As I just told you a moment ago,
0:37
Speaker 1: I have to record from this coffee shop again because
0:40
Speaker 1: for the third time, my father cable has been dug
0:44
Speaker 1: up under the ground by builders.
0:47
Speaker 2: So I wage that's company going to complain about this.
0:53
Speaker 1: There's nothing they can do because what do you what
0:55
Speaker 1: do you do? You have houses and things being built
0:58
Speaker 1: and they offer the service of putting a cable under
1:01
Speaker 1: the ground. They don't charge you for it. They just
1:03
Speaker 1: come and put the cable there so that you can
1:05
Speaker 1: then use an Internet service provider. So they have to
1:10
Speaker 1: pay to send guys out to come and fix the
1:13
Speaker 1: cable each time. It's a bit of a weird it's
1:17
Speaker 1: a weird sort of cash twenty two.
1:20
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, when we started this banter podcast, I have
1:25
Speaker 3: to admit, of all the recurring themes, I didn't think
1:28
Speaker 3: this was going to be one of them. So it's
1:31
Speaker 3: nice that we can keep people guessing, including ourselves.
1:36
Speaker 4: But it is at.
1:36
Speaker 1: Least a saving grace that I've got a coffee shop
1:40
Speaker 1: that's that's nearby, and I can come and feel bad
1:43
Speaker 1: about drinking coffee because some of my guests have said
1:46
Speaker 1: that coffee is not a good thing to drink, and
1:48
Speaker 1: I've been doing a lot of decaf lately and it's horrible.
1:51
Speaker 1: By the way, I don't like DCF coffee. Do you
1:53
Speaker 1: drink decaf?
1:55
Speaker 3: This is a very interesting talking point. I think, well,
2:01
Speaker 3: that's just entirely to the individual palette, isn't it. And
2:04
Speaker 3: also decaff depends whether it's some produced by what is
2:09
Speaker 3: it so sort of reverse osmosis, or whether it's chemically decaffeinated,
2:14
Speaker 3: and whether or not it is actually really decaffeinated. And
2:17
Speaker 3: then you've got the whole roast issue as well. Yeah,
2:21
Speaker 3: I mean, any coffee can be good or disgusting, I
2:26
Speaker 3: suppose if you're even in the in the ballpark of
2:28
Speaker 3: liking or wanting to drink coffee, which of course Mike doesn't. Yeah,
2:33
Speaker 3: and this is what I find totally fascinating because I
2:36
Speaker 3: I and this is where I know people find this
2:40
Speaker 3: difficult to listen to. But but I would lump this
2:43
Speaker 3: in with the whether or not you watch television category.
2:46
Speaker 3: And I know this might this might sound a harsh
2:48
Speaker 3: one straight off the straight off the bat, but but
2:53
Speaker 3: I do think there is a distinction or a line
2:57
Speaker 3: to be drawn between people who are are really habitual
3:02
Speaker 3: users of coffee, and I definitely do use the word
3:05
Speaker 3: user deliberately, and and people that sort of see things
3:13
Speaker 3: how they are and are prepared to question and and whatever.
3:17
Speaker 3: And I'm not obviously, I'm not making the decision. I'm
3:19
Speaker 3: not saying, oh, you know, if you drink coffee, you're
3:20
Speaker 3: a total idiot, and this, that and the other. That's
3:23
Speaker 3: that's quite clearly not the truth. But what I'm saying
3:25
Speaker 3: is there's there isn't there's an obvious correlation between people
3:28
Speaker 3: who don't watch television sets and people who I would
3:32
Speaker 3: say view the world in a in a carmon rational
3:35
Speaker 3: manner and can see a lot of the you know,
3:38
Speaker 3: the agendas at play, even if they don't then necessarily
3:42
Speaker 3: feel threatened or panicked by them. And I think that
3:49
Speaker 3: basically what where I'm going to, which which I know
3:52
Speaker 3: people are terribly reluctant to do because and I'm thinking
3:54
Speaker 3: particularly I'm not I'm not having a go at, but
3:56
Speaker 3: I'm thinking of well, actually, both zoe Harkham and Tim
4:01
Speaker 3: Noakes in particular, I think Zoey Harkm I know, drinks coffee.
4:04
Speaker 3: I think Tim Noakes probably does as well. And I'm
4:06
Speaker 3: afraid to say I think personal prejudice is gone in
4:08
Speaker 3: the way because they both basically say, yeah, well, you know,
4:12
Speaker 3: actually doesn't seem to be any drama with it, which
4:15
Speaker 3: to me indicates you know, you just you like it,
4:18
Speaker 3: so you don't really want to necessarily look into it.
4:20
Speaker 3: I know, but that's really not I'm not having a
4:21
Speaker 3: sort of personal attack. And I can totally understand why
4:23
Speaker 3: it is, and I don't want to make a big
4:25
Speaker 3: big deal out of it. But the absolute truth of
4:27
Speaker 3: it is that you create a dependency. And I think
4:32
Speaker 3: that's the significant thing. And I and if anyone sitting
4:35
Speaker 3: the thing, I know that's that's not true. I'm I'm
4:38
Speaker 3: not dependent upon it. Okay, fine, Well, in which case,
4:41
Speaker 3: for go for a Fortnite without touching not just coffee,
4:44
Speaker 3: but don't touch anything. Don't touch tea, don't touch decalf anything.
4:48
Speaker 1: So because the.
4:50
Speaker 3: Danger, I say, is convincing yourself that you've sort of
4:54
Speaker 3: you know, you've been able to overcome something by simply replacing.
4:57
Speaker 3: And this is what Jason Christoff is very strong on.
5:00
Speaker 3: If you're going to stop watching his coffee, you watch
5:02
Speaker 3: his form, you watch his form. Yeah, yeah, which is great,
5:04
Speaker 3: It's really good. But you know, he said this many times,
5:07
Speaker 3: and I think makes a very good point. You can
5:10
Speaker 3: convince yourself of anything. You take one thing out, but
5:14
Speaker 3: actually really in most cases, you're just putting the other
5:16
Speaker 3: thing back. And I think, you know, from my own experience,
5:20
Speaker 3: I sort of I do drink coffee on occasion, but
5:24
Speaker 3: as a general rule, I don't. And I am absolutely
5:29
Speaker 3: very aware of what it does. I mean, again, this
5:31
Speaker 3: is totally individual, but of what it does to me.
5:34
Speaker 3: And I just find it fascinating. Sorry to take it
5:37
Speaker 3: back to Mike. I find it totally fascinating that Mike
5:40
Speaker 3: has viewed the world as he has. And I know
5:43
Speaker 3: you'll point to loads of other reasons, but that that
5:46
Speaker 3: overlaps with having never consumed coffee or tea. I just
5:51
Speaker 3: find that really interesting. Yeah, But I mean, I have
5:54
Speaker 3: my own.
5:57
Speaker 2: Hologism, if you want to use that word, because this word,
6:00
Speaker 2: because of course sugar was was my problem. And and
6:04
Speaker 2: but what I've discovered, you know, I absolutely had a
6:06
Speaker 2: dependency on it, which is why I was had put
6:09
Speaker 2: on so much with ten years ago. What I've discovered
6:13
Speaker 2: since is that you know, it's just like alcohol. It's
6:17
Speaker 2: just like it's seeing coffee. Perhaps it's just like smoking.
6:21
Speaker 2: You decide to stop and then you fall off the
6:23
Speaker 2: wagon and you discover exactly what it's you know, how
6:27
Speaker 2: difficult it is actually and you do recognize that the
6:31
Speaker 2: dependency then, and of course you know the problem is
6:35
Speaker 2: that a lot of these things are just there all
6:37
Speaker 2: the time, and so it's very, very hard to be
6:42
Speaker 2: disciplined about it.
6:43
Speaker 4: But it's something you just got to be.
6:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, And it's phenomenal, you know, the sort of the
6:50
Speaker 3: marketing and the cultural conditioning around this. I've just come
6:52
Speaker 3: in we're recording this in the morning, and I've just
6:56
Speaker 3: come in off a trading a state in industrial a
6:58
Speaker 3: state picking up material building materials and stuff. And you
7:02
Speaker 3: could say, on the one hand, you think, oh, well,
7:04
Speaker 3: you know, that's just good business sense or it's so cynical,
7:07
Speaker 3: but there is all of these places now whereas back
7:12
Speaker 3: in the day they used to be just ironmongers and
7:16
Speaker 3: timber merchants and plumbing houses, you know whatever. But now
7:20
Speaker 3: as part of the build they all have a sort
7:24
Speaker 3: of coffee and donut place and it's it's what people do.
7:28
Speaker 3: I've just watched it this morning. These guys turn up
7:31
Speaker 3: in their in their vans ready for a day's work,
7:34
Speaker 3: and they load up with with materials that they're going
7:37
Speaker 3: to go and use in their particular trade. And then
7:40
Speaker 3: they all pile into the coffee and donut shop.
7:44
Speaker 4: It is.
7:45
Speaker 3: It's completely fascinating.
7:47
Speaker 1: Yes, but the donut they would be the problem if
7:51
Speaker 1: you I mean, I drink Okay, look, I'm not going
7:53
Speaker 1: to get into the depicting that I do. But if
7:58
Speaker 1: you drink coffee, you know, hold on, if you drink
8:01
Speaker 1: coffee that doesn't have sugar in, at least you're not
8:03
Speaker 1: getting it fat.
8:07
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, well I mean maybe.
8:14
Speaker 1: But no, but no, but Charles Holden, you you are correct.
8:16
Speaker 1: I mean there is a dependency thing, and Jason is
8:20
Speaker 1: I think spot on. I mean that the the psychological
8:23
Speaker 1: machinery around pushing Starbucks et cetera, et cetera is obviously there,
8:30
Speaker 1: and you get into the habit. I guess I don't smoke,
8:33
Speaker 1: but I suppose it's like those people who who wake
8:36
Speaker 1: up in the morning and need to go for their
8:38
Speaker 1: first smoke outside or something. There's like a there's some
8:41
Speaker 1: weird kind of attachment that you have to that behavior,
8:46
Speaker 1: and I think coffee is the same, but at least
8:51
Speaker 1: at least it doesn't it doesn't have the the the
8:54
Speaker 1: fattening effects I think as eating that donut.
8:58
Speaker 3: I'm certainly not trying to to make it out to
9:02
Speaker 3: be a.
9:03
Speaker 1: Compete in the bond. Yeah.
9:05
Speaker 3: Yeah, but no, I mean, let's face it. On on
9:07
Speaker 3: the upside, what, Okay, I don't know. I don't know
9:10
Speaker 3: enough about the processing. The only time I've really ever
9:12
Speaker 3: seen it go from sort of bean to cup is
9:15
Speaker 3: in Ethiopia, which is where they do the you know,
9:17
Speaker 3: what's called the ceremony of the coffee. Obviously has become
9:19
Speaker 3: a highly sort of touristy I suppose now, but but
9:22
Speaker 3: it is where they do kind of roast the beans
9:25
Speaker 3: in front of you and make it right there. But
9:28
Speaker 3: I don't know enough about coffee processing. But but you know,
9:30
Speaker 3: on the upside, coffee and tea, of course they are
9:33
Speaker 3: they are just plants. I mean they are, they are
9:35
Speaker 3: natural plants. It's just that the the effect they deliver.
9:39
Speaker 3: And this is why I go back to the two
9:40
Speaker 3: week thing. If you think that you're not dependent upon coffee,
9:44
Speaker 3: then I then I would I would really encourage you try,
9:47
Speaker 3: say a fortnight trial where you just monitor your sleep,
9:51
Speaker 3: in particular your sleep, hunger, energy, and sort of mental
9:56
Speaker 3: acuity patterns, because that's where I think people deceive themselves.
10:02
Speaker 3: And I think if you're if you're off all that
10:04
Speaker 3: stuff and I would chuck sugar and all the rest
10:07
Speaker 3: of it in there, then you do just feel so
10:10
Speaker 3: much different. And this is where this is Jason Crystal's
10:13
Speaker 3: point is that in feeling different slash much better, you
10:17
Speaker 3: are so much more able to resist mentally and practically
10:22
Speaker 3: whatever it is that that's not right out there. And
10:26
Speaker 3: that's that. That is why I think that the sorry,
10:28
Speaker 3: going back to the beginning of the conversation, I think
10:30
Speaker 3: is quite clear enough. That's why I make the link
10:32
Speaker 3: between say, coffee and television, because I think it just
10:36
Speaker 3: it just introduces an element of susceptibility. And yes, okay,
10:40
Speaker 3: everyone's going to have a slightly different reaction to it.
10:42
Speaker 3: But whatever it is, whatever it is you're dependent upon.
10:45
Speaker 3: This coffee just is the one that you brought up.
10:47
Speaker 3: That's a vulnerability for you. That's the thing. That's the point.
10:53
Speaker 3: I'm struggling to find a segue. I can't, so I'm
10:55
Speaker 3: going to just ask you straight off the bet.
10:58
Speaker 1: Please can you ex explaining this Online Safety Act that's
11:02
Speaker 1: going on, because I know the UK column has changed
11:06
Speaker 1: some things, and I also would like to have a
11:08
Speaker 1: better understanding of what the actual policy is. Not UK
11:12
Speaker 1: column so much, but what's going on in the UK.
11:16
Speaker 2: Where do we start with that? I mean, that's such
11:20
Speaker 2: a huge question. Well, look, the Online Safety Act is
11:25
Speaker 2: a censorship regime that's in a nutshell what it is. No,
11:29
Speaker 2: it's concealed under various.
11:36
Speaker 4: Justifications, let's put it that way.
11:38
Speaker 2: And the justifications began with in about twenty seventeen or so,
11:43
Speaker 2: with the need to deal with extremist content online. In fact,
11:50
Speaker 2: we can go back even further than that, because twenty eleven,
11:55
Speaker 2: twenty ten, twenty eleven, I can't remember. I think it
11:57
Speaker 2: was David Cameron's first United Nations General Assembly speech as
12:03
Speaker 2: Prime Minister as part of the coalition government, and he
12:05
Speaker 2: was talking about terrorist content online. He was talking about
12:10
Speaker 2: anti vaxers and so on, and the need to regulate
12:14
Speaker 2: the Internet and so this has been something that's been
12:18
Speaker 2: a long time coming.
12:21
Speaker 4: Now what we've.
12:22
Speaker 2: Seen is extremism content was kind of dropped as being
12:27
Speaker 2: the main mantra for these people, and it was replaced
12:30
Speaker 2: with protecting children. We've got to protect the children from
12:34
Speaker 2: various kinds of content like suicide, content like pornography in
12:40
Speaker 2: this kind of thing, and so it's being used as
12:44
Speaker 2: not only a mechanism for attempting to control narratives, but
12:50
Speaker 2: also a mechanism for driving things like digital ID because
12:54
Speaker 2: of course, in order to protect children from content that
12:57
Speaker 2: they might see online which is designed for adults, then
13:01
Speaker 2: adults need to verify their age if they want to
13:05
Speaker 2: access that content. And so they're putting through various mechanisms
13:09
Speaker 2: to remove anonymity from the from the Internet, and the
13:15
Speaker 2: next big target for this is going to be virtual
13:20
Speaker 2: private network VPNs. That of course, whenever they put the
13:23
Speaker 2: intersurance system in place, and we immediately started seeing headlines
13:29
Speaker 2: from porn Hub, for example, about how their UK based
13:33
Speaker 2: audience had collapsed to about ten percent of what it was.
13:37
Speaker 2: There was no discussion because there's no way for people
13:39
Speaker 2: to know whether their overall viewing figures had fallen, and
13:45
Speaker 2: therefore how many of those ninety percent Brits that were
13:49
Speaker 2: no longer apparently looking at porn and porn Hub had
13:52
Speaker 2: in fact simply moved on to using VPNs for the purpose.
13:57
Speaker 2: Why they weren't doing that before is another question we
14:00
Speaker 2: could have discussion, we could have, But what went side
14:04
Speaker 2: by side with this massive drop in viewing figures on
14:07
Speaker 2: Pornhub was a massive increase in the number of people
14:10
Speaker 2: using VPNs in the UK. And so you know, correlation
14:15
Speaker 2: is not necessarily causation, of course, but I think there's
14:17
Speaker 2: pretty strong case to be made there that that's nobody
14:20
Speaker 2: changed their viewing habits at all. They simply moved to
14:23
Speaker 2: using a VPN and therefore avoided the entire ine assurance regime.
14:27
Speaker 4: But none.
14:28
Speaker 2: Nonetheless, that is the direction to travel is to remove
14:30
Speaker 2: anonymity from people's Internet use. And alongside the requirement for
14:40
Speaker 2: anybody that's running what's described as a user to user service,
14:44
Speaker 2: so anything that allows people to communicate with each other
14:47
Speaker 2: that needs to be regulated and various risk assessments, like
14:53
Speaker 2: a forum or anything that anything that provides a private
14:57
Speaker 2: messaging system, any kind of you know, system that allows
15:02
Speaker 2: people to communicate with each other. The issue the issue
15:07
Speaker 2: was and where they sort of get out clauses to
15:10
Speaker 2: a certain extent, The issue was as they were developing
15:13
Speaker 2: this legislation that the the mainstream media, the Daily Mail
15:18
Speaker 2: and and the Mirror and the Express and all the
15:21
Speaker 2: all the mainstream media that we're running comments sections on
15:25
Speaker 2: their on their system said no, no, no, we can't.
15:28
Speaker 2: We can't be doing this. This is going to have
15:30
Speaker 2: a chilling effect. This is this is what drives our
15:33
Speaker 2: our revenue. And so there were pretty major caveats put
15:38
Speaker 2: in the in the legislation to ally media comments sections
15:46
Speaker 2: to be exempted from the vast majority of the regulation.
15:51
Speaker 2: And so, you know, that's that's something that we intend
15:55
Speaker 2: to take advantage of because you know, we we you know,
15:58
Speaker 2: we fought in twenty or was it twenty fifteen, twenty fourteen,
16:03
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen whenever Offcommon their subsidiary, the Authority for Television
16:09
Speaker 2: on the Band, attempted to regulate what we were doing
16:13
Speaker 2: by telling us that we were producing content was too
16:17
Speaker 2: which was too much like broadcast television, that we were
16:21
Speaker 2: running a video on demand service and therefore we were
16:23
Speaker 2: going to have to be regulated. Absolutely refused to take
16:30
Speaker 2: part in that regulation because you know, the implications for
16:34
Speaker 2: us and for the people using our platform were pretty clear. So,
16:41
Speaker 2: you know, at that time, we shut down the YouTube
16:45
Speaker 2: channel that we had at the time, We didn't shut
16:47
Speaker 2: it down as such. We basically made all the content
16:51
Speaker 2: on a private so nobody could watch it, and we
16:56
Speaker 2: then made a little video clip which said we can't
17:01
Speaker 2: bring you the UK Column news today because and explained why.
17:05
Speaker 2: And then over the next two or three days we
17:08
Speaker 2: put out news programs which were not based in the studio,
17:12
Speaker 2: so one was based in my car, another one was
17:14
Speaker 2: based in the kitchen, and so on with. So we
17:17
Speaker 2: basically focused very much on Offcom and the authority for
17:20
Speaker 2: television and the band and what they were intending to do. Now,
17:24
Speaker 2: it was clear at that time that and the head
17:28
Speaker 2: of Peter A Cantermember's surname, the head of A thought
17:32
Speaker 2: at the time was absolutely clear we intend to regulate
17:35
Speaker 2: the whole Internet. So you know, we we as an organization,
17:42
Speaker 2: are not inclined to submit to that regulation. And I
17:47
Speaker 2: realized that that for us and for the people that
17:50
Speaker 2: have been using the forums at the UK Column is
17:54
Speaker 2: going to be difficult, but you know, we have to resist.
18:01
Speaker 2: What's going on is my view on it. I think
18:04
Speaker 2: that's that's our view on it.
18:06
Speaker 1: Okay, So I've got the UK Column forums open if
18:10
Speaker 1: you if you don't mind I'm just going to throw
18:11
Speaker 1: some of the comments at you just for those listening.
18:15
Speaker 1: This wasn't set up. I'm just genuinely interested. Someone yes
18:20
Speaker 1: says these forums are private not public. Does the Online
18:25
Speaker 1: Safety Act discriminate in.
18:28
Speaker 2: Terms of Absolutely does not discriminate in terms of And
18:31
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter if they're private and that that that
18:35
Speaker 2: is not a consideration at all.
18:39
Speaker 1: Okay, So they can come and have a look at
18:43
Speaker 1: your your data if they wanted to. I mean, how
18:47
Speaker 1: does it work, like, can they access your data ofcom well?
18:52
Speaker 2: I mean, well, look at the end of the day,
18:54
Speaker 2: the barrier entry is not very high. It's a fiver,
18:57
Speaker 2: you know, it's not it's not a this is not
19:01
Speaker 2: something that this is not a private forum. This is
19:04
Speaker 2: something that anybody can join freely. It is not a
19:07
Speaker 2: private forum. So it's okay, somebody can't come and simply
19:13
Speaker 2: go and brisee the content there. They're going to join
19:16
Speaker 2: as a member. But that's not an issue for anybody.
19:20
Speaker 2: But I think, and I suspect we have seen one
19:24
Speaker 2: or two people in there that perhaps have done that
19:29
Speaker 2: that are not necessarily aligned with what we're doing.
19:33
Speaker 3: I think this is a good question because it brings.
19:35
Speaker 3: What it does bring out is the way in which
19:38
Speaker 3: the government, the regulatory authorities, and basically the sort of
19:45
Speaker 3: establishment narrative actually views people. And I know this is
19:52
Speaker 3: in a way an obvious point to make and most
19:55
Speaker 3: obviously borne out by being told to stay at home
20:00
Speaker 3: twenty twenty and everything that has happened thereafter, of course
20:03
Speaker 3: considerable amount of things that happened before. But the point
20:08
Speaker 3: in that is that there is no there is nothing
20:11
Speaker 3: the individual can do to by way of loose sort
20:16
Speaker 3: of liability or a waiver to say I'm absolutely happy
20:21
Speaker 3: in signing up for this thing, this private you know,
20:25
Speaker 3: let's say, private members organization, and I accept what comes
20:30
Speaker 3: with it, and if I don't like it, well more
20:33
Speaker 3: for me, that's that's tough luck.
20:35
Speaker 1: And that is not possible.
20:37
Speaker 3: And it was this is exactly the same with the
20:39
Speaker 3: smoking ban back in two thousand and six, I think
20:43
Speaker 3: it was there was no exemption, so it was you know,
20:49
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter, We don't care what do you think
20:52
Speaker 3: or what do you want to do. You have no
20:57
Speaker 3: say over the direction in where which your life is
21:00
Speaker 3: going to go, with particular regard to whatever the issue is.
21:04
Speaker 3: And I think that's the sorry, just to interject on
21:07
Speaker 3: a broader point, I do think it is that is
21:12
Speaker 3: perhaps not well. I'm sure it's not talked about enough,
21:15
Speaker 3: certainly not by people who are championing it thinking that
21:17
Speaker 3: it's thinking that it is a good piece of legislation
21:20
Speaker 3: that will protect people. The fact that you are just
21:23
Speaker 3: sweeping away the liberty of anybody that wants to take
21:29
Speaker 3: a grown up view of their own life, is that
21:31
Speaker 3: is staggering.
21:35
Speaker 1: So yes's an interesting comment, says the way I see it,
21:38
Speaker 1: as a uk econdom is stuck between a rock and
21:40
Speaker 1: a hard blast. So either UKC signs up to the
21:43
Speaker 1: Online Safety Act requirements which I'm guessing you haven't AKA
21:47
Speaker 1: compulsory identification, or UKC curtails to some extent and our
21:53
Speaker 1: existing ability to communicate via UKC in the way that
21:56
Speaker 1: we can at the moment. So the u Willian dystopia
21:59
Speaker 1: has come home to roost in a very real way.
22:01
Speaker 1: Is that a fair comment.
22:03
Speaker 2: I think it's a very fair comment. I think that
22:07
Speaker 2: you know we are no matter what is going on,
22:11
Speaker 2: we are still a small organization and we have to
22:15
Speaker 2: choose our battles. Now, we could have decided right to
22:20
Speaker 2: help with it, we're just going to continue what we're doing.
22:22
Speaker 2: We're going to deal with whatever comes our way and
22:28
Speaker 2: so on. We have to work out where we're going
22:32
Speaker 2: to put our resources, where we're going to have the
22:33
Speaker 2: biggest effect in what we're doing, and we feel that,
22:39
Speaker 2: you know, the primary purpose of the column is to
22:42
Speaker 2: get information out as broadly as possible and not to
22:47
Speaker 2: be ending up in core cases, which is ultimately where
22:52
Speaker 2: this would end up going, and legal battles which are
22:56
Speaker 2: hugely expensive we don't have the resource for and we
23:00
Speaker 2: don't have the time for. So you know, that's that's
23:06
Speaker 2: basically where we've tried to find the right approach and
23:10
Speaker 2: the right balance. Now, if if people feel that that's
23:15
Speaker 2: that that's the wrong thing to have done, then okay,
23:18
Speaker 2: we can have a discussion about that. But I think
23:21
Speaker 2: I think that this is probably the right decision. Well,
23:24
Speaker 2: I think I know that this is the right decision.
23:26
Speaker 2: We've got to we've got to leave ourselves as free
23:30
Speaker 2: as we possibly can to continue doing the work that
23:34
Speaker 2: we're doing without burdening ourselves with a load of bureaucracy
23:40
Speaker 2: that just distracts from what our primary task is, which
23:45
Speaker 2: is the information.
23:47
Speaker 1: Well, no conversation like this, Mike is complete with out
23:50
Speaker 1: the gratuitous UK column have already complied with compulsory identification
23:56
Speaker 1: by verifying who they are too, companies house. Not only that,
24:02
Speaker 1: but those who traveled to China have also willingly given
24:05
Speaker 1: their biometrics in the form of fingerprints and facial recognition
24:08
Speaker 1: holiday steps.
24:11
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just such a ridiculous comment. First of all,
24:14
Speaker 2: what we have done in order to make sure that
24:17
Speaker 2: every one of our members didn't have to validate who
24:20
Speaker 2: they are. We have fallen on our swords and done
24:23
Speaker 2: that on your behalf. You should be grateful for that.
24:25
Speaker 2: The second thing is I went to China in April
24:29
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five and I gave my fingerprints and had
24:33
Speaker 2: my fists recognition taken and so on. I went to
24:38
Speaker 2: the United States in May twenty twenty five and not
24:41
Speaker 2: only had exactly the same experience, but the US Immigration
24:45
Speaker 2: pulled me out of the queue, took me into the
24:47
Speaker 2: back room for extra questioning. So just tell me, you know,
24:52
Speaker 2: what kind of world are we living in. This is
24:54
Speaker 2: not something which is restricted to China. This is something
24:57
Speaker 2: which is happening in the United States. It's not happening
24:59
Speaker 2: in the UK because everybody requires trying to travel authorization
25:03
Speaker 2: to get into the UK. It's not happening in the
25:05
Speaker 2: EU as well. This is something which is global, and
25:09
Speaker 2: so the notion of pulling out China to throw China
25:13
Speaker 2: interface is ridiculous.
25:15
Speaker 3: That's also been around for absolutely ages. I mean, I
25:18
Speaker 3: think I'm fairly sure. I mean, you do it going
25:21
Speaker 3: in South Africa, are you, or at least as a foreigner. Yeah,
25:24
Speaker 3: I mean I certainly remember doing it going into Johannesburg
25:28
Speaker 3: in twenty ten or eleven, and I have a feeling
25:31
Speaker 3: I did the same going into Tanzania is the place
25:34
Speaker 3: that I think in I don't know, probably even five
25:38
Speaker 3: years before that. I mean, it's not new and indeed
25:43
Speaker 3: no so anyway they're gay.
25:45
Speaker 1: But I want to just quickly adds something Cal and
25:48
Speaker 1: I spoke about when we were in China last year
25:51
Speaker 1: is that Carl made the point that it doesn't bother
25:54
Speaker 1: him because he's not a Chinese citizen. So what happens
25:57
Speaker 1: there is just for that time period, but when he
26:00
Speaker 1: goes back home it doesn't matter. And it's the same
26:02
Speaker 1: for me. You know, I didn't mind giving my biometrics
26:06
Speaker 1: to enter the country. I didn't need to do that
26:09
Speaker 1: coming back home because there's no surveillance state from there
26:14
Speaker 1: on me. Yeah, that makes sense. And if there is
26:17
Speaker 1: a surveillance state happening, it's not coming from China, it's
26:19
Speaker 1: coming from from the US. Definitely. That's just a sideline though.
26:27
Speaker 4: Yeah. The other thing.
26:28
Speaker 2: The other thing to say, by the way, on this
26:30
Speaker 2: is that anybody that was in London on Saturday at
26:32
Speaker 2: either one of the two demonstrations was absolutely submitting to
26:37
Speaker 2: life facial recognition there. So you know, you've got to
26:41
Speaker 2: You've got to choose your battles. You've got to fight
26:43
Speaker 2: your battles. If you feel that, you know, in order
26:45
Speaker 2: to find something out or go and speak to somebody,
26:48
Speaker 2: you've got to.
26:49
Speaker 4: You've got to do these things.
26:51
Speaker 2: Well, that's the price you've got to do to continue
26:54
Speaker 2: your other way, whatever it is that you're you're doing.
26:57
Speaker 1: Yes, by the way, I was reading a daughter point
27:01
Speaker 1: because obviously I don't like the fact that that you know,
27:03
Speaker 1: Shanghai has fifteen million cameras just on the surveillance thing,
27:06
Speaker 1: but I believe London has something like four million cameras.
27:10
Speaker 1: That's pretty significant.
27:13
Speaker 2: This country is the most seviled country in the Western world,
27:17
Speaker 2: and so of least that's the that's the matter, that's
27:19
Speaker 2: for the trope that's been rolled out for the last
27:23
Speaker 2: couple of decades. It is, you know, we are heavily
27:26
Speaker 2: sevilled in this country. It is a normal part of life.
27:29
Speaker 2: And you know, we're not the position to cast aspersions
27:33
Speaker 2: in any other country this on this planet, as far
27:35
Speaker 2: as I can see.
27:35
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think splitting hairs over the of the exact
27:39
Speaker 3: statistics is a bit of a waste of time. The
27:41
Speaker 3: point is they're all at it and and let's you know,
27:44
Speaker 3: okay for those who are based in the United Kingdom,
27:47
Speaker 3: I mean, just just look at what's happening with life
27:50
Speaker 3: facial recognition. The principles of policing of identifying people have
27:57
Speaker 3: been utterly turned on its head, which is exactly what
28:01
Speaker 3: Big Brother watched said, which I reported on the news
28:04
Speaker 3: some time ago. And yet look what they're heralding, Oh,
28:07
Speaker 3: you know, the X number of arrests made crime fallen
28:11
Speaker 3: here and blah blah. I mean, it's it is going
28:17
Speaker 3: it's going crazy here. The only thing I would say
28:22
Speaker 3: that is I'm not going to say that this should
28:27
Speaker 3: create optimism, but I think it's just a point that
28:31
Speaker 3: might be worth thinking about. Is that the more these
28:34
Speaker 3: systems try to take on, I think that the more
28:38
Speaker 3: unwieldy they'll become. So in a I can I can
28:42
Speaker 3: see that in a trial, a limited let's say, limited
28:47
Speaker 3: facial recognition trial, they might be able to point towards
28:50
Speaker 3: having this, that and the other success. The point is
28:53
Speaker 3: that police have then got to physically go out and
28:56
Speaker 3: find and arrest the person that's been identified by the
28:58
Speaker 3: facial recognition thing. That there might be a point. There
29:01
Speaker 3: probably is a point beyond which the enforcement agents, whether
29:08
Speaker 3: they be police or whoever, can't actually cope with the
29:11
Speaker 3: amount of information that's coming in. And I don't think
29:13
Speaker 3: that's really considered very much. And that would apply to
29:16
Speaker 3: all of this stuff, or you know, whatever data it
29:19
Speaker 3: is that you have on people. There's only so much
29:21
Speaker 3: that the machines can actually do. So they will keep
29:24
Speaker 3: flagging and keep doing this, but that can't be actioned.
29:28
Speaker 3: That's that is the way I would put it. I'm
29:31
Speaker 3: not saying, oh, yeah, no, it's great, there's all this
29:34
Speaker 3: facial recognition stuff is really good, because you know, it's
29:36
Speaker 3: just going to collapse in on itself. I mean, that
29:38
Speaker 3: would be a good outcome if that is what happened.
29:40
Speaker 3: But I do think that we have to be realistic
29:43
Speaker 3: about all of this and not to forget that for
29:47
Speaker 3: the state or whoever it is, to respond, that requires.
29:50
Speaker 1: People, by the way, not suggesting anything, but yeah, yeah,
29:58
Speaker 1: in South Africa, there's a trend to shoot cameras that
30:04
Speaker 1: you see. Okay, so we have a lot of a
30:06
Speaker 1: lot of speed cameras on how way is but if
30:09
Speaker 1: you stop and get out and look at them, a
30:11
Speaker 1: lot of them but bullet holes in them, so they
30:15
Speaker 1: don't work. And if more people are doing that, then
30:20
Speaker 1: what the cops and the authorities can fix. They just
30:22
Speaker 1: leave them. So a lot of our surveillance just simply
30:26
Speaker 1: doesn't work.
30:28
Speaker 3: I think that that has been on the way, and
30:30
Speaker 3: I think that was quite a popular pastime in more
30:32
Speaker 3: remote parts of this country as well for a while.
30:35
Speaker 3: And then I don't know, people got distracted by other things. Yeah, well,
30:41
Speaker 3: and road signs, and it depends where in the country live,
30:44
Speaker 3: but definitely in rural areas there are there are a
30:47
Speaker 3: lot of things with bullet holes in them. They've clearly
30:51
Speaker 3: just been used to target practice and and speed cameras
30:54
Speaker 3: used to have a lot more damage. Something I think
30:55
Speaker 3: people realize there's probably a diminishing return because in actual
30:59
Speaker 3: fact that can mention all the old fashioned speak camera
31:02
Speaker 3: with the lines on the road and whatnot, they were
31:05
Speaker 3: they're expensive to run, and they're fidley and they require
31:08
Speaker 3: sort of constant maintenance and whatnot, so that actually very
31:10
Speaker 3: few of them even work. But there we go. It's
31:14
Speaker 3: more I think now more the mobile stuff, which is
31:17
Speaker 3: difficult me. And I think shooting that you'd.
31:19
Speaker 4: Probably that might be tricky.
31:20
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, especially especially there's a cop sitting next to it.
31:26
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly, that's not to be recommended. Not that I'm
31:29
Speaker 3: recommending shooting one of the other ones there, of course.
31:32
Speaker 1: Yes. Another comment from the forum, why not separate the
31:36
Speaker 1: forum from UK column Amember run discussion community as a
31:40
Speaker 1: non profit organization, but not charity can donate to the
31:44
Speaker 1: news platform.
31:48
Speaker 2: This this gets very complicated very quickly.
31:51
Speaker 4: But look, you know that.
31:55
Speaker 2: I've been a little bit disparaging of of of CARM
31:59
Speaker 2: and so with the fines that they've put out so far,
32:03
Speaker 2: they've been finding the bigger so far that their main
32:06
Speaker 2: effort has been on the bigger platforms. The porn platforms
32:10
Speaker 2: and whatnot, because they're trying to get headlines and get
32:13
Speaker 2: and justify what it is they're doing. They have set
32:16
Speaker 2: up a team for dealing with smaller forums, but that
32:22
Speaker 2: has not as yet been given sort of priority. That's
32:27
Speaker 2: something that's coming later in the year. But what they
32:32
Speaker 2: have done so far is that they have applied fines
32:36
Speaker 2: to organizations even in other countries. And I've sort of
32:40
Speaker 2: been taken the mickey a little bit because, of course
32:43
Speaker 2: I asked them, well, how are you going to Are
32:46
Speaker 2: you going to take cases in other countries? Are you
32:48
Speaker 2: going to actually do that? And at this point they
32:51
Speaker 2: can't because at this point they're still basically unfunded. But
32:55
Speaker 2: beginning in September they start to get funding from the
33:00
Speaker 2: big platforms, and some of them, like Facebook, are have
33:06
Speaker 2: taken that to judicial review because they feel that the
33:09
Speaker 2: fees that they're being asked for and the fines that
33:12
Speaker 2: are like you know, possible, are too big and that
33:18
Speaker 2: there needs to be some kind of restriction on that.
33:20
Speaker 2: But nonetheless, the point is they are issuing fines to
33:26
Speaker 2: organizations that have no presence in the United Kingdom whatsoever,
33:31
Speaker 2: and so you know, it actually makes no difference whether
33:36
Speaker 2: you are based somewhere else, or whether you're a nonprofit
33:39
Speaker 2: or whether you're a completely voluntary run thing, the requirements
33:45
Speaker 2: are still the same. And this was part of the
33:47
Speaker 2: argument that I had with that thought back in fourteen
33:50
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen, because they were basically saying to me, you know,
33:55
Speaker 2: you are required to fulfill the same admin burn for
34:00
Speaker 2: your platform as the BBC is for the for eye Player.
34:05
Speaker 4: And I said, well, hold on a second.
34:07
Speaker 2: What you're basically saying therefore, is it's somebody you know,
34:11
Speaker 2: because we we had we have no money, and we
34:14
Speaker 2: had no money at that time, and I said, we've
34:16
Speaker 2: got no money. So you're basically saying that the person
34:19
Speaker 2: running a YouTube channel out of their bedroom has to
34:22
Speaker 2: do exactly the same things as the BBC. And their
34:25
Speaker 2: attitude was absolutely yes, that was where they were going
34:29
Speaker 2: and that's where that's where they're basically getting to now.
34:33
Speaker 4: So you know, taking that.
34:38
Speaker 2: Splitting that off doesn't help or doesn't remove the obligations
34:44
Speaker 2: under the Online Safety Act, and so there is no
34:48
Speaker 2: quick fix for this. The only way to do to
34:51
Speaker 2: do this is to do what we're doing, which is
34:55
Speaker 2: to take advantage of the of the exemptions that are
34:58
Speaker 2: in place for for media organizations and to demand are
35:06
Speaker 2: are which I mean it was never designed for the
35:08
Speaker 2: UK column or for anybody like us, but but to
35:10
Speaker 2: demand our status as a as a so called recognized
35:16
Speaker 2: news publisher. And that that's that is something about I
35:19
Speaker 2: think that I think is worth fighting because if we
35:21
Speaker 2: can do that, then others can do that too.
35:24
Speaker 1: Just for clarity, so so that I understand commenting on
35:31
Speaker 1: then on whatever UK columns putting out is is fine
35:35
Speaker 1: based on the fact that it's first given by UK
35:39
Speaker 1: column and then you can respond to it as opposed
35:41
Speaker 1: to starting your own sort of free form discussion.
35:45
Speaker 2: That's right, That's that's what the exemption says. And and no, yeah,
35:51
Speaker 2: so so that's basically it.
35:55
Speaker 1: I'm pretty certain that you can you can play around
35:58
Speaker 1: with that. I mean, you can go off topic the
36:03
Speaker 1: conversation thread, right.
36:07
Speaker 2: Well, we can't stop anybody doing any thing. I mean,
36:09
Speaker 2: obviously we've got to we've got to have some degree
36:12
Speaker 2: of moderation. But but but our moderation is very light
36:16
Speaker 2: touch as it is, and in fact some people complain
36:19
Speaker 2: about that as well. But you know that that's that
36:24
Speaker 2: part of it isn't going to change that much. I
36:27
Speaker 2: think I think we're going to we're going to need
36:29
Speaker 2: to ask people to to uh respect the the the
36:33
Speaker 2: rules a little bit better than they have been. But
36:36
Speaker 2: but you know, it's still going to be pretty light touch.
36:42
Speaker 1: I'm guessing it doesn't matter where you are in the world.
36:46
Speaker 1: If it falls under the UK column framework, it's UK
36:50
Speaker 1: columns responsibility.
36:53
Speaker 2: No, the point is that it doesn't matter where you're
36:55
Speaker 2: based in the world. If you have if you are
36:58
Speaker 2: in any way accepting membership or you know, a forum
37:03
Speaker 2: membership or a you know, a group membership in the UK,
37:08
Speaker 2: or people that are based in the UK, then then
37:10
Speaker 2: Offcoms is demanding that they have the right to regulate
37:13
Speaker 2: that that platform. So you know, you can be based
37:18
Speaker 2: in South America or anywhere, and that's still if you've
37:23
Speaker 2: got UK users, you're still expected to and they will still.
37:29
Speaker 4: Attempt to find and so on.
37:30
Speaker 2: So the question, the question in my mind is because,
37:33
Speaker 2: as I said, I was taking the mickey out of
37:34
Speaker 2: them about the fact that they were issuing these massive
37:36
Speaker 2: fines to four Chan and other forums as well as
37:39
Speaker 2: the porn sites, and of course with no particular intention
37:44
Speaker 2: of enforcing that. But that's because they haven't had any
37:48
Speaker 2: funding other than the funding from government so far. In
37:54
Speaker 2: September this year they start getting funding from Facebook and
37:56
Speaker 2: from x and from the other big platforms, and then
38:01
Speaker 2: I expect that to change. They will start taking taking
38:05
Speaker 2: action in the countries that an attempt to recover these
38:09
Speaker 2: fines that they're that they've that they've that they've levied.
38:13
Speaker 1: Well, obviously, Mike Charles, the slope begins to get a
38:20
Speaker 1: bit slippery. I mean, what happens next, I.
38:28
Speaker 2: Mean, who knows what happens next? This this slope. The
38:33
Speaker 2: slope has been slippery for you know, the last ten
38:37
Speaker 2: to fifteen years, and it would have been a lot
38:41
Speaker 2: easier to deal with this in twenty seventeen when the
38:44
Speaker 2: original Online Harms white Paper came out. Once the legislation
38:49
Speaker 2: is in place, and then of course it becomes a
38:52
Speaker 2: lot harder. If people aren't happy with with the Online
38:57
Speaker 2: Safety Act, Reggie, then you know, people need to be
39:02
Speaker 2: campaigning and changing it.
39:05
Speaker 1: They're not doing that.
39:08
Speaker 2: There are some there are some doing that, but there's
39:10
Speaker 2: not a huge amount of support. It seems, you know.
39:13
Speaker 1: No, I lazy because people I don't know whether.
39:17
Speaker 2: It's that I don't know whether it's that I'm just
39:22
Speaker 2: not saying the activism that needs to be out there.
39:25
Speaker 2: You know, there there are so many there are so
39:27
Speaker 2: many massive targets that people could be active over at
39:32
Speaker 2: the moment and that are much more relevant to our
39:37
Speaker 2: daily lives than you know, places that people are putting
39:42
Speaker 2: their activism as far as I can see.
39:46
Speaker 1: Just for clarity, also, this isn't about the content that
39:49
Speaker 1: that you could call them and others are putting out.
39:52
Speaker 1: It's about the engagement.
39:55
Speaker 2: It's it is just in my opinion, this is the
39:58
Speaker 2: latest iteration of the same policy which resulted in pubs
40:04
Speaker 2: being closed, and that is restricting protest on the streets
40:11
Speaker 2: and so on. There is a determination to stop people
40:17
Speaker 2: talking to each other. And you know, one of the
40:22
Speaker 2: things that we have, you know, we've we've seen the
40:24
Speaker 2: direction of travel, and so one of the things that
40:27
Speaker 2: we felt that we needed to do, for example, was
40:29
Speaker 2: to was to launch the magazine because that in and
40:35
Speaker 2: of itself is a physical thing which people can if
40:39
Speaker 2: they wish, take a copy of it somewhere and have
40:42
Speaker 2: a physical conversation with someone in you know, a place
40:47
Speaker 2: where everybody's sitting together. We would absolutely love to see
40:51
Speaker 2: much more of that kind of thing going on than
40:55
Speaker 2: than the kind of conversation that we've seen in the
40:57
Speaker 2: forums in recent years, which because I think that that
41:01
Speaker 2: actually being physically present with people is probably a much
41:06
Speaker 2: more beneficial thing.
41:10
Speaker 3: Yeah, totally, all right, No, I would well, I would
41:14
Speaker 3: just really echo that exactly that and and and the
41:19
Speaker 3: you know, to the wider point about ofcom if this,
41:22
Speaker 3: if this does drive people to think more about how
41:25
Speaker 3: they are interacting with other people and rather to rather
41:28
Speaker 3: than sort of bemoaning the loss of virtual electronic communications,
41:34
Speaker 3: and instead to see this as a push to go
41:39
Speaker 3: back to how things were, which is when you speak
41:42
Speaker 3: to people face to face. Then I think that would
41:44
Speaker 3: be a terrific outcome.
41:48
Speaker 1: Well, so for now then it's it's a it's a
41:51
Speaker 1: clever way to to continue doing things in a way
41:55
Speaker 1: how they were with just with with a few small modifications.
42:01
Speaker 1: It's using a loophole.
42:04
Speaker 2: H Well, it's it's using it's more than a loophole.
42:09
Speaker 2: It's it's it's using the mechanism that mainstream media or
42:15
Speaker 2: that the government has put in place to try to
42:18
Speaker 2: protect mainstream media's discussion platforms. And and so we'll take
42:25
Speaker 2: advantage of that.
42:27
Speaker 4: But the.
42:30
Speaker 2: And the other point I was going to make is
42:31
Speaker 2: just completely fallen out of bad So we'll maybe come
42:34
Speaker 2: back to that.
42:35
Speaker 1: But Mike, isn't it a good idea to protect young
42:37
Speaker 1: people from pornography and and other harmful things on the internet?
42:43
Speaker 2: So okay, this is a This is a very interesting
42:46
Speaker 2: point because and this is why there's something that I've
42:49
Speaker 2: been trying to call out for quite a long time.
42:52
Speaker 4: Now.
42:55
Speaker 2: Whose responsibility is that, jerem? Is that the responsibility the state?
43:01
Speaker 2: Or is that the responsibility of the parent? Now? Where
43:06
Speaker 2: are the biggest risks for children and teenagers online? Is
43:11
Speaker 2: it from them accessing pornography online? Or is it from
43:17
Speaker 2: actual grooming that is happening online? And if it is
43:22
Speaker 2: the latter of those two, which I believe it is,
43:25
Speaker 2: then the question is where is that happening? And the
43:30
Speaker 2: grooming if children is not happening on porn Hub or
43:33
Speaker 2: on Hamster or whoever else is producing that kind of content.
43:37
Speaker 2: The grooming if children is happening on roadblocks and other
43:42
Speaker 2: platforms which are designed for children where there is no
43:46
Speaker 2: age assurance requirement for adults to demonstrate that their children,
43:52
Speaker 2: So children aren't required to prove their age, although adults
43:56
Speaker 2: are posing as children on those platforms and are grooming
44:00
Speaker 2: children that way. Now there's some noise from some of
44:05
Speaker 2: these platforms that they're trying to do something about it,
44:08
Speaker 2: but it's not actually happening. But the point is that
44:11
Speaker 2: the regime itself is designed not to do anything about that.
44:16
Speaker 2: So there's nothing in the regime that under the Online
44:20
Speaker 2: Safety Act that is putting anything in place to protect
44:23
Speaker 2: children from that kind of activity, and that kind of
44:26
Speaker 2: activity is off the charts at the moment, so you
44:31
Speaker 2: know that this it's absolutely clear to me that this
44:34
Speaker 2: is not about protecting children from adult content. This is
44:38
Speaker 2: about forcing adults to justify their use of those platforms
44:45
Speaker 2: by demonstrating who they are and what age they are.
44:49
Speaker 1: That grooming that you're talking about, by the way, doesn't
44:52
Speaker 1: happen only on porn sites. It's you know, mainstream.
44:56
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't happen on well, the grooming of children
44:59
Speaker 2: doesn't happen on board sides at all, because it's happening
45:03
Speaker 2: on the sites that are designed for children, because that's
45:06
Speaker 2: where the children are. So the people that are interested
45:09
Speaker 2: in grooming children pose as children on the sites where
45:12
Speaker 2: children are. But your original question was should we not
45:17
Speaker 2: be protecting children from adult content, And of course we should.
45:21
Speaker 2: The people responsible for doing that are parents. You know,
45:25
Speaker 2: if you stick, if you stick a device in a
45:27
Speaker 2: child's handed hand and say have at it.
45:31
Speaker 4: That in and of itself, in my opinion, is a
45:34
Speaker 4: former child abuse.
45:38
Speaker 1: The point that I was making is that it's not
45:40
Speaker 1: just grooming. It's also the psychological warfare that occurs through
45:44
Speaker 1: cartoon network and otherwise safe children's spaces.
45:51
Speaker 4: Like schools.
45:53
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes, and even private.
46:00
Speaker 3: I think schools is a very good point. I'm certainly
46:04
Speaker 3: not best qualified to say this, but well, first of all,
46:10
Speaker 3: I think it is absolutely fair to say that by
46:13
Speaker 3: and large parents are sloping shoulders on this particular issue.
46:18
Speaker 3: But those that have children in mainstream education, I do
46:25
Speaker 3: understand that there is a great difficulty because I think
46:28
Speaker 3: I'm correct in saying that a lot of, if not
46:31
Speaker 3: perhaps the majority of schools, certainly at secondary level, the
46:36
Speaker 3: way they organize the curriculum and the sort of workflows
46:40
Speaker 3: for children involves using okay, something that should be within
46:47
Speaker 3: the school, but you know, basically messaging platforms and this
46:50
Speaker 3: sort of thing. That's how work is submitted. That's this
46:53
Speaker 3: and the other as I say, I'm not sure quite
46:58
Speaker 3: how accurate that is, but the point is that they
47:02
Speaker 3: are in effect providing a sort of a gateway, I suppose,
47:10
Speaker 3: into all the sorts of things where where people do
47:14
Speaker 3: come unstuck. And then just to Mike's point about the
47:18
Speaker 3: adults sort of seeking out children, I mean, wow, it's
47:22
Speaker 3: amazing what people forget. In the days before any of
47:25
Speaker 3: this existed, where were the stereotypical places that predators would
47:32
Speaker 3: seek out children. They were in places where you find children.
47:38
Speaker 3: Just because you go on the internet doesn't mean that change.
47:40
Speaker 3: I mean why, you know, why is this apparently complicated
47:43
Speaker 3: to understand, or at least why is a blind eye
47:47
Speaker 3: being turned to it by the vast majority of apparently
47:52
Speaker 3: saying rational people in the country are going, oh yeah, yeah, yeah,
47:55
Speaker 3: the online theaty, Yeah, it's really protecting children. No, no
47:58
Speaker 3: it's not. And just think about, you know, logically, just
48:01
Speaker 3: think about why it isn't, or think about where people
48:05
Speaker 3: who are pursuing children would actually go to look for children.
48:08
Speaker 1: It's no different from when the Internet didn't exist, I think.
48:13
Speaker 1: I mean, ultimately it comes down to what you're saying, like,
48:16
Speaker 1: it's who is responsible and it always comes back to
48:23
Speaker 1: the same thing. You know, you are responsible for your family.
48:28
Speaker 1: You need to take responsibility for you and your family,
48:32
Speaker 1: and the state should have no business interfering in the
48:36
Speaker 1: way you bring up your kids. And I'm not saying
48:38
Speaker 1: you should allow them to access the internet, but if
48:41
Speaker 1: you do, that's your business, it's not the state's business.
48:44
Speaker 1: They do have no moral authority or they should have
48:47
Speaker 1: no moral authority over that.
48:52
Speaker 2: I mean, that's absolutely right, But unfortunately we have been
48:57
Speaker 2: for the last thirty forty years. What I've we have
49:00
Speaker 2: been increasingly bombarded with the notion that you know, pay
49:05
Speaker 2: your tax rely on the state, the state will provide
49:08
Speaker 2: the service, uh, and so that you don't have to,
49:11
Speaker 2: and then you've got all this free time to sit
49:13
Speaker 2: and watch television or whatever it is that interests people.
49:16
Speaker 2: So so, you know, looking after children is something that
49:20
Speaker 2: the state absolutely has encouraged people to hand that over
49:25
Speaker 2: to them, because of course, if people do hand that
49:30
Speaker 2: over to them, and they have they hand over responsibility
49:34
Speaker 2: for giving moral guidance too, you know, to the state,
49:38
Speaker 2: then then the state is effectively in control of of
49:41
Speaker 2: what people think. And well, if you know, if we
49:45
Speaker 2: if we feel that that's a good a good idea.
49:48
Speaker 2: Then really we've we've lost already, but U you know,
49:53
Speaker 2: but we need to sorry, go ahead.
49:56
Speaker 1: That feeds no, I was gonna say, that feeds into
49:58
Speaker 1: what y'volori talking about. When when you have the state
50:02
Speaker 1: that with so much power over kids that can become hackable.
50:07
Speaker 1: That's what he was ultimately suggesting. You know, once you
50:12
Speaker 1: have used as eaters, they're just sitting watching TV with
50:15
Speaker 1: all the with all the propaganda coming in, and the
50:18
Speaker 1: parents are no longer looking after them, and the state
50:21
Speaker 1: is now doing the work of the parents, you have
50:24
Speaker 1: hackable humans.
50:28
Speaker 4: And that's increasingly where we're going.
50:30
Speaker 2: You know, I look at the the statistics are already
50:33
Speaker 2: pretty stark about the number of young people that are
50:35
Speaker 2: that are economically so called economically and active. They're they're
50:39
Speaker 2: not an education there. And third, you know in university
50:43
Speaker 2: education that they don't have jobs. They're complaining that there
50:46
Speaker 2: there are no jobs to be hard. Uh And of
50:49
Speaker 2: course with the very rapid rule out of of AI
50:56
Speaker 2: across you know, commercial entities, it that's becoming a much
51:00
Speaker 2: part of thing. Junior programming jobs are basically gone. And
51:05
Speaker 2: but this is not just something which is restricted to
51:08
Speaker 2: the tech world. It's happening across the board.
51:10
Speaker 5: So so but but so there's this, there's there's already
51:16
Speaker 5: an increasing demand of reliance on the state, and on
51:20
Speaker 5: top of that we have other state driven agendas.
51:25
Speaker 4: Because the British government is just issued a requirement.
51:31
Speaker 2: For for the government departments to start spending more of
51:36
Speaker 2: their money with small and medium sized businesses. So what
51:40
Speaker 2: they're attempting to do here is to to make make
51:45
Speaker 2: a create a situation where where small businesses are reliant
51:48
Speaker 2: on the state for their income. And of course, once that,
51:52
Speaker 2: once we get to that situation, it's not just individuals
51:55
Speaker 2: that are increasingly reliant on their income through tax credits
51:59
Speaker 2: or through Social Security or whatnot, it's businesses are reliant
52:04
Speaker 2: on the state for their income as well. This is
52:08
Speaker 2: this is not a direction we should be encouraging or
52:10
Speaker 2: be enthusiastic about, well just creating something quite quite dystopian.
52:17
Speaker 3: It is and and and if anyone's not quite sure
52:21
Speaker 3: how to sort of visualize that, and then just look
52:23
Speaker 3: at what's happened to farmers, because that is exactly the
52:26
Speaker 3: that is exactly the model that that's that's how that's happened.
52:32
Speaker 1: And it's not just the kids, it's also everything else
52:35
Speaker 1: that's been given over to the state. It's we are
52:39
Speaker 1: being encouraged to hand over our agency too to basically
52:44
Speaker 1: the state, the government, and the public private partnerships. Our health. Also,
52:48
Speaker 1: we've spoken about the spenty we must trust, we must
52:51
Speaker 1: trust them with our health. And ultimately, when you become
52:56
Speaker 1: reliant on everybody else and everything else, you lose the
53:01
Speaker 1: power of individual sovereignty and of course family sovereignty. So obvious,
53:10
Speaker 1: though it's weird we talk about this often, it's so obvious. Mike.
53:21
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
53:24
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll give you any I'll just give an anecdotes.
53:26
Speaker 1: We went away of throating this weekend, put the baby
53:30
Speaker 1: in the car, took the dog, went two hours away,
53:36
Speaker 1: drove through mud and gravel and stayed in the beautiful
53:39
Speaker 1: little dome kind of tent kind of place and it
53:43
Speaker 1: was beautiful, you know, and no internet, And walked out
53:47
Speaker 1: in the field and there was a dam and there
53:50
Speaker 1: was nobody there. Just about that, right, there is what
53:55
Speaker 1: people should be doing more of. It's not expensive.
54:01
Speaker 2: Well, I have to admit, jem this is this is
54:03
Speaker 2: part of the reason that I'm sort of wishing we
54:06
Speaker 2: could have lockdown back because because it became much more
54:13
Speaker 2: it became much more obvious that that or it was
54:18
Speaker 2: much more encouraging the kind of behaviors that we should
54:22
Speaker 2: all be doing.
54:22
Speaker 4: Because of course, the fact that.
54:23
Speaker 2: Somebody came along and said you can't go and walk
54:26
Speaker 2: in the countryside meant that lots of people went and
54:29
Speaker 2: walked in the countryside. And and you know, when there's
54:32
Speaker 2: no when there's no such pressure on them, people tend
54:35
Speaker 2: to just not do that kind of thing.
54:37
Speaker 4: And so so you.
54:39
Speaker 2: Know, we need a bit more direct, in your face
54:43
Speaker 2: draconianism and encouragement to resist that kind of thing, which
54:48
Speaker 2: which benefits us all in the end.
54:50
Speaker 4: Maybe.
54:51
Speaker 1: But yes, there's man I mean, he spoke about this plenty.
54:54
Speaker 1: When you have free floating anxiety, which we clearly have
54:57
Speaker 1: now because there's no single unifying calls for people to
55:00
Speaker 1: let you onto and that is then that's a major
55:04
Speaker 1: I mean, COVID was a unifying cause. We have a
55:08
Speaker 1: whole pile of stuff now that is just putting people
55:10
Speaker 1: into all kinds of anxiety states. And so as a
55:14
Speaker 1: result you end up with what you end up now seeing.
55:17
Speaker 2: Well, you see, I have to say, jerm this is
55:20
Speaker 2: This is where you know, we all should have been
55:22
Speaker 2: paying a lot closer attention, because you know, when as
55:25
Speaker 2: COVID was starting to draw to a close, the COVID
55:28
Speaker 2: area was starting to draw to a close, we were
55:32
Speaker 2: highlighting the use of the term poly crisis by the
55:35
Speaker 2: World Economic Forum and others, and it was pretty clear
55:39
Speaker 2: the direction that they were heading in, because they clearly
55:41
Speaker 2: recognized that that COVID was a mistake in the sense
55:46
Speaker 2: that it gave people a single cause to the rally around,
55:51
Speaker 2: and that that masked the divisions were absolutely always there
55:57
Speaker 2: amongst all those people. It's interesting on because I went
56:01
Speaker 2: to the I went to London on Saturday and and
56:04
Speaker 2: I met Haikuku, who's who's running the volunteer, the polunteer
56:10
Speaker 2: campaign at the moment in London, and he asked this question,
56:16
Speaker 2: what happened? Why did he stuck a camera in face?
56:20
Speaker 2: He asked me, why why did people divide after the
56:23
Speaker 2: end of COVID. And the answer simple, they didn't. They
56:27
Speaker 2: were already divided. It was just it was just that
56:30
Speaker 2: once that single issue went away, those divisions became apparent again.
56:34
Speaker 2: This is clearly the way that the poly crisis has
56:37
Speaker 2: been rolled out has done two things. The divisions that
56:41
Speaker 2: were there already have come back with a vengeance. But
56:45
Speaker 2: as well as that, the other impact that has had
56:47
Speaker 2: is that has overwhelmed people to such a degree that
56:51
Speaker 2: it has made them in many cases it's taken away
56:56
Speaker 2: any ability or desire to resist or fight by because
57:00
Speaker 2: it's it's just too overwhelming. So it's this is this
57:05
Speaker 2: is a strategy that is a lot more effective for
57:09
Speaker 2: the other side than than the COVID the COVID effort was.
57:14
Speaker 1: But then ultimately what you're suggesting, Mike, is that people
57:17
Speaker 1: need to see this and actually create alliances rather than
57:21
Speaker 1: creating more division, and and and.
57:24
Speaker 2: So what if you disagree on some things, I think
57:28
Speaker 2: I think I think it's vital that people, you know,
57:31
Speaker 2: stop thinking in terms of left and right and think
57:34
Speaker 2: start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Uh, and
57:37
Speaker 2: and start looking at who's actually behind the scenes manipulating
57:42
Speaker 2: and driving.
57:44
Speaker 4: Agendas and.
57:48
Speaker 2: Remaining within the left and right paradigm, which is something
57:51
Speaker 2: that was given to people in order to maintain this
57:54
Speaker 2: divide and conquer situation. Remaining in that paradigm is is
58:00
Speaker 2: a recipe for a disaster.
58:03
Speaker 1: Okay, my throat is ticking and I'm coughing a lot now,
58:07
Speaker 1: so I'm going to come in for landing here, although
58:10
Speaker 1: I can see we are pretty much on time anyway.
58:14
Speaker 1: Mike Charles, thanks for this coffee shop chat, although based
58:20
Speaker 1: on Charles's chat at the beginning, I should just call
58:23
Speaker 1: us a shop, not a coffee shop. I was drinking
58:28
Speaker 1: water the whole time, Charles.
58:31
Speaker 3: Slightly brow and watered by the notes of it.
58:34
Speaker 1: But yes, hopefully I'll have my maintainet connection back next week. Guys,
58:38
Speaker 1: I'll chat you then,