I am aware of the fact that information control is a central part of any power structure setup, and I assume that too many people lack the skills, the option, and even the desire to deeply and meaningfully engage with most topics, but I'd still love to be part of a society where ideas and opinions can be freely and respectfully shared and debated.

I believe in the power of rational arguments, and am quite alarmed by any form of thinking-for-you as I'd prefer to think for myself.

But then, this seems to be our lot as humans. Not even (the stories in) The Orville was free of power politics, as utopian as it was.

I had always seen The Orville as a simple form of entertainment. I didn't notice there was some deeper meaning where it wants to teach us about some utopian future. At the very least not to a degree that makes it a prime example for that.

On that note, what would you suggest as a prime example for some utiopian future?

Utopias, I think, are probably more personal than your underwear.

Good question, there aren't many these days.

First thing that springs to mind is Iain M Banks "Culture" series.

You can read them in any order. The earliest one (Consider Phlebas) I never much liked. Use Of Weapons was my favourite. Player Of Games was good too. If you were only going to read one, probably Excession - it is the most sweeping, epic one. Some of the later ones are good. If you just want the overarching ideas, they are explained in an essay called A Few Notes On The Culture which he posted to newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written in 1994. Copied here: http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm

I'd have thought it was hard to miss, especially with the discussion of genocide against the Kaylon.

It also features a race of homosexuals who have a thing going on with gender reassignment surgery.

The Orville teaches us that, throughout history, and with all likelihood in to the furthest reaches of time, humanity will struggle, or not, with approximately foibles and philosophical issues.

Probably nothing new to most viewers of the overall genre. Star Trek TNG wasn't particularly funny, certainly not comedy. It'd have been great if The Orville was on when I was watching TNG the first time.

the covid fiasco happened a few years ago. people were fired and some were imprisoned for not towing the line. there were mayors of towns harassing their voters on the streets. the general population was by and large very supportive of the politicians who were imposing restrictions :)

the age of “free and respectful opinions” is gone. see the USA for an extreme example.

The Orville is basically a less utopian version of Star Trek: The Next Generation. (Or, perhaps, “Roddenberry-era Star Trek” more generally.)

Many people are in support of banning propaganda websites and for good reasons. They sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt and advance foreign information warfare goals. The British people would undoubtedly be against implementing a Great Firewall or anything similar. Ideas like that would face a lot of opposition and scrutiny. Too much to succeed in any meaningful way.

We still have enough discussion in media and public forums in the UK to engage deeply and meaningfully with most topics. And to share opinions freely and respectfully. You are painting Ofcom's/Foreign Secretary's move as far more sinister and impactful than it is. Although it is a move in the direction of government control, not all such actions are unwelcome by people; not everyone is so libertarian. Sometimes the government has powers that individuals don't, and that can help everyone.

What's good for society as a whole seems a lot more difficult to answer.

This way or that way, I'm not sure most or even many supporters of this kind of access control think its consequences through to such an extent that they would have formed an opinion that I would consider well-founded.

I am not as libertarian as you, and many people are not. It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you.

To be a bit more precise, what I am saying is that I prefer a higher level of autonomy in general.

Any society needs to agree on how to organize itself, and questions of power seem central to this.

What I am saying is that I prefer

(a) to be consulted about decisions that affect me, and

(b) that I'd like for these decisions to be based on rational, open-minded, curious, where possible fact-based dialog and eventual agreement rather than power politics or undisclosed, possibly questionable reasoning.

I like to have a say in things, and I like to do so based on arguments I can follow.

> It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you.

I question the basis of the disagreement, not the disagreement itself.

Why, exactly, do we disagree?

Here I am just not convinced that it's impossible to move beyond said disagreement if both parties are willing to approach the topic in question with an open mind and, and this seems to be a big challenge, in agreement as to the frame and approach and reference points for said discussion.

In other words, there seem to be people who are quite content with being more impulsive and judgmental when forming their opinions, who feel the need to question themselves and others to a far lesser extent than I seem to do.

There seem to be people who are quite happy to make assumptions I would question.

And there seem to be quite a lot of people who dislike being questioned or shown the flaws of their reasoning.

Even if emotionally unpleasant, I prefer to be questioned in good faith than just being agreed with. It's one way for me to learn and grow.

This, in part, seems to drive a lot of disagreements.

This is a common refrain from people that think Bill Gates is inserting microchips into their brains and everyone else are sheeple that need to wake up.

The problem is nobody can entirely think for themselves. People are manipulated by advertising and propaganda which reprograms on a subconcious basis to the point they will not be able to accept basic verifiable facts, let alone anything more complicated.

How about removing the log from you own eye, before attempting to remove the speck from your neighbour's eye?

So do you propose we double-down on this, with the help of the government? I'm ok with that, since I believe there is 0 chance anyone can do anything about it. But we can at least stop being two-faced about it.

Could you point me towards any supporting evidence or fleshed-out theories regarding your conclusion in the second sentence of my quote?

I find it difficult to go from "advertising and propaganda", which clearly exist and which can be argued to have an effect, to completely losing the ability to "accept basic verifiable facts".

Am I missing something?

15 years ago in Russia repressions bagan with lagislation to "protect childern from information on internet".

Good luck proving that.

I'm left wondering what "reasonable steps" means. Just DNS blocking?

Not only was he not a socialist, and opposed the name change from DAP to NSDAP but didn't yet have the power to prevent it, but he so detested the "left" of NSDAP, which wanted to merge some left wing economic policies with far-right social views, that as his control over the party tightened he got them progressively expelled, until he was finally able to have the rest arrested and/or murdered during the Night of the Long Knives.

That's how much he hated any hint of lifting socialist ideas.

More importantly, nobody contemporary to were in any way confused about their position. It was right wingers like Von Papen and Hindenburg who let him form a government. It was only the right wing parties who voted with NSDAP. It was only the right wing press, both in Germany and abroad, who expressed support for him. This attempt at trying to conflate NSDAP with socialism first started after the war.

Remember the political fight over the phrase “corporations are people”? Well, they certainly are “persons”.

People in power are going to abuse it as long as they can get away with it. Period.

That site uses google tag manager too. If there are international sanctions should google really be providing services?

It's just morphed that way, because that's where the money/power is.

In order to understand a person, you must be able to listen to them.

IF they do not let you hear these people, there is no way you can love them.

That is their goal, to try and remove your ability to love.

They first tried it with straight propaganda. That did not work. So now they cut you off from them totally.

If you all in the UK do not rise up against this, especially you techies who help write the code for all this stuff, then you get what you deserve.

Demand your right to love another human, no matter where they are. Russia is not the enemy, the oligarchs of all countries are the enemy.