Hacker News Reader

Comment by gtrevorjay | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> Not to make this even more political but this sort of thing is exactly why so much of the Republican base is against funding NATO.

Really? The stuff I remember seeing was entirely about countries not spending the required amounts on their own militaries.

Being upset when welfare recipients think they're better than those paying is deeply ingrained into the party.

That's correct. Its also the case that a big chunk of the Republicans are pro-NATO.

However, in politics it is best to be liked. If you want people to send their kids to go save you (again), its best that they like you. Sneering at people you depend on for your security is just dumb. Remember that the next time you consider voting for an politician with lots of anti-US hot takes.

You're saying that the UK's porn laws are "actively attacking the sovereignty" of the US in a way that is comparable to breaking a military alliance. Do I have that right?

Further, you're implying this activity is NOT something that the US has historically and regularly done to other countries, including its allies in NATO?

Of course I am. A military alliance is contingent on the other party remaining an ally. Even Democrats would expect NATO to be dissolved if by some shenanigans Putin was elected PM.

That the US abuses it's position as the primary military power on earth to violate other nation's sovereignty is wrong and might matter "in the final calculus" but doesn't change how wrong this UK action is in isolation. It does bring up another absurdity particular to interactions between the US and UK which is that the US extended an insane amount of courtesy of not "finishing the job" once it was the predominant world power.

> It does bring up another absurdity particular to interactions between the US and UK which is that the US extended an insane amount of courtesy of not "finishing the job" once it was the predominant world power.

I don’t think that’s courtesy. I think that’s just realizing how useless and hard fighting a cross-atlantic war is.

Starmer’s government may have also forgotten that its nuclear deterrent is on lease from the US.

Something about this feels off. It’s clearly not in the interest of the UK diplomatically given the current US admin. Are the people on the UK side of the cross-Atlantic CISA/State/Ofcom “counter-misinformation” op still blindly running their scripts as if the US elections never happened? It sure feels that way.

> Starmer’s government

It seems worth pointing out (for any readers unaware) that the Online Safety Act, introduced by Conservative MP Michelle Donelan, was passed in September 2023 during Rishi Sunak's Conservative government.

It was, and yet the current government can still choose to set internal enforcement priorities, issue memos on their current understanding of the law, suspend enforcement pending review, etc. They aren’t bound to helplessly apply terrible interpretations of the law in an aggressive manner. What’s more, they could make even a single statement that signals a lack of agreement with the law and a desire to modify or repeal it. Failure to do so is silent assent, and further evidence that New Labour is just the one-step-to-the-left wing of the Tories.

I don't disagree but things would've been same under any of the major parties that could possibly get elected under FPTP.

None of them have the political capital to really oppose it even if they did want to. Plus there is a media absolutely overflowing with hysteria around the topic (Brass Eye's Paedogeddon is just as relevant today.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com