nullifidian @nullifidian@qoto.org

@neonbubble Oddly, Haircut 100 have also stood the test of time fairly well*.

According to my iPod.

@admitsWrongIfProven A very lucky and stubborn lich.

@admitsWrongIfProven 8 and -11 resp.

@neonbubble Bah. Foiled again.

@neonbubble Offer to add a mullet into the mix.

Still, 2,200+ tories in authority too many.

*snort*

@gpowerf @solarisfire Never noticed, myself, and we usually get these outages up the wazoo.

@neonbubble Wow, now there’s a throwback; I’ve not heard Consolidated in donkeys’, last time was probably watching my gf-at-the-time and her pals all singing/dancing to You Suck. 😉

#mood #ukpol

@davep I'd watch it being played, if only in a Dr-Who-behind-the-sofa kinda way.

@davep This is the stuff of my fucking nightmares!

So you want to increase my car insurance by *checks renewal* 72%?

Hahahaha!

No.

@Pat I’m not arguing against free speech (however that might be defined)—our government does that for us (e.g. yesterdays Public Order Act). I’m arguing for accountability.

And in the specific case I mention (i.e. brexit) direct harms (personally felt) have already been caused, and were caused before the termination of our membership of the EU by bad actors (both fringe and establishment) in the political classes.

Loss of face and mild opprobrium is not sufficient for either poisoned soft drinks or deep societal harm. Debate only goes so far to limit harms, otherwise the court system would need to be no more than a town hall.

@Pat

> The US and the UK share our core fundamental values when it comes to democracy

In principle, I agree. In practice, I don't see it happening so much. Even so, I don't have any say over the USA's various legal systems, so they don't concern me anywhere near as much.

> In the case of scammers, that’s just contract law and criminal law

Which already exists. I have no issue with punitive action for such.

> In the civics space it’s not a contract

Notionally, I would posit that it is: the so-called "social contract". And this applies especially to the UK where, where large parts of our political system rely heavily on "gentlemanly" conduct where political behaviour is not subject to codification, something that certain elements of our political classes have, in recent years, stretched (and, I would argue, broken-sometimes egregiously and with malice).

We don't need "a select few" to determine truth, and that is not what I'm arguing for anyway. What I'm positing is that bad actors are held to account for falsehoods in both commercial and political spheres. I would argue that in some—if not most—cases, the latter would be more of more import to more of society.

> Each person needs to decide for themselves what they believe.

And this could (and perhaps should) be the case for both commercial and political claims. Education would help instruct both. Legislative curbing would also curtail both. Lying and misrepresentation, whether for commercial or political gain, should carry consequences, and not be limited solely to one activity when they both impact on people's lives.

@happysinger They’re not biters, but I am a bad person.

@happysinger I’ll take two.