Probability is not certainty.

True, but there is an history of cases about it where the probabilty became certainty.

I do not want people in jail for doing something that is probably a crime.

Me eighter but at the same time I would like to prevent some behaviors that could be dangerous to others.
I know it could be a slippery slope but honestly it would not console me to know that the drunken driver where punished *after *he hit me, I would prefer if he would be stopped *before *being able to hit me.

Every so-called crime that has no jail time shouldn’t be a crime. Fees are just another way of enforcing class warfare.

But fines works only if they are proportional to your wealth, else they are a punishment only for the poor.

We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn't "bad" enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn't be a crime at all.

Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.

Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That's no accident, that's an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.

Now, if say, your insurance agency decides that you are a risk due to your alcoholism, and either drops you, or increases your premiums that's not a problem. There's no criminal punishment happening, and if it's in the contract you signed, that's expected.

But, you should only criminally punish someone after they've hurt another person. Not when they engage in risky behaviors.

We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.

Define "bad enough", because this is a very slippery slope. What about thefts ?

Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.

Following this reasoning, there are no crimes until you get caught and/or there is a victim. To me this is unacceptable in a decent society.

Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.

And why we should not to try to avoid to have a person in jail and one killed in the first place ?

This is exactly the kind of government overreach people like me have been screaming about since, in my case, the 1990s.

"I told you so" just doesn't feel so good when what's happening is nothing less than the entirety of human freedom and liberty is being eroded before our very eyes, and those who disagree with it get labeled as kooks, and accused of hating whatever "oppressed group" of the day is in vogue.

It's just a logical extension of what happens when government becomes the arbitrator of all.

The biggest issue is that so many people see it just as you do, left vs right, instead of liberty vs authoritarianism.

For decades, the libertarian movement, as seen by the left, has been largely associated with the right, simply because of their professed support of the free market, and dislike of gun control

But that same movement has been seen by the right as largely associated with the left, because of their views on things like the drug war, enforced morality, and anti-corporatism.

Has there been a large shift of alt-right into the libertarian movement over the past few years? Yes. Absolutely. And I despise it with a passion.

But there are still quite a lot of us truly anti-authoritarian libertarians out there who despise both left, and right leaning authoritarianism.

But when I bring up issues of authoritarianism, I get "BoTh SiDeS?!" bullshit responses. Because YES, as we can see, BOTH SIDES do their own fair share of this authoritarian bullshit.

They differ in methods, yes. But the bottom line is an encroachment on personal privacy. Plus, property rights are just a logical extension of personal privacy rights.

Theft has a victim, what are you talking about???

Without an actual victim there is no crime.

Without an actual victim there is no crime.

And I understand this. What I don't like is the idea that to try to prevent that there will be victims is bad.

If billionaires conspire to distort the markets against the interest of the people, and unbeknownst to them, then that’s a conspiracy, normalized by calling it Capitalism.

That's not distorting the markets, that is what they are for. The market isn't some magical deity who's only been stopped because their will is being misinterpretated by the billionaires, they are the market. They control the market. The purpose of a system is what it does. The "Free" market is as much of a myth as when MLMs say the state will "dissolve away" to produce true Communism with the workers owning the means of production. The moment a "free" market is made, it instantly gets manipulated by people with money and the market stops being free anymore. That's part of the reason why so many rich cunts babble on about "free" markets, because it gives them power The billionaires fucking with the market and the law isn't an aberration of the system, it is the system. Once you realise that, everything falls into place.

This isn't a conspiracy, this was pretty much done out in the open. To call it a conspiracy suggests there was some amount of subterfuge. Like Carnegie UK published papers on why they think the OSA is a good idea in 2022, the Online Safety Act 2023, plus the additions made in '25, are publicly viewable here. The transcripts of the debates are here on Handsard.

You know how it was implemented but you can only guess why.

Oh Oh! I can guess why!

The whole reason why the bill was made and written as it was is money. We live in a period of surveillance capitalism where various companies make fuck tonnes of money from your data. Google, Facebook and the like didn't make their money from merely "running ads". They took the data you gave them through cookies and your posting and used it to more accurately target ads at you. Then, they started selling your data to other data brokers who then sold it to anyone with enough money. We've all heard the story about how target knew a teenage girl was pregnant before her father did, and we all know about Cambridge Analytica, Brexit and Trump. Facebook will literally monitor your emotional state through your posts and target you with ads for loans when they think your emotionally vulnerable.

So, we all know data brokers are hungry for data to sell, and as one Murray Bookchin once said: "Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing". So guess what? Investment firms saw a load of moral panics and calls for digital ID. They invested in firms like YOTI (they are not required to say who invested in them, nice and convenient) and started doing research for the government through their think tank arms to convince the government that the OSA is a good idea. The bill says that stringent age checks must be done to view certain pieces of content, but not how, so that means websites have to hire YOTI and co to do that for them or do it themselves. If they can't afford to they either have to shut down because they don't care about the little guy.

So now data brokers have some very valuable data they can take from you: Your unedited face, your passport/drivers licence (plus all the biometrics that come with that) and (alongside that), your sexual habits, more controversial views, and your neuroses! The government can buy that off them (not that they couldn't already find that out), but also so can the people with the big bucks, COMPANIES! On Grindr? Well now your health insurer can increase your premiums if they think you are promiscious. Got political views? Well now they can be manipulated for an outcome favourable to large corporations. Your employer can buy your data and see if you have been saying things they don't like, annorexic people can be given ads for gym memberships and health fads. Oh, and all this can be sold to the government, be it yours or someone else's.

It's all money, it's no shady conspiracy, literally it is business as usual and it sucks.

It's business as usual and it is a conspiracy.

So guess what? Investment firms saw a load of moral panics and calls for digital ID. They invested in firms like YOTI (they are not required to say who invested in them, nice and convenient) and started doing research for the government through their think tank arms to convince the government that the OSA is a good idea.

You have a very loose definition of conspiracy. If you don't define conspiracy as something you actively hide, then the word "conspiracy" becomes like the word "Woke" in Right wing circles, that is, "something I do not like or approve of". When I think of "Conspiracies" I think of things like the Business Plot, an act, by a group of politicians and business men, done in secret, to install a Fascist Dictator in the United States as a coup. We only know of this because the person they wanted to be the Dictator (Smedley Butler) told them to fuck off and spoke about it to Congress under oath.

Everything about this was out in the open. The moral panic over the internet has been going on since I was a child. We have had repeated calls to censor the internet to stop Porn, Terrorism, Media that Ofcom can't control, Hate Speech, extremist content, pro ana content, and the like since the PS1 was the top selling console. We have had data brokers successfully argue that they should be able to take our data and sell it legally in front of parliament many a time. Carnegie UK have published papers that became the OSA that were PUBLICLY VIEWABLE. Newspapers advocated for this on the front page, Hansard and BBC parliament recorded the debates, the only reason you think it's a conspiracy was because you personally wasn't aware of it.

The Tories, Labour, and to an extent even UKIP/Reform have been calling for censorship of the internet for a while, they just didn't agree to what should be censored, where and how. Want an actual British Conspiracy that we know is a thing? The British Government have been destroying documents from the Empire days that show that the British Empire committed atrocities to avoid having people sent to the Hague. They've hid that fact, they even today sometimes deny this fact.

It's like saying that Donald Trump's election was a conspiracy because you don't watch the news and didn't know the US was having an election.