>>513374117
Heโs saying as a Brit he supports it because he thinks the UK should have the ability to fine foreign companies which makes sense from his perspective
As anyone else the act is obviously hilarious, the UK is a nanny state for ZOG
>>513374621
Yeah, but at the same time I do generally think if every country had a fully Balkanized internet, the UK (modern) would be one of the most sterilized.
That said, most people posting here wouldnโt really have any issues bypassing this stuff
>>513375270 >Why the fuck this kind of important discussion has less bumps than bait threads?
Faggots are trying to shill the governor of California, as if any real human would ever vote for that retard.
>>513373213 (OP)
His argument hinges entirely on 4chan hosting CP. Which is illegal in the US anyway. So all OFCOM (?) has to do is file a complaint with the US Feds.
Now Im no expert on all the boards here, but is there really CP in 4chan? I dont think so.
So this is really just an affront to free speech. In the same way the limeys have been decapitating free speech intheir own country.
>>513377218 >Get banned from the UK >Suddenly less pakis and jeets
Sounds like a win-win. If you ban Canada then poo traffic here will probably drop by 90%.