I don't understand this graph...

The average life span of a human is around 80ish in the western world. But my dog would have be about 17 to reach that, which is much older than even small dogs generally live.

Wasn't the whole idea originally that you take average human life span and divide by average dog life span?

I get that they've made this non linear to account for the fact a dog develops differently. But according to this your dog can still have pups well into their 60s and 70s.

Plus my one year old dog would be around the same age as me. And he has a stupid amount of energy and I feel like a slow, creaking, falling apart old man.

I hope so. It's a good reminder that unlike the internet, most people (like this shop owner) literally don't care about 'wokeism'. And just associate the word, quite rightly, with waking up and having breakfast.

This article is literally the epitome of pointless culture war crap.

"Several people in a Coventry Facebook group complained about the restaurant being called Woke"

That's the story.

I'm genuinely not sure what's dumber. The 'several people' who bothered commenting about something so stupid on Facebook. Or the fact the Guardian have dedicated a whole article to what several people wrote on a Facebook group.

Tbh. 40k would look pretty appetising. Especially when they were probably downplaying it's use when they offered to buy.

I wouldn't really call Great Britain authoritarian.

That's correct now. But originally the bill went as far as to say platforms are legally responsible for any offensive content. Whether or not it is illegal or in their EULA.

The main issue being the ambiguity around what is/isn't offensive. Is satire offensive? Or artistic expression?

And under that framework, with the threat of near constant law suits you can see why social media sites would just take down anything that could be deemed offensive by anyone. And that would be an issue for free speech.

>There needs to be accountability for someone who goes online and starts telling random users on reddit they're going to kill them, higher punishments than a simple ban.

But in your example here that is already illegal in the UK. And under existing legislation platforms are already required to take it down and report it.

Any incitement of violence, threats or hate speech is already illegal. Online and in real life.

Personally I think this is a really positive change to the bill. The issue with putting the onus on companies to police even legal speech, is you incentivise them to over police it.

Given the wide range of ideas, art, satire that have the capacity to offend people... Social platforms would rather take down everything than risk a lawsuit where they could be liable.

Worth noting that we already have hate speech laws. So what is 'legal' to say in the UK is more narrow than the US, and social platforms still need to adhere to this.