748
Flock CEO calls Deflock a “terrorist organization”
(news.ycombinator.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
748 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
88310 readers
4278 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The word 'terrorist' has lost all meaning at this point.
In the UK the term is defined by the government as anyone who is deemed by the government a threat to the government or the people or someone's property or the predominant local religion. But recently it's been exclusively used for the first one. In this country state law is valued higher than corporate, moral, ethical and religious laws, so YMMV
"
Terrorism: interpretation. (Terrorism Act 2000)
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where— (a)the action falls within subsection (2), (b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it— (a)involves serious violence against a person, (b)involves serious damage to property, (c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section— (a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom, (b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated, (c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and (d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
"
Link
In the UK it means the cop wants your ID and is willing to pretend your camera is a gun to get it.
The UK isn't the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.
In very limited situations the police can, but it's not the norm.
Don't get me wrong, ACAB, they just don't generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an 'illegal' protest.
I didn't mean they really thought a camera were a gun. I mean UK cops will "suspect" people filming with a camera of being a terrorist (as if aiming the camera were like pointing a gun).
and I’m saying it's not a common occurrence, intentional or not.
Guns aren't common enough in the UK for "they've got a gun" to be a go-to for the police.
"They've got a knife" or "They’ve got a sign the ruling class don't want people to see" are more likely.
As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it's by no means the norm.
"anonymous" downvotes aren't a good replacement for an actual response, but you do you.