If you care about this stuff you only have a few days left to register to vote. You can do it online in a few minutes I believe.
Honestly, as a techie my impulse is to go "fine, have your shitty internet" to legislators who repay the advances the tech revolution has given them this way, but -
The reality is that tech companies are all still businesses hungry for bigger marketshare and willing to follow the money. The "internet giants" have all bent over backwards for China (or just been supplanted by chinese alternatives); I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same here.
After all, not doing so means you're leaving money and mindshare on the table for your competitors. It sucks, but that's what'll ultimately drive corporate decisions. The "ethical choice" is usually just a deferral of the eventually "more profitable" choice.
"It is in no-one’s interest for the foundations of strong societies and stable
democracies – the rule of law, privacy and security – to be undermined."
The Internet is a dangerous place at times. As anyone who needed the NHS a few days ago is all too aware, modern technologies can be vulnerable to very damaging attacks. There are whole new variations of criminal activity, from bullying and harassment to fraud and identity theft, that have been enabled by our modern, highly connected lives, and these often do have serious consequences for the victims. None of this is seriously in dispute, and no-one would seriously suggest that it wouldn't be better if these problems were effectively addressed.
The real problem is that I suspect Theresa May and her government have a very different idea about what things like "effectively addressed" mean compared to most of us here. The biggest single step to undermining privacy and security online in our country may well have been the Internet surveillance laws passed recently by the current government, laws which started out as a personal goal of May herself from her time as Home Secretary.
In their haste to ensure that laws and principles can be applied online as well as offline, it appears that the Conservative leadership has forgotten that offline we also have rules about following due process and principles about being innocent until proven guilty and legal requirements for reasonable grounds for suspicion before doing various things that interfere with a private citizen's life.
But this was a failure of the government to fund the required security for the NHS. It was dangerous because the government was complacent, they cut funding to the support that kept the data safe, they used outdated technologies. This incident was the governments fault.
And after reading this manifesto, it wouldn't surprise me if they let it happen on purpose to help push this agenda.
Perhaps, though a lot of the later reporting I saw suggested that the situation was far less clear than it initially seemed. For example, the vast majority of the systems affected by the recent involuntary encryption problems were reportedly running Windows 7. An update had been made available on that platform but only a few weeks earlier, so in some cases it was still in review before being deployed by IT departments etc. For home users affected by similar attacks, there have also been various problems with getting Windows 7 updates deployed in timely fashion, not least because Microsoft borked the Windows 7 update mechanism for a lot of people a few months ago and even systems set to automatically install important updates may have been silently failing to do so.
In any case, this is all rather academic. You and I and no doubt many other people reading these comments on HN might understand the technical issues involved, and we might have reasonable discussions about different strategies for updating systems to mitigate such threats. The average non-geek reading the paper just sees "Your local hospital Emergency Department was closed this week, with ambulances rerouted to other hospitals 20 miles away, as a result of evil people doing bad stuff that made the computers stop working." If the government promises to stop the evil people doing bad stuff so hospitals can carry on helping people, that average non-geek is going to support them, blissfully unaware of either the prospects for success or the unintended (or, more cynically, unadvertised) side effects.
I wouldn't bet my money on it, since UK ISP companies were quite happy following government's agenda (see porn filter and Internet history collection).
Of course, when it becomes a legal requirement things might change.
As far as court ordered blocking, IIRC only the top 5 ISPs are currently required to implement this. Not sure what impact this has had on subscription rates for smaller providers.
Do you have any robust data you could share about that? I'd be interested to see it. The only reports I've seen were informal/anecdotal, but if anything they suggested the reverse usually happens, with not many customers opting into filter programmes and those who were signed up automatically generating a fair number of hostile calls to ISP customer support people about wanting to opt out (and quite a few of those in connection with sites being blocked inappropriately).
There's still time to get a postal vote registration. They email or post the form and you take/send it to your local council offices.
PDF link: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/manifesto2017/Manifesto20...
A FRAMEWORK FOR DATA AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY
Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree. While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide. Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits. It is in the interests of stable markets that consumers are protected from abusive behaviour, that money is able to flow freely and securely, and that competition between businesses takes place on a level playing field. It is in no-one’s interest for the foundations of strong societies and stable democracies – the rule of law, privacy and security – to be undermined.
So we will establish a regulatory framework in law to underpin our digital charter and to ensure that digital companies, social media platforms and content providers abide by these principles. We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law. We will also create a power in law for government to introduce an industry-wide levy from social media companies and communication service providers to support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms, just as is already the case with the gambling industry.
Just as we led the world in regulating embryology thirty years ago, we know that if we create the right system of governance for the digital economy and use of data, we will attract the right businesses who want to become the global centre for data use and research.
Here is a link that should take you straight to page 84 of the PDF (tested on Firefox and Chrome only):
However, I'm probably in the minority.
A few years ago I went to a debate about the Internet and how it affects families, and it was interesting and rather scary to hear people's attitudes.
It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed  like TV does.
Despite good arguments being put forward for freedom and openness, the crowd voted overwhelmingly in favour for heavy censorship and controls.
And now, thanks to Theresa May's band of paternalistic fascists, they're going to get their wish.
I've only ever sometimes heard (but fortunately tried to keep in mind) the fact that the reason for it is that it's not seen as dystopic by the British public, and that they're majority-for the changes being made. (Even though it makes perfect logical sense, the subconscious impulse of denial is still there without hearing "the other side".)
With that said I do hope your fellow citizens can be persuaded to see the value of the internet as an open platform. Censorship works in theory but I think what people want more is the ability for self-censorship; that and censorship of the whole are two radically different things.
If only adblock lists (content subscription in general) were a more common model. You could tell your neighbors they can just "not subscribe to those channels" without affecting others. Hmm
However, enforcing a nation-state firewall which blocks stuff 'for our own good' – and records every aspect of our lives in the process – is not the right way to go about it.
> If only adblock lists (content subscription in general) were a more common model. You could tell your neighbors they can just "not subscribe to those channels" without affecting others. Hmm
Content subscription is a relatively easy model to understand. A stratified net is easier than DIY filtering but still is 'handled by the government' and affords the flexibility of a (somewhat) open internet.
Far sight better than wholesale blocking.
Though how many would look a friend in the eye and say, "if you offend my sensibilities, I want you to be thrown in jail?" Hopefully few.
People don't want to know. Or they know and act anyway
It's all very well dismissing this, but I can't imagine being a parent and trying to moderate a childs access to "extreme" content (sexual or otherwise) in the modern world. On the off chance I manage to properly "secure" the home computer they'll be surrounded by friends with smartphones, laptops etc.
In ye olden days the risks were of some parent letting children watch a 15 movie at a sleepover, or perhaps one kid getting a magazine and showing it about. The internet is never more than 3 clicks from the latest deathgif etc some of which can have a pretty strong influence on a person (let alone a child).
Declaring everyone who sees things such as that as problematic to be fascist is probably not going to result in positive change.
I don't object at all to people censoring their own feeds or deciding what is acceptable to themselves - I do it myself.
Tools for this should be easy to use and widely available for those who want them.
What I do object to, strongly, is a bunch of unaccountable people secretly deciding what we should and shouldn't have access to, especially on such slippery justifications as 'protecting the children' or 'preventing terrorism'.
Sure it'd be great if parental controls really worked and were easy to set up. They're not, not even close. Heck - facebook will happily share beheadings for a couple hours until it gets to the front of a support queue somewhere.
I, too, have no answers. But I do feel like demonizing the people who would like the government to resolve the issue for them (and the government for doing so) doesn't move the conversation forward. What is the price of free and uncensored access? Is there one day going to be a price we're unwilling to pay?
I can't open the pirate bay dot com because the government doesn't want me stealing content. I don't think they're malicious or evil for that policy, I understand the logic. It even works in preventing some level of piracy.
Don't see why it's such a ridiculous idea to you?
Since the advent of the internet and the accompanying rise of internet porn, sexual irresponsibility, teen sex, rape and divorce have all been in decline. That's to say nothing of the arguments for encryption and against backdoors, which have been well trailed in these parts before.
Luckily, as the Chinese example shows, it just doesn't work, though I did find it amusing the time I caught a long haul China Air flight from Beijing with 'Free Wifi' where there was only one website available, and it was the website for China Air.
Edit to reply to your wifi issue: you need to use that one website to login to access the "full" internet.
People who chuckle at "hurhur dumb legislators" ought to be scared shitless of the forest they're missing for the trees - the precedent that's being set as an impetus for further action in the future.
"But we still can now" is just that "first they came for the X" recitation all over again. Hyuk it up now, and by the time your avenue gets shut off, everyone else will have already been cowed into submission. It's the basic freedoms that are important to defend, not the loopholes that defer your fate.
But the point is it works for the other 99%. The thing about censorship is that you don't know what you were supposed to know. 1% of the population may see those censored articles before the governments gets around to censoring them, but what about the rest of the population? They'll keep living in ignorance of what was revealed and think the government is still great (with some help with the 24/7 propaganda bombardment from the media).
This is also like saying "(in-app) ad-blocking works on Android" - if you know how to root your phone and install it from F-Droid. But for the vast majority of people it doesn't.
On the other side the same people are laughing at its ineffectiveness and how trivial it is to circumvent them and access information freely. One of them must surely be wrong?
Btw, censoring of keywords and blocking of websites are two different issues. VPN solves the latter, not the former.
Also, VPNs are usually leaky. You can trivially identify many protocols, even under encryption. There was some researcher recently (sorry, can't find the link) identifying which movie is being streamed over encrypted link. Some networks are better at injecting noise than others - Tor has some benefits here for example.
Absolutely not. I argue it's effective, as in, it provides an extra tool for the government to go against you if you cross some gov. defined line. I think it provides little deterrence. Same as the law against murder is more for definition of the crime and punishment than for deterring people from killing each other.
> Btw, censoring of keywords and blocking of websites are two different issues. VPN solves the latter, not the former.
So in China, they block access to foreign apps like Twitter, Facebook and so on, and so people gravitate towards the home grown alternatives - which are required by government to censor keywords and content.
Also, China does dynamic blocking of websites based on keywords and other things.
It's both very sophisticated and trivial to bypass.
One is about intent, the other is about ability to execute on that intent. In law, we punish people for intent to commit harms if they have gone some of the way towards planning those harms, even if the intended harms do not come to pass.
So what do you exactly mean by not working?
Police forces are unable to prevent people from committing crimes.
True - But police forces are phenomenally capable at both stopping a lot of people from committing crimes, and dissuading people from even thinking about committing crimes.
They also raise the barrier of entry (so to speak) for being criminal.
In today's day and age, a great firewall will work. The average person does NOT have the patience or inclination to go figure out a VPN. Heck I couldn't be arsed, and I am dramatically more capable than the average person.
But there's an additional risk you should consider.
Great firewalls are content to let the minority get away with accessing other sites, as long as they don't make themselves a nuisance.
Instead, they train the Average person, and the average populace to behave in a particular manner.
And that shift means that future generations of tinkerers, thinkers are the ones which will start out far removed from a natural set of ideas.
Edit: another one is pretty close as well: http://insight.globalwebindex.net/chart-of-the-day-90-millio...
And that's just people who explicitly use it. With that kind of market penetration basically everyone knows what to do, or who to ask if they want to access some geoblocked service in the future.
Edit: Just to substantiate, many people I spoke to vaguely know what they would see if they get unfiltered internet, so there's not really much motivation to bypass GFW.
"the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online"."
It's very sad to see UK becoming closed, police state.
The last agency that should decide what's reliable or objective is the government. Despite voting to remain within the EU, I was optimistic about Brexit. Change is good. I'm English/Irish. I never expected to say these words, but I think I'll go to Europe.
That's the kind of thing you usually hear from dictators. I hope she remembers to give citizens the same rights online and offline, not only the same restrictions.
Of course they should, but if there are already those offline rules what prevents them to already enforce those rules online? Example. If hate speech is illegal offline in the UK, if somebody reports me for online hate speech I'm already in troubles. No special rules are needed.
What are they aiming to, automate the enforcement? What could possibly go wrong?
> The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy, like the one currently paid by gambling firms.
Business friendly ;-) The Brexit then this.
UK law enforcement is having trouble getting US court orders, because the crime in the UK isn't a crime in the US. Thus people commit crimes in the UK, using US companies, and are evading UK law enforcement.
Mostly this doesn't matter so much (certainly not enough for Conservative's measures to make sense), but there are a few people making credible death threats or organising vigorous campaigns of harassment, so it'd be useful if there was a way to stop it happening.
It is so sad that a government thinks this is something to be proud of.
While we're veering OT fast, I really can't see Scotland staying in the Union once Brexit is complete.
There's still going to be strong ties with England, given all the toing and froing over the centuries - so I'd expect it to be quite easy for someone English to stay in Scotland almost regardless of what deal is eventually cut with the rest of the EU.
Ask them nicely to stop, and they well smile back and reply 'think of the children'. Behind their dead eyes are the schemes used to enrich themselves at your expense. Rule after rule applied. Each more insidious than the last.
Welcome to dystopia. Enjoy your stay.
Slow your roll there m8. Government as an aggregate will of a people can do good. (I say this because a libertarian utopia would basically endgame into gang leaders oppressing people in a similar manner.)
"The government" when it is just the people is probably the best way to collectivize problem-solving efforts. (Which is why people have not and will never "learn" that lesson you are hoping they will.) As with anything, it's going to extremes that fucks us.
> Which is why people have not and will never "learn" that lesson you are hoping they will
I don't think anyone will learn anything. We don't walk down the current path because people are learning. I avoid the shitshow the best I can. Money, tech, metathinking. You all can do what you want.
Nonparticipation and avoidance are stopgaps; don't expect stopgaps to save you. Those who participate and invest themselves in making their systems work (and find a place within such system) are not the ones who get stranded without recourse when the governments continue to act in accordance with their own precedents.
In this instance, if you were a citizen of Britain and decided your response to this was plugging your ears and using a VPN, I would not put much stock in your success with that venture going forward, as you'd be at the mercy of the gov't not implementing one of the contingencies I listed in that comment or any number of others they could easily justify given their precedent and direction.
Cryptocurrency is as vulnerable to the will of the people as anything else. At some point, the point of sale is discoverable - oh hell, I've written on this before too.
Head-in-the-sand-ism only gets you so far :)
You call it head-in-the-sand-sim, I call it fuck-off-ism.
I'm already to the point where I'm going to have to pay for health services, which are free on the NHS (National Health Service). I pay twice. Once for the govs incompetent service & again for a reasonable service. They are a waste of space in my estimation.
However, on the other hand, I agree with you. Who's to say that private conglomerates have our best interests in mind moreso than the people we elect to represent us?
In order to maximize personal freedoms, I believe that there can be no utopia. Debate and compromise and the messiness that comes with those two are essential.
In these cases, the only non-gridlocked solution is fragmentation. It's the survivorship bias - the only issues that continue to paralyze a region are the ones that couldn't be decided one way or the other.
In the US' case, this would be granting certain issues to be within states' power to decide upon, and incentivizing people to move and live under the system that works for them. Ultimately, though, that won't happen - because the people who believe in these issues (be they taxation, abortion, LGBetc rights, etc) are in an all-or-nothing mentality whereupon changes have to be enforced federally.
America will never admit to itself that it's too diverse and that its various extremes cannot be reconciled, so it's stuck moving at a glacial pace with the eventual hope that the 'average' will move in the direction of progress.
Which is all well and good as long as you don't mind the periodic risk of government shutdown or terrible policy precedents being set by lobbyism/financed-campaign promises in the interim.
They surely don't. I can refuse to use a business. If I refuse to do what the government says, they'll take what I have, put me in jail, or use violence on me.
> In order to maximize personal freedoms, I believe that there can be no utopia
No one suggested any type of utopia.
The government is chosen by the people. This is not Saudi Arabia. If people do not want May, if they care about being free, they will vote against her. If you care, you will organize people against her to stop this. If you work at an Internet company, you will push them to lobby against her in the coming election; destruction of the Internet will be bad for everyone. Wikipedia should block the UK and show a black page that tells them what is about to happen, then links them to register to vote. You can change the government instead of whining on the internet about dystopia.
A corporation, on the other hand, behaves exactly as you have described, and you will never have any recourse, because the people who own it own it.
Or I can take my human capital/money & move countries. Let people live in their own mess.
Or use tech to route around bullshit.
I want as little to do with politics as possible.
Why just online? Isn't it about time we stop letting car-makers and construction companies get away with helping terrorists? I say all cars and rooms in houses should be fitted with mandatory listening devices, constantly transmitting to government servers. Encrypted, of course, with a court warrant required for the police to decrypt the data. That should put those privacy extremists' fears to rest.
Edit: In case of misunderstanding - this was sarcasm, meant to illustrate where we'll get to if we pass laws solely using the metric of "might save a few lives".
So many people vote without knowing the party policies. "My dad voted Tory, I vote Tory."
A large percentage of people under 25 don't vote.
Remember which newspapers are cheering this stuff on. They're usually the same ones that brought us Brexit.
I think the only way we can combat this in people's minds is to come up with concrete examples of how it will adversely affect their privacy or daily Internet routines.
Understanding and implementing them right can be tough though.
UK wants to become the West's "China" in terms of surveillance and censorship. Cameron has been very friendly towards China, he liked what he saw was happening there and wanted to bring it over to the UK.
This would be similar to when Nicolae Ceausescu visited North Korea, and then wanted to install the same kind of dictatorship in Romania, because such level of obedience from the populace looked very appealing to him.
Remember when Western countries used to decry the "Chinese/Iranian/etc model" ? Whatever happened to that idea? I think the U.S. hasn't even accused China of human rights abuses in recent years (that includes Obama's last term, too).
> "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.
Because they've done such a bang-up job with folks like UKIP and things like Page 3 girls? Is there any other English-speaking nation that has had such open pornography in a daily newspaper?
As for hate speech, the English make a sport of deriding the Scots, Irish, Welsh, French, Spanish, Polish, Pakistanis, Americans, and who knows how many others. Getting rid of hate speech properly would take out a core part of the national character.
This is ironic coming from a state that is so loath to offend that they ignored Rotherham and similar incidents.
They are actively working on killing their financial industry via brexit and this policy if implemented will go a long way towards accomplishing the same in regards to their technology industry.
Britain is a deeply divided, but pluralist country, where the majority are conservative. This is broadly in line with what I would expect that majority to suggest or want.
I see a lot of discourse on the internet in the same way it happens in a pub. There are very little boundaries to the beliefs someone admits to sharing, and presence of a regulator to check that nothing illegal is being discussed doesn't sit right.
However long-held those beliefs are, they pale into insignificance in the context of the nation state. The internet is not its own realm. It exists in the context of nation states. Nation states have laws that the people of the nation should obey or suffer the consequences.
> ...the government wouldn't like them to see
Britain has a long history of authoritarianism, enacted through its class system. Successive governments promote authoritarian policies because it appeals to the conservative majority.
> They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime.
Could you explain what you mean by this?
> I see a lot of discourse on the internet in the same way it happens in a pub. There are very little boundaries to the beliefs someone admits to sharing, and presence of a regulator to check that nothing illegal is being discussed doesn't sit right.
I think a lot of people behave as though the discourse they engage in on social media is as if it is in the pub, but it is simply not the case. The existing laws regarding on-line communication encompass anything that is 'published' online and people do get prosecuted.
I don't think anyone's surprised by the proposal, just part of the small minority who would rather not have the government intrude on their space. From a practical standpoint the legislation risks making social networks prohibitive to run, and will make it financially and/or legally intractable to do things like run forums or possibly any website that publishes news or has a comments section.
Any move by a government to regulate the internet will always be viewed through the lens of this minority as an infringement on a space where ideas should be free, controlled by an actor that shouldn't be trusted and can't be removed (i.e. no Second Amendment) if it's caught abusing its powers.
>> They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime.
> Could you explain what you mean by this?
Online hate speech has been prosecuted when it was targeted at a dead person.
> I think a lot of people behave as though the discourse they engage in on social media is as if it is in the pub, but it is simply not the case. The existing laws regarding on-line communication encompass anything that is 'published' online and people do get prosecuted.
While true, this is an example where the line isn't concrete. If a pub is full of people being unpleasant or talking about things one doesn't want to hear, one can simply leave. Targeted abuse is different to being uncomfortable about topics one is voluntarily eavesdropping on.
> The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a person posted when they were under 18.
sounds quite literally insane, censoring the speech of people just because they are minors?
> sounds quite literally insane, censoring the speech of people just because they are minors?
No, how I understood it, it means that you can decide to have stuff deleted if you wrote it when you were a minor.
Doesn't this mean that it is a choice, not a requirement to censor?
And after the next terrorist attack, they'll say it wasn't enough of a lock-down.
Einstein was right: Human stupidity is infinite.
It's impossible to regulate the internet. The common people will be at disadvantage.
Running awareness campaigns are the best tool the govt. got which will be much more positive & effective than these non-nonsensical unethical monitoring and controls.
This is just going to push new business away, as if the UK wasn't already a sh*thole for startups...
Funny, from the party who promoted Leave for the Brexit, a position which is usually considered as "far right".
"FUD in channel - content cut off"
I'm entirely serious - the press have a default frame that left-wing policies need to be costed but right-wing ones are assumed to be fiscally responsible. Rules only apply to progressives. The logical conclusion of this in the US is Trump, the man to whom no rules apply.
I feel depressed.
True among people on the same "side" of the political spectrum too. The Tories' brand of authoritarian conservatism is much more dangerous than Westboro Baptist Church, for example. You can find Westboro advocating plenty of outrageous things, but they aren't in charge of a country.
This is basically a propaganda organisation, not a news organisation. Not that the news is reliable either.
How about we reject both the dictators and the terrorists?
It means people with power are afraid of him which is quite encouraging!
- the Labour front bench
- the Labour electorate
- the Guardian,
- Jewish groups
- Caitlin Moran
and anyone else opposed to this madness are all involved in some kind of organised conspiracy against Corbyn, quite well:
> Labour’s communications team lies about “the IRA thing”, claiming that Corbyn’s glorification of butchery should be seen as “helping the peace process”, as though the man who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement was secretly urging Gerry Adams to compromise.
Corbyn fighting against the trial of the Brighton bomber and voting against the Anglo-Irish Agreement are matters of record. As are his statements of support for:
- Fidel Castro
- Hugo Chavez
and other hard left groups who've attacked innocent people.
They're laughable, but more in a: "this man thinks he has a shot of running the UK". Thankfully we reject this kind of populism more than the US does and a large chunk of the left isn't participating in or voting for Labour until/unless he's gone.
If saying nice things about bad people were actually a problem, no politician in history in any western society would ever be allowed to rule. Pick any politician and you will find them endorsing, funding, supporting or any combination brutal dictators, apartheid regimes, terrorists like Al Qaeda (years ago), slave states, various factions fighting in Syria, Iraq (pre Iraq war), Qatar, Turkey, Dubai, Iran (pre islamic revolution or post), Israel, death squads in South America, Pinochet, on and on and on. To have any "serious" position in modern foreign policy is to support evil.
These "statements of support" are of course ridiculous 'gotcha' red herrings that actually mean nothing that neoliberal ideologues use to smear his personality and avoid talking about actual policy that could seriously effect the lives of ordinary UK citizens which they desperately do not want to improve, policy like for example the devastating and horrific one that is supposed to be the subject of this discussion thread.
Saying the trial of the Brighton bomber is a "show trial" and protesting it has very little to do with foreign policy. The IRA did not represent a foreign government and the five people killed were neither military nor government ministers.
Neither does mourning Fidel Castro, after he's dead.
- The mainstream left people you'll find not voting for Corbyn are normally referred to as 'classical liberal' - liberals have always been against people inflicting violence upon others. The people handing out copies of 'Socialist Worker' outside the tube, Corbyn and you are 'extreme left'.
- Acting as if supporting Momentum is the only way to challenge the conservatives on privacy is insincere.
My usual assumption is that people focusing on those issues among the large media companies and especially the Blairite Labour-right, are mostly people who actually object to other parts of Corbyn's views. Namely the ones that are in the Labour manifesto and most likely to be enacted if he's elected. But such opponents don't want to attack those openly stated policy positions head-on, so they try to change the subject to Fidel Castro, as if talking about Fidel Castro in 2017 is relevant. For example, some people think re-nationalising significant parts of UK infrastructure is extremist, a return back to the bad old days of sclerotic state-owned companies. And if you did think that, it is completely fair to attack Corbyn on it, because that's something he supports, is in the manifesto, and would have at least some likelihood of enacting if in office. But many of Corbyn's opponents, even among people who call themselves Labour, seem allergic to debating his proposals to nationalise the rail system, i.e. to debating the actual policy direction the UK should or should not take. They don't like those proposals, but they would rather attack them indirectly, by debating something else.
This speaks volumes about his character, and I think to the extent his party would allow him he'd wreck incentive to work, yes. Obviously Corbyn's opponents do note this policies, which are based us an unfounded utopia where everyone can work for the NHS, nationalising rail won't make it as shit as the last the it was nationalised, and police officers cost GBP 7.50 a year.
Please be aware that all the research we have shows the current DWP system implemented by the Conservatives makes it harder to return to work; cause harm; are more expensive than other systems; and are causing death.
We do need to protect public money. The benefit system should help people back to work. The current system does not do that. I don't think any party has properly addressed this.
So from the conservative conferences I've attended, the general sentiment is that people DON'T want an authoritarian government watching them. Further right into Nationalism is where you get the "if you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide" mentality.
May, as Home Secretary, made the laws that give the UK government 72 hours (IIRC) to read your personal email and 3 months to see all the subject lines / senders / recipients.
To be clear: I'm not advocating voting for Corbyn by the above.