Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 195 posts

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#151

Post by millak »

72deluxe wrote: post #120
millak wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel absolutely the same. I went to Canada.

Was it difficult to get in?

It would have been if I hadn't married a Canadian in the UK. In fact, if I had wanted to get in on a work visa instead of as a spouse I doubt I would have been able to get in because I don't have any university qualifications and you get lots of bonus points for those. That said, they wanted to know everything about me on the application form - 10 year address & work history, parents & siblings names, addresses and dates of birth, membership of any trade unions, political parties or other kind of organisations, details of the relationship I have with my wife.. as well as the more usual health exam and police check.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#152

Post by pmyteh »

Retr0spectrum wrote: post #103
kbart wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I just hope internet companies stand up the UK and refuse to do business here." 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).

My current ISP (ask4) doesn't filter any of the sites that they're supposed to. I can't comment on the history collection, of course. This is not a recommendation of ask4 however - the connection is relatively unreliable and slow/oversubscribed.

There are others. Mine (idnet) doesn't filter and is very good. Andrews & Arnold is famously hacker-friendly and high quality and also doesn't.

Of course, when it becomes a legal requirement things might change.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#153

Post by zebrafish »

nebabyte wrote: post #112
discombobulate wrote: post #102

I'm not sure how long it's going to take for people to realise: the government is not your friend. They don't want to help you. They want to control you. You are their property. You are registered and you are farmed. Like animals. 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 applie…

> I'm not sure how long it's going to take for people to realise: the government is not your friend 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. (Whic…

Government as an aggregate will of the people is just a hivemind. There has to be push and pull; give and take. The 51% cannot completely neglect the wishes of the other 49%.

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.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#154

Post by mattkevan »

Ntrails wrote: post #141
mattkevan wrote: post #41

As a British citizen, this makes me sick to my stomach. 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 [1] like TV does. Despite good arguments being put forward…

> It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. 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 smartp…

You're right - there are far more risks. Access to extreme content is easier than it's ever been and can often happen inadvertently. It's a hard problem, and one I don't fully have answers to.

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'.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#155

Post by wfo »

Pigo wrote: post #97
timecube wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out that in the real world, conservatives are far more dangerous for your freedoms than "SJW types".

I guess I'm misinterpreting all these antifa videos. Here I thought it was just a human thing, and both sides have the capability of pulling dumb, dangerous ideas out. No it's just conservatives right?

A hundred 20 year old kids rioted one time against people they perceive to be nazis and were managed by the police, which is definitely the same as a modern mostly free society actively sliding into authoritarian dictatorship.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#156

Post by 7952 »

mattkevan wrote: post #125
nebabyte wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I often find myself in subconscious denial ("oh, surely it's just a fluke and they'll get back on course soon") over news of the direction our British friends are headed, because of the self-affirming echo chamber net communities often form. 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 tha…

The thing is, I don't disagree with those parents' concerns. There's a lot of horrible horrible crap on the Internet, stuff that I don't want my child anywhere near. And if I wasn't tech savvy, having the government do it would probably sound like a good idea 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 t…

Seems to me that government tend to treat the web as a public space (like a city park). And naturally some things are not appropriate in that context. But many of us treat it as a private space akin to a bedroom, and expect similar levels of privacy. This difference in view is a source of the problems. Because it is really neither public or private but some indeterminate place in between. We need the difference to be much more explicit so that some kind of social convention can determine socially acceptability. So that the law can respond appropriately to context.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#157

Post by wfo »

nailer wrote: post #146
_delirium wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One important difference is that Theresa May is leader of a major western country, while Berkeley students you saw in a video on the internet aren't. This makes one of them a much more pressing threat. 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 ple…

Jeremy Corbyn is similarly close to power and supports violence, particularly in the name of left causes, far more than the Conservatives. Here's a few choice examples: https://capx.co/there-is-no-moral-way-to-vote-labour-in-june... Edit: hi Momentum! If any of these are incorrect you're welcome to reply.

There has been a huge partially successful smear campaign against Corbyn, some written by reputable politicians, some like this so laughable and ridiculous that only the already convinced manage to read through the whole thing without rolling their eyes and closing it.

It means people with power are afraid of him which is quite encouraging!

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#158

Post by Ntrails »

mattkevan wrote: post #154
Ntrails wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. 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 smartp…

You're right - there are far more risks. Access to extreme content is easier than it's ever been and can often happen inadvertently. It's a hard problem, and one I don't fully have answers to. 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, st…

Unaccountable is a bit strong - given that this is being done by elected officials, but sure. This is one small but potentially landmark step on the way to complete control over the most powerful and complete source of free information possible.

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.

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#159

Post by [deleted] »

mattkevan wrote: post #154
Ntrails wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seemed that a lot of people didn't fully understand what the Internet was, asking why it didn't have a watershed [1] like TV does. 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 smartp…

You're right - there are far more risks. Access to extreme content is easier than it's ever been and can often happen inadvertently. It's a hard problem, and one I don't fully have answers to. 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, st…

[deleted]

Re: Theresa May Wants To Regulate The Internet

#160

Post by discombobulate »

zebrafish wrote: post #153
nebabyte wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure how long it's going to take for people to realise: the government is not your friend 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. (Whic…

Government as an aggregate will of the people is just a hivemind. There has to be push and pull; give and take. The 51% cannot completely neglect the wishes of the other 49%. 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.…

> Who's to say that private conglomerates have our best interests in mind moreso than the people we elect to represent us?

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.

Post reply on HN