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

UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#31

Post by megous »

zyxzevn wrote: post #10
luiscleto wrote: post #2

> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation. So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at the official's discretion.

This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they n…

> Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I

Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters.

https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161

Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#32

Post by megous »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #20
zyxzevn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they n…

thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.

Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties.

You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#34

Post by maze-le »

hugh4life wrote: post #11

I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are taking towards the internet.

Only if you still belive the cold-war narrative of Freedmon=West vs. Tyranny=East. We live in the wold of a worldwide corporate kleptocracy -- regardless of geographic region. There are of course differences in how the states handle opposition and dissenting voices, but all in all the East-vs-West distinction (or ideological differences in general) are not a good framework of description, when trying to analyze issues concerning state and power these days.

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#35

Post by malvosenior »

jatsign wrote: post #29

This looks like negative news for the Facebooks & Youtubes, but I think it's the opposite. Whenever the law, Facebook & Youtube will adapt - they have the resources to do so. Smaller players, and potential future competitors, will not be able to adapt. This just draws a moat around existing behemoths that will protect them against future disruption.

Yes, it's called regulatory capture and it's the reason big players push for regulation and government involvement.

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#36

Post by pavel_lishin »

CJefferson wrote: post #12
coldcode wrote: post #4

OK lets say this article harmed me in some way. If I don't need to prove it then this law lets me shut down the BBC? How do you deal with thousands of "online harms"? If I do need to prove it, given the law is so vague on what that is, I can never succeed since big sites have fancy lawyers, and small sites will just go out of business, and the law is a waste of time.

I think you are over stretching. The lae has dealt for hundreds of years with idea that one person might harm another. Such laws tend to be a little vague, then build up case law, at least in the UK.

A lot of commenters tend to think of the law as an API, and frame all discussions about it as such.

"So what, I just have to POST https://law.uk/onlineharm, and I get to take down the BBC? That's ridiculous!"

Any given strawman is ridiculous.

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#37

Post by rayvd »

timomax wrote: post #23
hugh4life wrote: post #11

I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are taking towards the internet.

Not really. It's not the same ideology. It's the same tool.

Leads to the same place.

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#38

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

gnode wrote: post #24
bArray wrote: post #16

Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.

I find this argument similar to: regulating the construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.

> The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.

Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#39

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

usub98 wrote: post #17

It's funny how this is such a popular topic on sites like HN who heavily censor users themselves based on their political opinion. HN put shadow bans on hundreds of users for non-conforming posts. It seems like anyone who had a wrong stance on the whole "NPC meme" is affected, even if they only found it mildly amusing. Source: I found it amusing, openly said so and I'm shadow banned on this IP.

My impression is that HN moderators mostly focus on civility. IME stance-related silencing occurs only via downvotes by regular users.

Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

#40

Post by mc32 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #30
rgbrenner wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.

> Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] ht…

As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs.

What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with.

There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.

Post reply on HN