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

61–70 of 91 posts

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

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

rgbrenner wrote: post #28
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…

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.

Key US/UK claims were debunked by UN weapons inspectors in the same UN hearing where they were presented.

That the “Winnebagos of Mass Destruction” weren't the mobile WMD labs they were portrayed as (and that the US and UK knew because the UK had literally sold them to Iraq) was also also public before the war.

> In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news

No, worse, it would just be ignored by large masses of the public who would believe the government anyway, and even forget that they'd been given repeated information about how they were being lied to.

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

#62

Post by mc32 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #57
mc32 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country. > In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. So we knew.

I don’t think that was conclusive (they didn’t have free access). Also, often times a first go at anything is typically faulty. It was; however, a reason to put things on hold and be more rigorous and investigate further.

I think mostly it was the establishment (Dems, Repubs, Globalists, etc. m) that wanted Saddam out, no matter what. Only old-style conservatives and leftists and other small constituencies dissented.

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

#63

Post by wallace_f »

malvosenior wrote: post #35
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.

This is downvoted because I think people are insane. FB has indeed been pushing for regulation. Your comment is accurate.

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

#64

Post by wallace_f »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #48
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.

It's only baffling if you assume that the people in government are smart. Somewhat less glibly, it's compartmentalization, basically. Take an ordinary, not-especially-intelligent person who has basically authoritarian intuitions, teach them liberal principles, and you'll get a person who espouses the liberal way only in the particular examples you taught them . (Or in other examples that someone else explicitly conne…

Yea.. Even one of my friends with an Ivy degree read and espoused the views of a popular conservative pundit for years, even lauding them as as basically a religious liberal.

People throughout history are the same as they are today. Subservient to authority, self-serving, lazy thinkers, and barely even able to think for themselves in the first place.

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

#65

Post by josteink »

rgbrenner wrote: post #28
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…

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.

Negative on this one.

Everyone knew this was fake beforehand. Colin Powell almost got laughed out of UN for the “evidence” he presented.

Everyone who was paying attention could tell this was 100% a propaganda-piece.

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

#66

Post by jquery »

gnode wrote: post #47
jquery wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>without fear. Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it out.

> A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content That's one way to generally interpret "fear" but not in its context of a right to privacy. "Without fear" in this context must mean fear of what happens when you don't have privacy, that is chiefly: embarrassment and persecution.

Thanks for the clarification, that makes a huge difference in meaning. Appreciated.

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

#67

Post by jquery »

wallace_f wrote: post #64
Sniffnoy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only baffling if you assume that the people in government are smart. Somewhat less glibly, it's compartmentalization, basically. Take an ordinary, not-especially-intelligent person who has basically authoritarian intuitions, teach them liberal principles, and you'll get a person who espouses the liberal way only in the particular examples you taught them . (Or in other examples that someone else explicitly conne…

Yea.. Even one of my friends with an Ivy degree read and espoused the views of a popular conservative pundit for years, even lauding them as as basically a religious liberal. People throughout history are the same as they are today. Subservient to authority, self-serving, lazy thinkers, and barely even able to think for themselves in the first place.

>Even one of my friends with an Ivy degree read and espoused the views of a popular conservative pundit for years, even lauding them as as basically a religious liberal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying that no well-educated person would have any conservative viewpoints? That seems patently nonsense.

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

#68

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by jquery »

Once people accept that it's fine for social media to censor political speech, it's only a small mental leap to hand over that same control to the government. This development should come as no surprise as government officials see the thunderous applause heaped on media companies when they ban "problem people".

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

#70

Post by wallace_f »

jquery wrote: post #67
wallace_f wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea.. Even one of my friends with an Ivy degree read and espoused the views of a popular conservative pundit for years, even lauding them as as basically a religious liberal. People throughout history are the same as they are today. Subservient to authority, self-serving, lazy thinkers, and barely even able to think for themselves in the first place.

>Even one of my friends with an Ivy degree read and espoused the views of a popular conservative pundit for years, even lauding them as as basically a religious liberal. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying that no well-educated person would have any conservative viewpoints? That seems patently nonsense.

No, I was agreeing with the parent comment and offered an example. Within this context, I'm not trying to make any left vs right, or vice versa, political arguments.

This person self-identified as liberal. However, they only recognized liberal views within the contexts they had been pre-familiarized with. In fact, this person read, regurgitated, and lauded conservative views for years while beleiving them to be liberal views. This is a particularly hyper-educated person (though in a non-technical field completely removed from economics, politics).

Post reply on HN