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

UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

freespeechunion.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 204 posts

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#31

Post by Stupulous »

MiroF wrote: post #15
macinjosh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

> removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. "I order you to kill this person." Just a combination of words, and yet.... I think there is a continuum between this and non-violent+non-inciting speech and your comment does little to tangle with the difference.

"I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions, so the whole continuum must respect individual agency over others' speech.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#32

Post by Riverheart »

mrec wrote: post #14
djohnston wrote: post #2

The last 5 years have really made question the benefits of free speech in our hyperconnected world. My knee jerk reaction to defend free speech has certainly been dampened by the efficacy of disinformation campaigns in the West.

I think you have a very rose-tinted view of how these restrictions would be applied, and by whom. The power to decide what counts as "disinformation" would be the most valuable political real estate there is.

Guy didn't say he supported restrictions, only that his normal reaction to defend it has dropped due to significant abuses of it.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#33

Post by tehbeard »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #18
bennyp101 wrote: post #11

It will no doubt fall at the last hurdle. Another attempt to 'control' the thing they don't understand, ignore any technical advisors, and play to the crowds. Unfortunately there are a vocal group who want little Johnny protected from the big bad internet, and who have no desire to educate him themselves, so want a Gov approved scheme - and these sort of plans fit nicely into that. Hopefully common sense prevails aga…

I've been really impressed by GDS, i know it's popular to bash on the gov but in this case, i really think it's mis-placed, they've been really good. Take a peek under the covers and see that their work was adopted in other nations too: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/government-digit... Now if we're talking about a public tender then of course i agree completely. Are Capita still blocking new Army recrui…

GDS isn't really UK gov tech though. This sort of thing would be farmed out to crapita for some backroom bonuses and fall flat as all their projects do.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#34

Post by _pd19 »

Stupulous wrote: post #31
MiroF wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way. "I order you to kill this person." Just a combination of words, and yet.... I think there is a continuum between this and non-violent+non-inciting speech and your comment does little to tangle with the difference.

"I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions, so the whole continuum must respect individual agency over others' speech.

> "I was just following orders" does not defend one's actions

I hope you don't take the truth of that statement to mean that the leaders who ordered the Holocaust weren't morally culpable for the deaths of 11 million if they didn't personally kill someone themselves.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#35

Post by tremon »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #23
commandlinefan wrote: post #4

What I’m becoming more painfully aware of with each passing year is that “free speech” is actually (sadly) a very unpopular ideal. We haven’t really had it in a long time, and we have less of it with each passing year - cheered on by a not insignificant majority.

Free speech has always been filtered. What happened is that wide publishing used to be expensive and thus restricted to the ruling/educated class. Sure, I could say whatever I wanted at the pub or Speakers' Corner (to take British examples) but it would not go further than the people in the immediate vicinity. I.e., no-one cared. Beyond that, there was either newspapers (filtered and not everyone could read) or publi…

Sure, I could say whatever I wanted at the pub or Speakers' Corner

No, even at the pub there are limits to what you can say, however that's usually governed by a social contract, not a law. The lack of social contract (or rather, social ramifications) is what makes the situation on the Internet different.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#36

Post by rayiner »

burlesona wrote: post #26

I agree with the concerns that society is raising with unlimited free speech at scale via the internet today. Radicalization is a real problem. But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform. Get serious about anti-trust so that one monopo…

> But I think decentralization and legal liability are better solutions. Drop section 230 and it becomes legally fraught and prohibitively expensive for Facebook to allow disinformation and hate groups to organize on its platform.

No it doesn’t. Because of free speech laws in the US, there is no legal liability for whatever it is you are calling “disinformation and hate groups.” Moderation has created remedies against speech that have never existed before.

> Finally, consider that our democratic process in the US needs to be more resistant to polarization and radicalization. First past the post voting and a lack of proportional representation are the key drivers of broken democracy in the US over the last thirty years.

How would proportional representation work? It seems like most approaches would deemphasize the states, which would cause more polarization in my opinion. The polarization is driven by the fact that folks in New York want to micromanage folks in Iowa in a way that rarely happens even in unitary countries, much less putatively federal ones. In Bavaria they recently passed a law requiring Christian crosses to be displayed in all public buildings. Nobody is getting the federal government of Germany involved to overturn that law. But that’s the playbook for achieving any social change (sometimes good, sometimes bad) here in the US. Of course Germany manages to have a robust federal system as well as proportional representation, but the focus on voting reform seems to be mainly on increasing the power of the central government.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#37

Post by jonplackett »

macinjosh wrote: post #10
umvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem with freedom is that people abuse it and cause harm to others." Edit: (to be clear, I do not personally believe this, just offering a little insight as to how the "not insignificant majority" think)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

Words can't hurt directly, in that exact moment, but the consequences of them sure can.

There has to be a line doesn't there? Is outright racism, or encouraging others to kill or do other bad things OK, because it's just words?

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#38

Post by confounded »

I’m strongly opposed to just about everything the UK government has done or proposed involving the internet, but the ‘Free Speech Union’ is an awful source to have on HN.

The FSU is entirely a product of the “culture wars” of the outrage manufacturing twitterati, and offers to protect members from “feminist professors”.

The UK’s Open Rights Group is the closest thing to a UK EFF (founded by Doctorow), and is generally a better source for policy like this.

Here’s their wiki page on the Online Harms Bill[1], and opinion on its policy impact[2].

[1]: https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Online_Harms_white_pap...

[2]: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/org-policy-resp...

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#39

Post by watwut »

macinjosh wrote: post #10
umvi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem with freedom is that people abuse it and cause harm to others." Edit: (to be clear, I do not personally believe this, just offering a little insight as to how the "not insignificant majority" think)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words are just words. One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

> Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Honestly, that phrase is just a way adults explain bullying victims that they should shut up and that adults actually dont know what to do. Or dont care. I don't mean to say that this or that words should be illegal. But, ignoring verbal bullying never ever made it go away. You gotta respond, really and for that you need to acknowledge to yourself that harm is going on.

> Words are just words.

You can use words to destroy people. You can lie about people and harm their reputation. You can do it in their presence and still cause plenty of problems in their work or life or relationships. If you live in autocratic regime, you can "tell on them". Or, domestic violence victims do sometimes say that the insults and humiliations were worst then actual violent events.

> One may hear or read words that provoke them to violence or other negative behavior but blaming the speech in whole or in part removes agency from those who choose to react in a negative way.

Not saying speach should be illegal, but if you go out of way to convince people that they should be violent, yes you have moral responsibility and share quilt for their actions.

This expression feels good and sounds smart. But, it is not how real world works which is the reason many people are rejecting that argument.

Re: UK government’s plans to regulate the internet are a threat to free speech

#40

Post by Mindwipe »

Thankfully the Online Harms bill as has been pitched simply has no chance of ever coming to pass.

It's now supposed to do so many things that it simply can't work, it's too big, too encompassing, and too vague. It will fall apart under it's own weight.

Post reply on HN