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

UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

easydns.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#71

Post by onion2k »

elforce002 wrote: post #42

One question to UK fellas: is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china?

is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china

Yes and no.

The UK is a highly surveilled country. We have more CCTV cameras than any other country. We have Automatic Number Plate Recognition tracking cars literally everywhere. We're a part of Echelon and Five Eyes and probably a whole bunch of other things. Pretty much everything we do is tracked.

But...

That data isn't used for very much. The police actually need to request access, and generally they do without abusing it. The government doesn't (seem to) abuse the data available in nefarious ways. People can and do publish things that are very critical of the government. People protest (although those rights have been horribly eroded in the past couple of decades). The media isn't entirely on the side of the state. We don't have social surveillance with people reporting their neighbours.

So, yeah, it could be a lot better. It's not like China though (yet?).

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#72

Post by monksy »

pessimizer wrote: post #63
IshKebab wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's Freenet but these sorts of projects generally have issues because the biggest segments of society that want impossible-to-censor are also the worst.

> because the biggest segments of society that want impossible-to-censor are also the worst. This is not true, this is slander. Child pornographers use whatever is available to them. Censors, however, spend all of their time trying to associate people who wish to speak, listen, and associate freely with child pornographers.

Don't forget politicians will also say the same thing.

Politicians being censors?! no way in a democracy(rollseyes)

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#74

Post by wesleywt »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #60
stuckinhell wrote: post #43

I don't like this at all, especially in a world where we are finding out so many top scientists lied or fabricated data in their research. The PRESIDENT of Stanford just resigned! It's clear we cannot trust the institutional powers to self-regulate and do the right thing.

Yep, this will get downvoted, but during covid, A LOT of stuff got censored as "misinformation", that later got proved to be true by the same authorities and scientists (expert groups, etc.), without any apology or even acknowledgement of "the past" and "the current truth". And I'm not talking about the 5g conspiracy theories, we started all this with "masks don't help".

You are committing massive hasty generalizations.

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#75

Post by callalex »

kneebonian wrote: post #47

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquillity of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated wit…

You used quotation marks, but provide no attribution.

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#76

Post by godelski »

EA-3167 wrote: post #46
elforce002 wrote: post #42

One question to UK fellas: is it me or the UK is becoming some sort of a surveillance state right in front of us just like china?

Remember 1984, written by Englishman George Orwell? It's worth remembering that in part that was a commentary on British society, through a future lens. When the UK does things which remind of you that, it isn't a coincidence. To be clear I'm not saying "this is literally 1984" or anything like that, I'm just trying to explain how "surveillance state" and "UK" have a LOT of known history.

1984 also wasn't about being watched at all times, it was about how the government had _the potential to_ watch its citizens at any time. And how the citizens changed their behaviors due to this. I mean the government doesn't watch you in the bathrooms, but they are scraping all internet info, have a lot of cameras, and are even flying planes in the sky to record data. People may not be watching those things, but they do exist. I think the big difference is that most citizens aren't aware of this level of invasion into their lives and they haven't really changed their behaviors because of it. That's probably the biggest difference between 1984.

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#77

Post by blipvert »

PKop wrote: post #64
blipvert wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are familiar with the Rwanda Plan, I take it? And maybe the Madagascar Plan?

Yea a faction tried, but on balance of power were denied, and the overall effect was still a net increase of immigration. "net migration to the UK rose to a record high of around 504,000 in the year to June 2022, driven by an increase in the number of non-European Union nationals.[13] The government registered 45,755 people arriving by small boats in 2022, 60% higher than in 2021, according to the Home Office. That h…

The overall net numbers are intentional. If they wanted to decrease them they could do so by dealing with the backlog of claims and providing safe routes.

But it’s the divisive propaganda that they want. Sod the humans.

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#78

Post by KineticLensman »

callalex wrote: post #75
kneebonian wrote: post #47

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquillity of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated wit…

You used quotation marks, but provide no attribution.

It's from V for Vendetta [0]

[0] https://www.quotes.net/mquote/131160

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#79

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

bonzini wrote: post #34
Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No because people with enough influence will terminate your hosting, domain name, isp, bank account, or just get your site blocked. See kiwi farms, nigel farage, and the wikipedia-iwf dust-up. Mastodon and the fediverse are close, maybe, but many instances refuse to "speak" to one another because of their users.

[flagged]

Wikileaks perhaps. They got cut off by mastercard but I don't recall hearing them lose their hosting or domain name. Although I wonder if you'd be one to consider them "russian disinformation" and therefore deserving of being shut down. The pirate bay? Lost many domain names at various times and probably hosting too. Are they also deserving of it due the the scale of the copyright infringement they help? Personally I think piracy is a moral imperative these days.

Non-controversial sites do not get shut down.

Re: UK version of “Online Harms Bill” wants to prefilter content without due process

#80

Post by didibus »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #60
stuckinhell wrote: post #43

I don't like this at all, especially in a world where we are finding out so many top scientists lied or fabricated data in their research. The PRESIDENT of Stanford just resigned! It's clear we cannot trust the institutional powers to self-regulate and do the right thing.

Yep, this will get downvoted, but during covid, A LOT of stuff got censored as "misinformation", that later got proved to be true by the same authorities and scientists (expert groups, etc.), without any apology or even acknowledgement of "the past" and "the current truth". And I'm not talking about the 5g conspiracy theories, we started all this with "masks don't help".

I've seen people say this, but I've not actually observed that at all.

What got censored exactly?

Personally I feel I got to know everything in proper time as knowledge was being formed and refined.

I think it might be because I know how to read papers and understand nuances? And the average person take policies as the same as high confidence proven scientific conclusions, as opposed to the best guess of the time by some policymaker that needs to make a decision without the full information?

Post reply on HN