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

UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

ofcom.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 394 posts

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#221

Post by nomilk »

tdeck wrote: post #217
xyzzy4747 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This forum site for example actively encourages and supports people who want to commit suicide: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/ Many of their members have died after encouraging each other to take the next step. They used to be on Reddit but got banned there a few years ago. Would you want your children or young adults spending time there?

I'm assuming this is the site mentioned in this video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C3y6SsGAWks it might be best to remove the actual link so people in a bad mental state don't end up there. Cc @dang

Have only watched 2 minutes, but this looks like actual evidence that a) harmful sites may exist, and b) people may use them and be worse of from their access to them. I'm not sure it will convince me banning access to information is a good idea, but really appreciate you sharing it, as it's the most promising evidence provided yet.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#222

Post by lmm »

protocolture wrote: post #215
lmm wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. It's a bunch of nonconstructive old-man-yells-at-cloud complaints. While it identifies a somewhat deep problem with crime metrics (what should you do when a reported crime was a real incident, but not something that warrants actually bringing charges or otherwise following up - something where "a policeman had a word with the guy" is actually the right solution that all parties are happy with) it contribute…

Made it worse if you consider that the book prompted authorities to bury the problem further. They went from claiming administrative detections didnt exist, to admitting they exist, to obfuscating the system so they can claim administrative detections no longer exist. >it contributes nothing to solving that problem His solution was to remove administrative detections, so that beat cops dont: 1. Get rewarded for "dete…

> His solution was to remove administrative detections

And replace them with what? There is no easy way to handle that scenario that doesn't create perverse incentives if you're managing police by statistics (and getting away from that is not something you simply do). If you treat them as permanently unsolved crimes, you'll turn them into pointless counterproductive arrests/charges. If you allow the police to just write them off without recording any details, they'll slip serious crimes through the same process. Frankly, administrative detections do "solve" the "crime" in every meaningful sense - the problem is treating "percentage of crimes solved" as a meaningful statistic in the first place, and shocked-pikachu-facing when you tell the police to solve a higher percentage of crimes and they respond by allocating more resources to crimes that are easier to solve.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#223

Post by mu53 »

nomilk wrote: post #218
mu53 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you search slang for anorexia and bulimia (ana and mia, respectively), it comes up. The slang helps remove the stigma and feels more friendly/cool. Thinspo/thinspiration is another term used by that community. "Help me love ana". With that search, there are sites that come up [1]. These terms are also used on reddit, instagram, etc for people to share tips (to be better anorexics/bulimics). [1] https://strongerina…

Thanks for the example. > This website is for support for those with an eating disorder who feel alone and by themself with this issue. Where are people with anorexia and bulimia supposed to get support/information if forums about the topics are untenable? Many can't beat the condition, and there's potential benefit in learning to accept and live with it. I'm not saying the site is unequivocally good, just that it's…

In general, the internet has shifted away from this "laissez-faire" line of thinking.

A site that helps people live with these disorders means more people dealing with negative effects of eating disorders like hair loss, ruined teeth, suicide/mental illness, and cardiovascular damage. These effects in turn increase healthcare costs for the government via the NHS.

Bombarding anyone with these disorders with information to get better is far better for society. If people can't change, then this strategy is better for the people who can, who would otherwise get stuck in a community supportive of unhealthy behavior.

You can't call it unequivocally good or bad, but the doctor's treating the disorder can. The government bean counters have. The studies that these groups produce do (simple search brings up dozens). The politicians fighting for these bills have and will call it good.

(I liked the more free internet, but it doesn't exist anymore and here we are.)

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#224

Post by jackvalentine »

nomilk wrote: post #214
jackvalentine wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you come from an angle of ‘I’ve never seen it therefor it’s just whack a mole’ don’t be surprised if people read it as simple rejection rather than curiosity. Using language like ‘Is there a single site?’ doubles down on it. This article describes social media groups, on the major platforms, that encourage eating disorders https://rollingout.com/2024/10/08/eating-disorder-groups-on-... Young children being treated…

But the article doesn't give a single site or name a single community; it provides zero evidence of its claims. > Camille, a 20-year-old who has struggled with an eating disorder since middle school, described her community as initially intended to be a safe space but ultimately spiraling out of control due to algorithmic influence If these claims are true, why not simply demonstrate it; at least state the name of th…

There’s that combativeness again.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#226

Post by grayhatter »

jackvalentine wrote: post #224
nomilk wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the article doesn't give a single site or name a single community; it provides zero evidence of its claims. > Camille, a 20-year-old who has struggled with an eating disorder since middle school, described her community as initially intended to be a safe space but ultimately spiraling out of control due to algorithmic influence If these claims are true, why not simply demonstrate it; at least state the name of th…

There’s that combativeness again.

I didn't read his questions nearly as combative as I read yours. And I say that as someone who's very aware of and very adverse to the idea and tactic of concern trolling.

I've spent enough time working with teams dedicated to combatting proana, and other S/SH issues, so I know pretty well how significant a problem it is. If I'd only read the above non-answers I'd probably be likely to take the side of the person you responded to.

If you think he's being combative, I'd hope you'd defuse it with redirection, instead of overt hostility. Especially if one of the issues you care about is how harmful proana, anorexia, S/SH and adjacent issues are, I'd assume you knew you need to start with compassion and understanding.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#227

Post by nomilk »

jackvalentine wrote: post #224
nomilk wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the article doesn't give a single site or name a single community; it provides zero evidence of its claims. > Camille, a 20-year-old who has struggled with an eating disorder since middle school, described her community as initially intended to be a safe space but ultimately spiraling out of control due to algorithmic influence If these claims are true, why not simply demonstrate it; at least state the name of th…

There’s that combativeness again.

No more combative than “2+2 isn’t five”.

If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#228

Post by grayhatter »

nomilk wrote: post #219
wruza wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What content promotes eating disorders?! They’re talking about thinspo. Was pretty popular and survived search bans on many platforms. To save you a search, it’s mostly about getting thing legs that do not touch and overall ~40kg body type.

How's thinspo different to fat-acceptance communities? (I have nothing against either, I think people ought to be free to pursue information on their body-type)

As with everything it depends on the communities you run with. The core tenet of fat acceptance is that your weight doesn't define your value as a human. Proana which is short for pro-anorexia, also known as thinspo (thin inspiration) has the core tenet of advocating and encouraging an eating disorder as how you'd obtain value. The point of thinspo is to provide people inspiration and motivation to starve themselves, which is otherwise unnatural for humans to do. if you found a community that advocate overeating as the aesthetic ideal that would be as toxic. with the caveat being that being underweight is more dangerous from a health standpoint than overweight is. again, it all depends on the community and exactly what they're advocating for.

you'd be more attractive if you were thiner that is healthy, is a lot more toxic of an idea than being fat doesn't mean there's something wrong with you.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#229

Post by pc86 »

starspangled wrote: post #183
thih9 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is already quite popular to regulate ads about certain edible substances. Nicotine, alcohol and drugs are some examples. Looks like certain ratios of sugar, sodium and saturated fats will qualify too, at least in the UK.

Apparently not gambling though, because the gambling lobby has greased the correct pockets.

If only porridge was greasier.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#230

Post by palmfacehn »

nomilk wrote: post #214
jackvalentine wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you come from an angle of ‘I’ve never seen it therefor it’s just whack a mole’ don’t be surprised if people read it as simple rejection rather than curiosity. Using language like ‘Is there a single site?’ doubles down on it. This article describes social media groups, on the major platforms, that encourage eating disorders https://rollingout.com/2024/10/08/eating-disorder-groups-on-... Young children being treated…

But the article doesn't give a single site or name a single community; it provides zero evidence of its claims. > Camille, a 20-year-old who has struggled with an eating disorder since middle school, described her community as initially intended to be a safe space but ultimately spiraling out of control due to algorithmic influence If these claims are true, why not simply demonstrate it; at least state the name of th…

Perhaps it is because censoring the content is more important to the authors than citing the "dangerous" content.

>Is it possible these things aren't nearly as bad as they claim?

Under the premises of the censors, you shouldn't examine or question their claims. This is for your own safety. Instead, you should implicitly trust the authority figures to dole out trustworthy information.

Approaching the topic with the tools of rational inquiry is a form of wrong-think.

Post reply on HN