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

241–250 of 394 posts

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#241

Post by [deleted] »

jackvalentine wrote: post #233
grayhatter wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He’s not concern trolling he’s just being contrary with the inputs because he fundamentally disagrees with law that is the topic here. First, question the existence of EVERYTHING in a bad faith way. I think you’ve misread that I have any stake at all in proana/anorexia promotion - I just know it exists and the “online 10 hours a day for 10 years” guy who hasn’t come across it went straight to ‘is there a single site’…

[deleted]

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#242

Post by protomolecule »

int_19h wrote: post #141
protomolecule wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To anyone who thinks that regulating social media is some sort of prelude to a totalitarian state Ha-ha-ha. Writing from Russia. No, seriously, it started with completely reasonable law mandating that internet providers block pages encouraging suicide or providing information on ways to do it. And remember, Orwell was British.

I remember when Russia passed those first "anti-extremist" laws making it illegal to target "identifiable social groups" with "hate speech". Then we found out that police is an "identifiable social group", and so are the MPs...

Well, I remember that case[0], the guy had written that there are no good cops and was calling for burning policemen alive on the city square in a crematorium "like in Auschwitz" and got one year of suspended sentence for that. I can't say that I disagree with the court, but that's the problem.

[0] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дело_Терентьева

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#243

Post by jimnotgym »

kiratp wrote: post #200
cjs_ac wrote: post #56

As a software engineer in the UK (and former schoolteacher) I'm supportive of the Online Safety Act. People prefer to interact with people who are similar to them, so they end up with a belief that most people are like them, but as a teacher, I had to grapple with the full distribution of human intelligence. It's wider than I'm comfortable with. Most people struggle to deal with the complexity of everyday life in the…

> And if those policies should turn out to be too strict, and a few social media companies should find it no longer profitable to operate in the United Kingdom, that is not all that much of an issue for His Majesty's Government. They're not British companies, after all. His Majesty’s government is struggling to keep its people warm and fed, let alone show any economic growth.[0][1] The UK needs more foreign investmen…

Do you think allowing Twitter and Facebook to operate in the UK brings in significant foreign investment?

If I Google poor and homeless people in the US, will I find there are none? Everyone is healthy and getting medical treatment?

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#244

Post by jimnotgym »

EpicQuest_246 wrote: post #152
jimnotgym wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop conflating freelancers and contractors! Totally different rules.

I am not. There is no official government distinction between contracting/freelancing/consultant, see here: https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilit...

There is a distinction in the English language though

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#245

Post by ksec »

nomilk wrote: post #194

> People in the UK will be better protected from illegal harms online What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated). If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the inte…

>How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not?

I remember there were stories about GDPR at the time that some site simply decide to block all IPs from EUR, and some sadly because they believe they dont comply, simply shut down the site.

In a world ( well US at least ) where the trend is moving to deregulate things. UK decided to quite literally regulate everything. This is sad.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#246

Post by jimnotgym »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #175
hgomersall wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The country doesn't need high earners per se, it needs people that contribute effectively. There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much. It all makes much more sense once you realise that governments spend before they tax and so what really matters is real resources.

> There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much. No, not at all. There may be a few (0.01%) rich people that don't contribute much, but high __earners__ are paying extremely high amounts of taxes with nothing in return. The "parasites", as you call them, are low-income workers that get the extreme majority of benefits while essentially contributing nothing. Take a look…

Is not high earners that I have a problem with, it is high wealth people that contribute nothing.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#247

Post by jonathanstrange »

I have a question about that. I'm currently developing a platform with strong end-to-end encryption. My servers only store the public keys of individual accounts, the platform doesn't allow me to see what content people post or transmit without actively eavesdropping, and there are no means for me to moderate the content. However, there will be means for paying end-consumers to moderate the content of people they have invited. It's mostly intended as a collaborative tool for small business. However, other than steering it with marketing, I see no easy way for me to control who buys a subscription.

From what I can gather, my tools will fall under the Online Safety Act and are incompatible with it. So how do I properly exclude all UK customers from purchasing subscriptions? Will it suffice to geo-block the website where you buy subscriptions?

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#248

Post by EpicQuest_246 »

jimnotgym wrote: post #244
EpicQuest_246 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not. There is no official government distinction between contracting/freelancing/consultant, see here: https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilit...

There is a distinction in the English language though

I am sorry but you were pretending through the whole conversation as if they were treated differently by HMRC when they aren't.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#249

Post by tpxl »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #247

I have a question about that. I'm currently developing a platform with strong end-to-end encryption. My servers only store the public keys of individual accounts, the platform doesn't allow me to see what content people post or transmit without actively eavesdropping, and there are no means for me to moderate the content. However, there will be means for paying end-consumers to moderate the content of people they hav…

Any decent payment provider and bank will include the country code with the payment. Have a ToS preventing them from buying, warn UK users (geoip?) and then reject any payments from the UK.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#250

Post by throwawayffffas »

jahewson wrote: post #119
DrBazza wrote: post #23

We love our regulation, especially if the government can't easily tax it. Yet, we still have gambling adverts on UK TV and on football shirts. At the same time we've also banned adverts for "certain types" of porridge. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgrwzx8er9o

Given that such porridges are only “unhealthy” to the extent that they increase risk factors for various diseases, perhaps eating them should be considered a form of gambling. Then government could tax it too.

They have already taxed sugar in soft drinks. I am guessing porridge is not too far out.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sugar-tax-revenue-helps-t...

Post reply on HN