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

261–270 of 394 posts

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#261

Post by nvarsj »

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

It's trivial to find via simply searching suicide on google. It's not like this is a super secret Tor site or something.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#262

Post by blackhaz »

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…

Facebook openly advertising porn sites is one example.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#263

Post by woodpanel »

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…

let me guess: criticizing this law constitutes “harm” already.

better not enter this jurisdiction for the foreseeable future

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#264

Post by roenxi »

jackvalentine wrote: post #232
nomilk wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you do this with everything? Search down examples of child sexual abuse material and murders before you believe they exist? I don’t think it a “dubious” claim at all - you’ve been on the internet there is a community for _everything_ it’s not surprising there is a community for this.

Traditionally the method is there are some things that people just assume exist and for things outside that circle they require some smidgen of evidence to believe in. It is a bit like me saying I believe there are people in the Arctic (never really seen evidence of it, but seems reasonable) vs. pixies (if I'm being asked to believe in pixies, I'd like to see some evidence).

The idea that there are sites promoting eating disorders does seem to me plausible by default, but nomilk does allude to a good point that without examples it is hard to talk about harms. These sites, if they exist, might be quite difficult to find without going and looking for them. I don't remember ever seeing a hint of such a site.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#265

Post by blitzar »

pixxel wrote: post #239
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ofcom is an independent regulator; it's far from the "first-party" you're implying it is.

JFC. You probably think the BBC is impartial.

Everyone knows the BBC is biased against their side.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#267

Post by throw646577 »

briandear wrote: post #13

My problem with all of these sorts of things is the idea of who determines “harmful.” Because that’s a term of such ambiguity that it could literally mean anything. “Covid came from a Chinese lab” — “harmful because it causes ‘racism’” “Pakistani grooming gangs in Rotherham are targeting young British girls” — harmful because it could promote social unrest. “Eating meat can improve metabolic health” — harmful because…

> nobody died from anything he said

This is a little difficult to prove. From the Parkland libels, sure. From the rest of the culture he promotes? Are you so sure?

Whenever Americans lecture us on our culture of preferring safety we tend to just count back the number of days to your last school shooting. Be aware you're on ZERO right now. A teenage girl! At a Christian school. And consider that there are other perspectives on how bad that is. Because you collectively don't seem that bothered.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#268

Post by HPsquared »

throw646577 wrote: post #252
HPsquared wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens in practice is, parties do control the government. There are these things called "whips". Also, voters watch national media and mostly vote based on the leadership, stated manifesto etc of each party at the national level.

> What happens in practice is, parties do control the government. There are these things called "whips". Also, voters watch national media and mostly vote based on the leadership, stated manifesto etc of each party at the national level. Don't patronise me. I'm fully aware of all of these things. But it doesn't actually change who we vote for. If you want Reform to have more MPs, they have to have locally electable M…

Interesting to even concede that Labour and Conservatives are basically the same, but no desire for third parties being able to enter. I'm definitely not a fan of Reform in particular, it's just highlighted the issue with new parties having no chance in the UK unless they are strongly local like the DUP or SNP. Geographic distribution seems to be the biggest factor in whether a person's vote is counted or not.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#269

Post by myrmidon »

guilhas wrote: post #256
thih9 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About banning ads for “certain types of porridge”: > …the majority of porridge, muesli and granola products will not be affected by the advertising restrictions but some less healthy versions (with added sugar, chocolate, syrup) could be affected. > Sometimes products may be marketed as, or perceived by consumers to be, healthy but in fact contain surprisingly high levels of saturated fat, salt or sugar. Source: http…

I was in Tesco, buying a orange juce The standard version was 100% orange pressed The "healthy" low cal version was 50% orange 50% water and sweetener addictives Same brand/price The British Heart Foundation also recommends cola zero as healthier than 100% juice

Pure fruit juice is insanely unhealthy. This is because it circumvents the normal mechanisms that regulate fruit intake, while containing even more sugar.

If you press orange juice yourself, and see the mountain of fruits that are needed for just a liter of the stuff, it becomes quite obvious why drinking fruit juice regularly is not a good idea.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#270

Post by weberer »

jimnotgym wrote: post #153

The furore below reminds me of the GDPR apocalypse predictions...none of which came true.

One of the predictions was that some websites would just geoblock people connecting from Europe. That happened with a lot of small news sites. And some retail sites. For example, I can't access www.homedepot.com right now.
Post reply on HN