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

Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

lobste.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#31

Post by Analemma_ »

basisword wrote: post #21

As much as I hate this legislation, this is really just a small forum deciding they don't have the time to understand the legislation and therefore it's easier to block IP's from the UK (while it's not even clear if that will exempt them from liability). Fair enough but hardly earth shattering. I remember several US based websites geo-blocking all of Europe after GDPR came in (I think the LA Times was one of the bigg…

Small forums run as hobby projects need to require little-to-no investment of time and money, or the ROI quickly goes negative and they just shut down instead.

A little while back there was the story [0] of a Mastodon admin who hated CloudFlare and its centralized protection, but found that he had no choice but to sign up for it anyway because a disgruntled user kept launching DDoS attacks and he had no other way to keep his instance online. A bunch of people here and elsewhere kept unhelpfully replying that, “you don’t need CloudFlare, you could just do [incredibly convoluted and time-consuming solution] instead”, and all of those people were missing the point: CloudFlare is “set it and forget it”, which is a non-negotiable requirement for anything which is run as a hobby instead of a full-time job.

It’s the same with this UK law: yes, you could spend weeks of your life learning the intricacies of laws in some other country, or you could just block them and be done with it. Businesses which might need revenue from UK users will do the former, but if I’m running a site out of my own time and money, I’ll do the latter. And I don’t want hobby sites to have to disappear: the Internet is commercialized enough as it is, and regulating passion projects out of existence would kill the last remaining independent scraps.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21719793

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#32

Post by ykonstant »

bb88 wrote: post #30
Red_Comet_88 wrote: post #13

They also block Brave browsers entirely. I tried reading into it, but it appears to be one of those "programmer personality quirks". The fellow that runs the site appears to think Brave is a scam of some sort, and just decided to block the entire browser. Oh well, I'll stick to HN.

Is it me, or is brave more of a cryptocurrency platform that pretends to be a browser? A lot of people don't really like the toxic discussions that crypto usually tends to devolve in. So it makes sense to block the browser if you don't want those people on your server.

I am no fan of Brave, but where is the logic here? Just because someone uses Brave, they will engage in toxic discussions on crypto? Am I missing something?

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#33

Post by do_not_redeem »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #17
do_not_redeem wrote: post #10

ELI5: Why should a US-based site, hosted on US soil and run by a US citizen, care about laws in all the hundreds of other random countries located thousands of miles away?

Because they can be arrested and extradited to UK. Not a high chance, but not zero. And a realistic one is to be arrested while traveling in Europe and extradited to UK.

Are there any previous cases of the UK intercepting and arresting a US citizen traveling through Europe for something that isn't a crime in the US?

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#34

Post by sshine »

bb88 wrote: post #30
Red_Comet_88 wrote: post #13

They also block Brave browsers entirely. I tried reading into it, but it appears to be one of those "programmer personality quirks". The fellow that runs the site appears to think Brave is a scam of some sort, and just decided to block the entire browser. Oh well, I'll stick to HN.

Is it me, or is brave more of a cryptocurrency platform that pretends to be a browser? A lot of people don't really like the toxic discussions that crypto usually tends to devolve in. So it makes sense to block the browser if you don't want those people on your server.

It’s my impression that it’s mostly a browser. But I don’t use it, because who needs another WebKit clone.

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#35

Post by ok_dad »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #25

Question: why pro-active block some authoritarian countries like the UK, but not others like China? Is it because only the UK passes legislation that threaten people outside of its borders? Or does China do it too and we ignore it?

China probably can’t get the USA to extradite an American citizen for breaking a Chinese law. The UK can.

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#36

Post by sepositus »

soulofmischief wrote: post #28
sepositus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devil's advocate, the relationship between the EU and the US compared to North Korea is not at all similar. I think that's why this is listed as an option: > A statement from the US Department of State that it does not believe the law applies to American entities and a commitment to defend them against it.

The UK is not a part of the EU. I also recognize the potential for legal action or criminal charges. Those are great opportunities to fight these tyrants in one of the few battlefields available to us. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over it…

> The UK is not a part of the EU.

Ah, yes, my American brain made the association too easily. Regardless, it doesn't alter my point much, in that the US/UK relationship is still more friendly than North Korea. Of course, it may not stay that way.

> Now, it may be that Lobsters simply doesn't have the highest respect for the law, or perhaps they value their community's survival over leading by principle and securing a bright future for posterity. Short-sighted thinking, but I understand the motivation.

This argument seems to dismiss the fact that the original thread started with a statement that they do not have the financial stability to challenge such a law. Sure, they could go principally bankrupt, but what effect would such a small fry really have in the global geopolitical environment? I just don't think they have a stage that's anything close to the size of MLK's.

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#37

Post by bb88 »

ykonstant wrote: post #32
bb88 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it me, or is brave more of a cryptocurrency platform that pretends to be a browser? A lot of people don't really like the toxic discussions that crypto usually tends to devolve in. So it makes sense to block the browser if you don't want those people on your server.

I am no fan of Brave, but where is the logic here? Just because someone uses Brave, they will engage in toxic discussions on crypto? Am I missing something?

The crypto world is full of toxic.

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#38

Post by jjcm »

I definitely get the proactive response here, as I’ve considered the same for my small platform. The biggest issue is the definitions of who the majority of the requirements apply to is quite hard to find. It’s buried on page 65 of this pdf:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli...

It defines “large service” as “a service that has more than 7 million monthly active United Kingdom users”. This is 25% of the UK population. If your service isn’t a household name, it mainly doesn’t apply to you, but the language they use makes it seem like this applies to more.

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#39

Post by basisword »

Analemma_ wrote: post #31
basisword wrote: post #21

As much as I hate this legislation, this is really just a small forum deciding they don't have the time to understand the legislation and therefore it's easier to block IP's from the UK (while it's not even clear if that will exempt them from liability). Fair enough but hardly earth shattering. I remember several US based websites geo-blocking all of Europe after GDPR came in (I think the LA Times was one of the bigg…

Small forums run as hobby projects need to require little-to-no investment of time and money, or the ROI quickly goes negative and they just shut down instead. A little while back there was the story [0] of a Mastodon admin who hated CloudFlare and its centralized protection, but found that he had no choice but to sign up for it anyway because a disgruntled user kept launching DDoS attacks and he had no other way to…

It would be much easier for me to run a small business if I didn't have to worry about the intricacies of tax law or how the various company structures affect my liability - but that's life. If you want to do various things in life, you may have certain responsibilities. Again - I don't like this particular legislation, but if your hobby is a website where others can post content you have a responsibility that the content shouldn't be illegal or harmful to others. If you can't deal with those responsibilities you can't run the website. It's no different than being required to follow health & safety regulations in an IRL business, even if it's just my 'hobby'.

Re: Lobsters blocking UK users because of the Online Safety Act

#40

Post by do_not_redeem »

ok_dad wrote: post #35
LAC-Tech wrote: post #25

Question: why pro-active block some authoritarian countries like the UK, but not others like China? Is it because only the UK passes legislation that threaten people outside of its borders? Or does China do it too and we ignore it?

China probably can’t get the USA to extradite an American citizen for breaking a Chinese law. The UK can.

Are there any examples in history of the US extraditing someone with no UK ties to the UK?
Post reply on HN