131–140 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I geo-block UK visitors on all of my websites. It's sad but the safest solution.
why? if you're located elsewhere you can literally just ignore UK/EU law. they don't have jurisdiction over you; worst-case scenario is probably them ordering ISPs to block your site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort of like burning down a library because you can't make it ADA compliant and install a wheelchair ramp.
I feel as though the "sort of" is doing a lot of work there.
It's awkward. It's clear this law affects terribly bona fide grassroots online communities. I hope HN doesn't start geoblocking the UK away! But then online hate and radicalization really is a thing. What do you do about it? Facebook seems overflowing with it, and their moderators can't keep up with the flow, nor can their mental health keep up. So it's real and it's going to surface somewhere. At some level, I think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
more than just forums, it's basically a failed state now. I knew when I left (I was the last of my school year to do so) it was going to get bad once Elizabeth died, and that would be soon, but I never imagined it would get this bad. The plan for April is to remove the need for police to obtain a warrant to search peoples homes - that bad. I'd say "there will be blood on the streets", but there already is... This vid…
> The plan for April is to remove the need for police to obtain a warrant to search peoples homes - that bad. This seems to be limited to stolen geo-tagged items: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/25/police-new-p... I would agree that this law is a slippery slope, but at the same time we should not omit important facts.
And that is before you get into the court system, which if you need a quick primer, just look at the treatment of Julian Assange - and thats a "best case" for someone with millions of global supporters.
Uk police have targets to hit, they can't hit those targets going after real criminals, so they predominantly target people nieve enough to think they want to help them.
Of course they had to make running public forums a crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... Last month. “ We’ve heard concerns from some smaller services that the new rules will be too burdensome for them. Some of them believe they don’t have the resources to dedicate to assessing risk on their platforms, and to making sure they have measures in place to help them comply with the rules. As a result, some smaller services feel they might need to…
"We pinky swear to totes not enforce the law as written [unless and until we decide, with no notice or warning, to do so] up to and including criminal penalties". Not as reassuring as you claim it to be.
What is the meaning of "illegal content" given in the OSA? What will social media platforms be forced to censor (, remove, ..) ... let's take a look: Table 1.1: Priority offences by category ( https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli... ) Disucssion of offenses related to: prostitution, drugs, abuse & insults, suicide, "stiring up of racial/religious hatred", fraud and "foreign interference". So o…
Anyone* would be crazy to run a UK-based or somewhat UK-centric forum today. Whether it be for a hobby, profession, or just social interaction. The government doesn’t perceive these sites as having any value (they don't employ people or generate corporation tax). [*] Unless you are a multibillion $ company with an army of moderators, compliance people, lawyers.
more than just forums, it's basically a failed state now. I knew when I left (I was the last of my school year to do so) it was going to get bad once Elizabeth died, and that would be soon, but I never imagined it would get this bad. The plan for April is to remove the need for police to obtain a warrant to search peoples homes - that bad. I'd say "there will be blood on the streets", but there already is... This vid…
This is analogous to s18 PACE post-arrest powers, grafted onto s17 PACE.
The alternative is that we continue to require police to try and get a fast-time warrant while plotted up outside a premises; this is not a quick process, I've done it and it took nearly two hours.
>there will be blood on the streets
Oh, dry up.
Summary: The UK has some Online Safety Act, any websites that let users interact with other users has to police illegal content on its site and must implement strong age verification checks. The law applies to any site that targets UK citizens or has a substantial number of UK users, where "substantial number" is not defined. I'm going to guess this forum is UK-based just based on all the blimey's. Also the forum see…
IANAL > any websites that let users interact with other users has to police illegal content on its site and must implement strong age verification checks. But I believe you only need age verification if pornography is posted. There's also a bunch of caveats about the size of user base - Ofcom have strongly hinted that this is primarily aimed at services with millions of users but haven't (yet) actually clarified whet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
more than just forums, it's basically a failed state now. I knew when I left (I was the last of my school year to do so) it was going to get bad once Elizabeth died, and that would be soon, but I never imagined it would get this bad. The plan for April is to remove the need for police to obtain a warrant to search peoples homes - that bad. I'd say "there will be blood on the streets", but there already is... This vid…
No, the proposal is that there is a power of entry where the police have reasonable grounds to believe stolen property is on the premises and that this is supported by tracking data and that authority to enter is provided and recorded by a police inspector. This is analogous to s18 PACE post-arrest powers, grafted onto s17 PACE. The alternative is that we continue to require police to try and get a fast-time warrant…
After making secure communications a crime.
And you think a state like that cares about the formalities? lol..
They just doing what every other monarchy and dictatorship has done in a desperate bid to hold onto power while the state collapses due to inept leadership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently any piece of informational older than a year has no value to you? Thankfully you aren't writing the laws in my country. Creating a law that makes internet creators want to delete all historical record for fear of potential prosecution under extremely broad terms -- doesn't seem like it's in the interest of the greater good.
The law has absolutely nothing to do with historic content, it has no provisions for or relevance to content published decades ago. Even in the most cautious response to this law, there is no reason to take content offline.