Forum with 2.6M posts being deleted due to UK Online Safety Act

Post by ipaddr » Wed, Feb 26, 2025, 2:06 AM UTC

__float wrote: post #189

jameskraus wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still remember some of the Berkeley genetics lectures as some of the best learning materials I could find for my upper-level courses. Later I tried to refer to them and found they were all gone. I wish there was any other option vs. just taking them down.

I mean, there was the obvious solution of paying the money to have it captioned, which was the original order. Berkeley instead offered this alternative solution, because they did not want to pay.

Post by notatty » Wed, Feb 26, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

observationist wrote: post #73

rich_sasha wrote: post #59

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…

You don't. "Hate speech" is code for "the government knows better and controls what you say." Yes, racism exists and people say hateful things. Hate speech is in the interpretation. The US has it right with the first amendment - you have to be egregiously over the line for speech to be illegal, and in all sorts of cases there are exceptions and it's almost always a case-by-case determination. Hateful things said by p…

Post by notatty » Wed, Feb 26, 2025, 2:18 AM UTC

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #187

thrance wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel about receiving daily credible death threats to you and your family? Should that be tolerated too in the name of the first amendment? Point is, we must draw the line somewhere. It's never "everything goes". Tolerating intolerance always ends up reducing freedom of expression. Look at the US, the government is doing everything it can to shove trans people back in the closet, their voices are silence…

Death threats are not protected by free speech. I know you are trying to make a hyperventilating political point but it’s just not a genuine thing. I am a little surprised at the anoint of those on HN that are against free speech. I mean, don’t you realize that without it, a government you don’t like could imprison you for “denying basic facts oh biology” just as another country does for “denying historical events”.…

Post by notatty » Wed, Feb 26, 2025, 2:20 AM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #69

rich_sasha wrote: post #59

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…

Is it a thing? I mean we had the holocaust, Rwandan genocide and the transatlantic slave trade without the internet. The discovery, by the governing classes, that people are often less-than-moral is just as absurd as it sounds. More malign and insidious is that these governors think it is their job to manage and reform the people -- that people, oppressed in their thinking and association enough -- will be easy to go…

Post by notatty » Wed, Feb 26, 2025, 2:21 AM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #80

rich_sasha wrote: post #59

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…

> online hate and radicalization really is a thing People have always had opinions. Some people think other people's opinions are poor. Talking online was already covered by the law (eg laws re slander). Creating the new category of 'hate speech' is more about ensuring legal control of messages on a more open platform (the internet) in a way that wasn't required when newspapers and TV could be managed covertly. It is…