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

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

forums.hexus.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 318 posts

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

#241

Post by [deleted] »

eikenberry wrote: post #196
mjburgess wrote: post #44

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…

> [..] as the highs of repressive christian moralism in the mid 20th C. What makes you pick the mid-20th century as the high point of repressive christian moralism? That doesn't seem even close to the high point if you look back further in history.

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by staticautomatic »

rich_sasha wrote: post #71
staticautomatic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate and radicalization are products of existential purposelessness. You can’t make them go away by preventing existentially purposeless people from talking to each other.

No, you can't, but also theres is no reason why the law about allow these to be up. Plenty of people have racist thoughts, and that's not illegal (thoughts in general aren't), but go print a bunch of leaflets inciting racist violence and that is illegal. I see this as an internet analogy.

Yes, incitement is illegal, but you haven't said what kind of speech you actually have in mind. Rather, you've made a tautological assertion that we can't allow incitement because incitement is illegal.

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

#244

Post by touristtam »

Asooka wrote: post #112
rich_sasha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no reason why hate speech should be given the benefit of the doubt. And no, it's not because my government told me so, I have my own opinion, which is that freedom of speech ends where threats of violence appear. If you don't want it tolerated online, which I don't, you need some kind of legal statement saying so. Like a law that says, you can't do it, and websites can't just shrug their shoulders and say it's…

The problem is that policing hate speech creates a police state worse than allowing hate speech to exist. The system you need to create to police the hate speech will result in more violence against people than letting the hate speech exist. To me, your very statement "freedom of speech ends where threats of violence appear" is a form of hate speech. You are hating on my principle of free speech. It actually makes me…

> To me, your very statement "freedom of speech ends where threats of violence appear" is a form of hate speech

How on earth did you conclude that? Where is the emotional charge you are implying? What about the other party feelings (of being intimidated)?

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

#245

Post by shadowvoxing »

eikenberry wrote: post #196
mjburgess wrote: post #44

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…

> [..] as the highs of repressive christian moralism in the mid 20th C. What makes you pick the mid-20th century as the high point of repressive christian moralism? That doesn't seem even close to the high point if you look back further in history.

It's a cheapshot at Christianity. That's all it is.

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

#246

Post by beeflet »

sedatk wrote: post #158
massifgreat wrote: post #11

These UK laws might boost Tor usage.. let's hope something good will come from the full censorship political tyranny in Europe.

If enough people switch to Tor, then Tor will get banned. Technical solutions don’t fix bad policies.

Tor is pretty hard to block. I think that some sort of mixnet is pretty much the solution to all ISP/Government spying and censorship on the web as they make the law de-facto unenforcable

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

#247

Post by touristtam »

david422 wrote: post #188
rich_sasha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no reason why hate speech should be given the benefit of the doubt. And no, it's not because my government told me so, I have my own opinion, which is that freedom of speech ends where threats of violence appear. If you don't want it tolerated online, which I don't, you need some kind of legal statement saying so. Like a law that says, you can't do it, and websites can't just shrug their shoulders and say it's…

> I see no reason why hate speech should be given the benefit of the doubt Because a lot of speech people don't like gets relabeled as hate speech - which is's not. Or a lot of discussion/debate topics that are sensitive get relabeled as hate.

And that's where the cultural difference lies between the new and the old world...

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

#248

Post by roenxi »

derefr wrote: post #204
roenxi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "foreign interference" That is a very tricky one to manage on an online forum. If an American expresses an opinion about UK policy, in a literal sense that is literally foreign interference. There isn't a technical way to tell propagandists from opinionated people. And the most effective propaganda, by far, is that which uses the truth to make reasonable and persuasive points - if it is possible to make a point tha…

> The only way this works is to have a list of banned talking points from a government agency. How so? The "obvious" solution to me, from the perspective of a politician, would be to 1. require online identity verification for signup to any forum hosted in your country, and then 2. using that information, only allow people who are citizens of your country to register. (You know, like in China.)

That won't stop foreign disinformation. They'll just pay some local to say it.

And China's system doesn't stop disinformation; it promotes disinformation. It it designed to make sure that only China-sponsored disinformation is available. If you want a system for that it is a solved problem; it just isn't a good idea.

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

#249

Post by Dylan16807 »

stainablesteel wrote: post #174
Dylan16807 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are hating on my principle of free speech. Do you really think you are contributing to the conversation when you say things like this?

that is a genuine contribution to the conversation, it points out the opposing argument doesn't make any sense and that the rules are just applied arbitrarily instead of applying them arbitrarily (which you won't like when your political party isn't in power), just apply them fairly across the board regardless of whose in charge so we can coexist in a civilized manner without the kind of extreme psychological aggress…

> that is a genuine contribution to the conversation, it points out the opposing argument doesn't make any sense and that the rules are just applied arbitrarily

That post only works if you use an absolutely ridiculous definition of hate speech.

It does not show a flaw in the opposing argument. It's not an example of a rule being applied arbitrarily. It's an example of falsely claiming a rule applies when it objectively does not apply. If that's a weakness, it's a weakness in basically every law. It's not a disqualifier.

They could have tried to show an unfairness or a contradiction that actually relates to sloppy definitions of hate speech, but they didn't. They went outside the definition.

> instead of applying them arbitrarily (which you won't like when your political party isn't in power), just apply them fairly across the board regardless of whose in charge

I think you mixed something up here. Applying a law fairly doesn't prevent a different political party from interpreting it differently and ending the fairness. I'm pretty sure your argument is supposed to be that these laws should not exist in the first place, because they're too dangerous in the wrong hands. Not "just apply them fairly".

Post reply on HN