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

281–290 of 318 posts

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

#281

Post by ChrisRR »

DarkmSparks wrote: post #98
nickdothutton wrote: post #28

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 comment has got daily mail reader written all over it

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

#282

Post by like_any_other »

whartung wrote: post #108
nickdothutton wrote: post #28

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.

Well I'm on a forum run by a UK company, hosted in the UK, and we've talked about this, but they're staying online. And, no, they're not a multibillion dollar company. I don't see our moderators needing to do any more work than they're already doing, and have been doing for years, to be honest. So we'll see how the dice land.

As long as they don't upset anyone with influence (government, media, etc.), they'll probably be fine. Otherwise, at best they'll be looking at a ruinously expensive legal battle to justify if what they did was "reasonable" or "proportionate" - the vague terms used by the law.

For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.

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

#283

Post by mjburgess »

whiteandnerdy wrote: post #268
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…

I'm no fan of this act but your characterisation is highly misleading. To pick two examples from the document you linked: Discussion of being a sex worker would not be covered. The only illegal content relating to sex work would be if you were actively soliciting or pimping. From the document: * Causing or inciting prostitution for gain offence * Controlling a prostitute for gain offence Similarly, discussion of drug…

Those are indeed against the law. The issue is what these platforms are required to censor on behalf of these other laws.

Recall that we just spent several years where discussion of major political issues of concern to society were censored across social media platforms. Taking an extremely charitable interpretation of what government demands will be made here isn't merely naïve but empirically false.

And the reason I chose those kinds of illegal activities was to show that these very laws themselves are plausibly oppressive as-is, plausibly lacking in "deep democractic" support (ie., perhaps suriving on very thin majorities) -- and so on.

And yet it is these laws for which mass interactive media will be censored.

This is hardly a list with murder at the top.

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

#284

Post by like_any_other »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #271
multjoy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find it terrifying that you consider this to be legitimate grounds for a search, and a reasonable procedure for obtaining permission to do so. They should get in line and get permission from proper legal authorities, like all other law enforcement.

While I hate how the UK is becoming even more of a police state, that law (or that part of a law) is the least worthy of criticism. It simply codifies one instance of reasonable grounds for a search, so that it does not have to be decided on a case-by-case basis by a judge. I.e. a judge is asked to decide if something is justified grounds for a search - now the law says "this narrow case is justified grounds, you don't have to ask a judge".

Or in other words, the proper legal authorities are parliament and the law itself. Sometimes the law needs interpreting and judgment calls, which where warrants come in. This law removes the need for interpretation in one narrow and clearly defined case. If before judges were expected to issue warrants on the kind of evidence that this law requires, then now codifying that expectation and removing what has now become nothing but a bureaucratic delay doesn't reduce liberty.

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

#286

Post by jalapenos »

crimsoneer wrote: post #259
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…

The legislation follows the general structure of the health and safety act a couple of decades ago. That also caused a big right wing press crisis, and then we all sort of moved on, did a bit more paperwork, and now fewer people die in factory accidents. It's really quite helpful to start practically implementing this stuff rather than philosophising about it.

Yeah it's all a series of no biggies. But one day citizens in your sinking ship of a country will be looking overseas at countries like Afghanistan in longing as they flip ends of the leaderboard with you.

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

#287

Post by [deleted] »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #251
notatty wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I mean, you are also making a hyperventilating point in your sarcasm not true. It may be true that illegal immigrants tend to be of ethnic minorities but it fallacious to say that collecting and deporting them, for being in the country illegally, is the same as “rounding up minorities”. That is offensive to the memory of those times over a hundred years when that did actually happen in this country. I don’t see any p…

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by thrance »

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”.…

Yes, death threats are not protected by your free speech, that was my entire point that you completely missed.

Why then not allow them but allow flurries of racial slurs? Or harassment? Or foreign propaganda? The line is never "anything goes", we have to draw it somewhere. So, why act like anything other than "anything goes" is "literally 1984".

In Europe, it's "La liberté des uns s'arrête là où commence celle des autres" (Rousseau). Americans should simply stop trying to impose their different conception of freedom that just led them into a violent kleptocracy.

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

#290

Post by Frieren »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #276
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…

It is odd that stirring up hatred is fine, as long as it does not pertain to religion, race, sexual orientation

This is because use of this data could create significant risks to the individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms. For example, the various categories are closely linked with:

- freedom of thought, conscience and religion; - freedom of expression; - freedom of assembly and association; - the right to bodily integrity; - the right to respect for private and family life; or - freedom from discrimination.

Post reply on HN