To me the online safety act is a latency tax and nothing more. Sucks for others though. I feel bad for them, it’s not right.
What's a latency tax?
Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
611–620 of 887 posts
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#612Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK has had many such laws and still does. During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government. The echr still binds parliament and the courts, again to rulings of a foreign Court. The most likely outcome by far at this point is the continuation of disconnection from European institutions by leaving the echr. In effect this would mean the rolling…
>> During its time of EU membership the British constitution effectively gave up most of its power to a foreign government It's nonsensical statements like this that lead to brexit. Some(very very very few) rules were delegated to EU institutions. UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to. To say that "most of the power" was give…
> UK retained full autonomy in almost every area, it could have always limited immigration or how bananas are shaped if it wanted to.
And not only that, but within the EU it is no secret that the UK had the very best seat at the table.
The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions, far more than any other member.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#613Shameful that Wikipedia are using this as another big yellow box "We need your money or we will have to shut down" message (and if anyone's not already aware, they really, really don't need to be doing this - they are not in any kind of financial struggle).
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.
Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in…
I genuinely thought that Farage would finally fuck off after brexit happened. I hadn't really figured that he's in it for the attention rather than the politics
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is how the law works? Even in the USA, the Supreme Court doesn't act on hypotheticals. They wait until someone brings an actual case. Ofcom haven't ruled Wikipedia is Category 1. They haven't announced the intention to rule it Category 1. The Category 1 rules are not yet in effect and aren't even finalised . They aren't pointing any gun. Wikipedia have a case that they shouldn't be Category 1 if that happens…
>Even in the USA, the Supreme Court doesn't act on hypotheticals. Yes. To rephrase it, they cannot act until it's already too late, and the damage has already been done.And we wonder why things are so broken.
What alternative would you propose? How much additional workload would it create for the court system and how would you manage it considering their existing responsibilities?
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Constitution is pretty clear on that question. The problem is that in order to persecute president you need congress to act. The constitution simply doesn't account for a situation, when congress willingly ceases vital functions. To be fair, it took over 200 years for this edge case to occur. If this was a software we would marvel at its stability.
200 years isn’t a very long time in British historical terms.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#617Shameful that Wikipedia are using this as another big yellow box "We need your money or we will have to shut down" message (and if anyone's not already aware, they really, really don't need to be doing this - they are not in any kind of financial struggle).
iirc wikipedia has a company that hosts the site and has more than enough funding to survive
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage. I've come to believe that is the point of forcing people to choose between extreme polarizing positions. It makes disengagement feel like the only moderate move.
And that is exactly how someone like Trump could win (there are worse people than Nigel Farage). I'm amazed people have not thrown out these two parties in the UK already. Yes, the voting system makes it hard, but not impossible. It happened before. However, I think the key reason why Conservatives and Labour are so entrenched is that people make their voting habits a part of their identity. I had a number of face to…
That was true until recently, but in the last 12 months it's all cracked wide open.
Reform are leading in the polls, the lib dems are picking up disaffected tory wets, new left wing parties are threatening labour from the left on gaza etc.
A long time until the next election but right now it's all to play for
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage. I've come to believe that is the point of forcing people to choose between extreme polarizing positions. It makes disengagement feel like the only moderate move.
Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future.
Kier Starmer seems to be doing everything an establishment plant would - an establishment that really doesn't like the idea of a Labour government.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#620> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…
> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. As an repetition of and an aside to all those pointing out that there is a constitution, what may find gaining some momentum after this are calls for a Bill of Rights , something England used to have[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
The Bill of Rights was never repealed, so there’s no “used to” about it.