>If we concede even a scintilla of our constitutional rights, we fail.
based.
as someone from a country that had reached the bottom of many slippery slopes in less than ten years, it's very disheartening to see the West following us.
IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
11–20 of 418 posts
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#12I don't really understand the concern. The UK objects to suicide forums and American operators of suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment of extradition to the UK. So if you want to operate a suicide forum from America, just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.
It's not clear to me that the UK even has a mechanism to discover the operators of such sites. If I found myself in such a position, I imagine I wouldn't even bother trying to block UK IPs and let them sort out their own internet blocking.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#13He seems very confused about what First Amendment is about. How it would be even possible for UK government to violate it?
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#14The most frustrating part here is that this car crash of a policy had cross party support so there wasn’t even a way for UK people like me to vote against it.
Even in Reform, I get the sense that Zia Yusuf was the only person campaigning seriously against it. Going on a one man crusade to force Farage to criticise it and put fully repealing the act on their manifesto.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#15When a country transitions from manufacturing to services, it ends up trying to export its legal system.
One of the big things I've been wondering about the decision of the Anglosphere to all switch to a service economy: why would you do that when your population is both smaller and dumber than the populations of other countries?
The UK (nor the US) has no advantage in providing services, all it can do is demand that other people be prevented from providing them.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#16The most frustrating part here is that this car crash of a policy had cross party support so there wasn’t even a way for UK people like me to vote against it.
[deleted]
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#17>If we concede even a scintilla of our constitutional rights, we fail. based. as someone from a country that had reached the bottom of many slippery slopes in less than ten years, it's very disheartening to see the West following us.
It comes across as unhinged with the current regime daily infringing the [USA] Constitutional rights of USA citizens and the UK in not way seeking to inhibit those rights.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#18> The primary one is that the notion of a “UK based IP” is nonsense. Geolocation databases work by figuring out where people log in from and only after doing a lot of pattern recognition do those addresses get associated with that location.
I support the cause, but I don't think that's true. RIPE, the RIR responsible for UK, makes available a list of allocations per country. For UK:
https://stat.ripe.net/data/country-resource-list/data.json?resource=gb
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#19[flagged]
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#20When a country transitions from manufacturing to services, it ends up trying to export its legal system.
The USA has been exporting its legal system for decades. And the UK still makes plenty of stuff. I really don't think this is valid. There is a close analogy though, companies that end up losing in the marketplace tend to become legally active to try to extract a tax from those that did better.