321–330 of 936 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A gf asked to go on a trip to England/Ireland and I told her I will go to Brazil or Colombia before I go to the UK. Im not going to risk getting in trouble because I made a post online or discussed immigration or trans people in the wrong way according to them.
What is the HN way to say "touch grass"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.
Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.
Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No chance I'd go to America, as they definitely check that sort of thing at the border now. Not sure how often that happens coming to the UK, yet.
It happens to citizens of the UK everyday, so I'm not really into finding out how tourists are treated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.
Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.
Which country do you believe could possibly qualify for such an impossible task?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. I think the control should stay with the parents where it already is. They can decide whether or not to put protections in place or whether or not to hand them a device at all. We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door, and there's plenty of theoretical dangers there too. Let the parents educate their children.
The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control. Parents these days clearly are unequal to the task, i'm passing no judgement just observing. >We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door My view is that we most certainly ban and/or heavily discourage children from entering certain places and talking to random strangers. There are many safeguards in the real world, there is simply not enough in t…
What evidence is that? Who gets to say what's sufficient?
Unless there is a high probability that an alleged lack of control will negatively other people than the family in question, I don't think it should be the government's business to police.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.
Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.
I mean the US have nukes and they’re hardly stable and predictable. Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol
The US.
Who else on the planet would have the effective power to possibly even think about who should and shouldn't have them, while plausibly being able to do anything about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then they'll make VPNs illegal
I suspect they'll be harder (impossible?) to block, but that will probably deter the casual user.
I really hope for all the people in the UK that your country doesn't go down this route.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US would likely not process those extraditions, and it would make trade and international relations worse for no real benefit.
Like random tariffs? Imagine this scenario, a major G7 country declares: All bytes sent to a computer on their soil count as a transaction on their soil. And the end client being on a VPN is not a defence UNLESS the website owner attempts to verify the user's identity. Immediately have to pay local taxes, conform to local laws. Unless you keep all your assets in the US and never fly abroad, our shady website operator…
It already happened via GDPR to some degree. CJEU ruled in December that platforms can qualify as controllers for personal data published in user-generated advertisement. The given reasoning was basically that the platform determined the means and the purposes of the processing.
Due to that they can be liable for article 82 damages.
Ofcom is currently threatening a Canadian forum that exists to help people with depression. Ofcom claims that geoblocking blocking the UK is "insufficient": > I've also gone back to Ofcom explicitly telling them the UK was now geoblocked (twice now) and I received a response that this was insufficient. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1rk690v/i_ru... Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply gl…
Curious time to complain about the UK doing this (*points broadly eastwards*)