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

Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#61

Post by vikramkr »

arjie wrote: post #53
zarzavat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK there is substantial use of secondary legislation. This is where Parliament authorises someone else to make laws on its behalf in some context. These powers delegated by Parliament are usually mundane but can be extreme and there's no limit to what powers Parliament can delegate. Since politicians are lazy they tend to use secondary legislation all the time . This encourages a culture of legislative sloppin…

I believe the analogous concept is Chevron deference here in the US. It must be a relatively easy optimization to make to reduce legislative load considering it arises so often. Interesting. One funny thing in California that is relevant is lane splitting. It is legal but guidelines are decided on by the CHP (state police). In practice, this means they have discretion to pull you over. I must imagine this is like the…

Cheveron deference is no longer active unfortunately

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#62

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

arjie wrote: post #34
joe_mamba wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because the US was founded by the immigrants who fled because they hated the way the system worked in their original countries, and designed a system that's diametral opposed to that, for better and for worse.

Right, that's what I'd lean to as well. But was the reason they left the legal tradition? In this telling of the story, they were fully aware of the legal tradition being the reason for their unhappiness. But is it true? I know the original immigrants/colonists were looking for a specific kind of religious freedom they couldn't have, but you must be speaking of the later waves (which are the majority of people). I re…

> original immigrants/colonists were looking for a specific kind of religious freedom they couldn't have

The ones who landed at Plymouth Rock were, sort of, but I'm not sure how representative they were of the time.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#63

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

kypro wrote: post #15
lenerdenator wrote: post #5

Governments would rather censor the whole internet before putting people who have credible allegations of sex crimes against children under investigation and in handcuffs when appropriate.

UK is the worse for this too. We have a story in the news currently about a foreign child gang rape leader (yes, those are things in the UK) who raped at least 30 children and was released early after serving just 14 years in prison. We have major children sexual abuse scandals in this country basically every year too. Politicians never care about that though.

Andrew Windsor walks around a free man.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#64

Post by arjie »

vikramkr wrote: post #61
arjie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the analogous concept is Chevron deference here in the US. It must be a relatively easy optimization to make to reduce legislative load considering it arises so often. Interesting. One funny thing in California that is relevant is lane splitting. It is legal but guidelines are decided on by the CHP (state police). In practice, this means they have discretion to pull you over. I must imagine this is like the…

Cheveron deference is no longer active unfortunately

Considering the specific topic, I'm afraid we land on opposite sides here since I prefer clear rules made by the legislature and so Chevron deference inactivity is fortunate rather than unfortunate.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#65

Post by arjie »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #59
arjie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s a matter of belief and while I’d prefer adherence to the rule of law and enforcement in general I can see why people allow for not-that. As an example, here’s a post on /r/sanfrancisco https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1uvebed/block... You’ll see that a large number of people believe that while the letter of the law is violated, it’s not a big deal. I’m sure that applies all the way to the t…

> You’ll see that a large number of people believe that while the letter of the law is violated, it’s not a big deal. The correct way to deal with this is to make the law do what people actually want. It's entirely possible to draft a law where actually blocking the sidewalk is a violation but the nose of a car extending into it by a few inches isn't considered blocked. And the way to get that law is to enforce the e…

Well, that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, right? The 'correct' way is for no one to inconvenience someone else. I have no magic wand that can make that happen. I also have no magic wand that can make authorities enforce the law. The government is just a mechanism for people to share common resources in a way that enables groups to work together with some (aspired-low) degree of free-riding.

So it's true that one level of depth is "enforce the law and unjust laws will be repealed", but the second level is "people prefer to not enforce the law" and "people decide the government" so it's meta-structures that determine outcomes here. As an example, some kinds of laws are more effective than others.

The CIA Sabotage Manual offers some techniques to introduce stalling and sabotage good organization function but it seems like the opposite is a currently-unsolved problem.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#67

Post by vikramkr »

arjie wrote: post #64
vikramkr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheveron deference is no longer active unfortunately

Considering the specific topic, I'm afraid we land on opposite sides here since I prefer clear rules made by the legislature and so Chevron deference inactivity is fortunate rather than unfortunate.

Whether or not the specific policy is good my preference is that changes to policy that have been in force for decades happen based on legislation and not the whims of 9 unelected people. We didn't get clear rules made my legislature, we lost an escape valve that allowed our regulatory apparatus to function while the gerontocracy on capital hill spun their wheels and left everything even murkier than it was before.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#68

Post by AnthonyMouse »

arjie wrote: post #65
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’ll see that a large number of people believe that while the letter of the law is violated, it’s not a big deal. The correct way to deal with this is to make the law do what people actually want. It's entirely possible to draft a law where actually blocking the sidewalk is a violation but the nose of a car extending into it by a few inches isn't considered blocked. And the way to get that law is to enforce the e…

Well, that's a bit pie-in-the-sky, right? The 'correct' way is for no one to inconvenience someone else. I have no magic wand that can make that happen. I also have no magic wand that can make authorities enforce the law. The government is just a mechanism for people to share common resources in a way that enables groups to work together with some (aspired-low) degree of free-riding. So it's true that one level of de…

> So it's true that one level of depth is "enforce the law and unjust laws will be repealed", but the second level is "people prefer to not enforce the law" and "people decide the government" so it's meta-structures that determine outcomes here.

The thing about "people" is that they're us. If we don't want a capricious autocracy then we have to make different choices.

> The CIA Sabotage Manual offers some techniques to introduce stalling and sabotage good organization function but it seems like the opposite is a currently-unsolved problem.

The reason those techniques work is precisely because people pretend to have rule of law while in practice facilitating tyranny and office politics. The sabotage operates by playing into the hypocrisy and demanding that all of the stupid rules people have been ignoring actually be implemented. The way to prevent it is to reform the rules, but that isn't in the interest of the people using vague/unreasonable rules to their own advantage, so actually reforming them encounters resistance and takes time and in the meantime you can keep using them to throw sand in the gears.

Notice how poorly that would work in both a formal authoritarian dictatorship and system with true rule of law. In the dictatorship the dictator does whatever they want and you can't make them do or not do anything by pointing to rules. In a system with rule of law, the rules are already being followed so that stupid/unreasonable rules are reformed as they're encountered and you can't use the massive backlog of them to make everything grind to a halt while people scramble to do all at once the thing they should have been doing continuously over time.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#69

Post by pocksuppet »

frereubu wrote: post #26
pocksuppet wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has "parliamentary supremacy" which means legislation passed by the parliament overrules everything else. If the court determines the legislation has a problem, it goes back to parliament to make sure parliament intended a certain interpretation, but parliament can either change the law, or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands.

> or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands Surely the way that parliament says the court is wrong is to re-legislate. They can't just have a vote and say "that interpretation is wrong" if, for example, the Supreme Court rejects their interpretation.

I don't know the exact process but I don't see why they couldn't do that. Parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament is supreme. What they say, goes. It's a dictatorship of elected MPs, hopefully kept in check by the need to be elected.

Re: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act for now

#70

Post by frereubu »

pocksuppet wrote: post #69
frereubu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or they can say the court is wrong and the law stands Surely the way that parliament says the court is wrong is to re-legislate. They can't just have a vote and say "that interpretation is wrong" if, for example, the Supreme Court rejects their interpretation.

I don't know the exact process but I don't see why they couldn't do that. Parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament is supreme. What they say, goes. It's a dictatorship of elected MPs, hopefully kept in check by the need to be elected.

They can't do that because it would make a mockery of the legal system. Parliament does outrank the Supreme Court, but they do that by passing legislation, not just having a vote and going "no, sorry, lol". The whole legal system is built on precedent, which is incompatible with parliament overriding it piecemeal.
Post reply on HN