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

71–80 of 101 posts

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

#71

Post by arjie »

vikramkr wrote: post #67
arjie wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Chevron Deference was in force for decades but it was based entirely on[0] "the whims of 9 unelected people". The entire doctrine rests, like the present use of the Commerce Clause, on the Supreme Court choosing some particular interpretation. The nature of such things is that they're arbitrarily disputable and revocable[1].

It's somewhat unconvincing to me, and likely many others, that rules with force should be instantaneously created but cannot be instantaneously revoked. I think the two go together. If deference is congressional intent, congress can explicitly delegate to an agency. If Chevron Deference is congressional intent, congress can explicitly set that to be the default.

0: to use the terms you use, and not because I agree

1: as perhaps the current understanding of the Commerce Clause should as well

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

#72

Post by iamnothere »

frereubu wrote: post #70
pocksuppet wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Technically, according to the framework under which it governs itself, Parliament could pass almost any bill, including things like bills of attainder that are panned globally as violating basic freedoms (for good reason). It just “chooses not to” (or rather is restrained by increasingly lax public oversight).

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

#73

Post by _def »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #68
arjie wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm having a hard time to parse this last part. Care to elaborate?

> 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

#74

Post by Loughla »

arjie wrote: post #19

I wonder what the difference in legal traditions is between the US and the Old World. The latter have a lot of "Yes, you're technically in trouble under the guidelines the enforcement authority rules using but they're going to make an exception for you, for now" and the former have a lot of "Yes, the spirit was to block this kind of thing but the letter of the law is that you do get away with it". What informed this…

One is following the law and the other isn't.

If the letter of the law doesn't enforce the spirit of the law, it was poorly written or it's out of date and needs to be amended.

In theory, the US system allows for those updates. In reality it's a little less clear. Currently we're absolutely moving to the fealty to the crown system and it's not great.

Any system that makes specific carve outs for anyone to not follow the letter of the law is not about enforcing the law, it's about maintaining control using arbitrary enforcement and chronyism (not sure of that spelling).

The system of workarounds for religious customs has always fascinated me. I will follow the letter of the law, because I have to. If I don't agree with the laws, I can move. If I was in a faith tradition and finding workarounds for the intent of the law, I would choose a different faith. To me it's very binary; either you are or you aren't [Religion]. Using technicalities on your deity just feels like a suckers game to make your current and any possible afterlife worse. Like God is just going to say, "oh man you really got one over on me." Makes zero sense.

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

#75

Post by actionfromafar »

_def wrote: post #73
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm having a hard time to parse this last part. Care to elaborate? > 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.

Sounds like a description of Congress "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" with its huge bills of assorted hot-patches and root-kits and favors and bribery all baked into one big, beautiful bill.

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

#76

Post by gcanyon »

Loughla wrote: post #74
arjie wrote: post #19

I wonder what the difference in legal traditions is between the US and the Old World. The latter have a lot of "Yes, you're technically in trouble under the guidelines the enforcement authority rules using but they're going to make an exception for you, for now" and the former have a lot of "Yes, the spirit was to block this kind of thing but the letter of the law is that you do get away with it". What informed this…

One is following the law and the other isn't. If the letter of the law doesn't enforce the spirit of the law, it was poorly written or it's out of date and needs to be amended. In theory, the US system allows for those updates. In reality it's a little less clear. Currently we're absolutely moving to the fealty to the crown system and it's not great. Any system that makes specific carve outs for anyone to not follow…

> If the letter of the law doesn't enforce the spirit of the law, it was poorly written or it's out of date and needs to be amended.

I think if you rewrite that to, “If the letter of the law is demonstrably out of sync with the public sense of the spirit of the law, then it should be amended,” I’m with you.

But I think that’s not what you meant? If you meant “the letter of the law should define prescribed and proscribed behavior exactly,” then I think that’s impossible.

There will always be exceptions, and no set of rules can be exhaustive. The system should allow for humans to recognize that fact.

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

#77

Post by arjie »

gcanyon wrote: post #76
Loughla wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is following the law and the other isn't. If the letter of the law doesn't enforce the spirit of the law, it was poorly written or it's out of date and needs to be amended. In theory, the US system allows for those updates. In reality it's a little less clear. Currently we're absolutely moving to the fealty to the crown system and it's not great. Any system that makes specific carve outs for anyone to not follow…

> If the letter of the law doesn't enforce the spirit of the law, it was poorly written or it's out of date and needs to be amended. I think if you rewrite that to, “If the letter of the law is demonstrably out of sync with the public sense of the spirit of the law, then it should be amended,” I’m with you. But I think that’s not what you meant? If you meant “the letter of the law should define prescribed and proscri…

Here is a fun exploration of that concept: https://novehiclesinthepark.com/

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

#78

Post by Cider9986 »

Cider9986 wrote: post #57

The Ministry of Truth approves of Wikipedia, for now. I suppose it's part of UK culture to be authoritarian which is how Orwell predicted it, but it's uncanny.

It's be one thing if it was just privacy invasions to save the children, but no it's also freedom of speech, removing jury trials, and probably other things.

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

#79

Post by incompatible »

Cider9986 wrote: post #49

Identity verification should be illegal by default and companies that want to do it should have to prove it's absolutely necessary for their business.

The Wikipedia page implies that all the designated "Category 1" websites will now either have to collect ID from their users worldwide, or remove any presence in the UK.

Edit: there's a list of the Category 1 services at

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

I.e., Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Quora, Reddit, Roblox, Snapchat, TikTok, Whatsapp, X, YouTube.

Plus others at the Category 2A or 2B levels.

Edit: well, it says they are "Providing user identity verification options." Unclear to me when they are supposed to get users to verify identity.

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

#80

Post by fsckboy »

adammarples wrote: post #25
tialaramex wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because England is very old it has a whole bunch of things which did charge a toll and then that expired, so, nope. It does also have situations where people go "Hey, this toll bridge was built 50 years ago, surely the tolls should be abolished" and the people who built the bridge are like "Nope. See, here's the press about it 50 years ago saying what a great idea it is to have the tolls be slightly lower but perpetu…

There are plenty of pubs and houses in the UK called The Old Toll House so I know for sure that some have ended

"Toll House cookies" (chocolate chip cookies) are named after an inn that was named for a tollhouse on an old Massachusetts toll road.
Post reply on HN