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

Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

webdevlaw.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 480 posts

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#11

Post by buscoquadnary »

My belief is that the open internet began to pose a threat to those in power, they now seek to divide the internet back up along national boundaries via absurd regulations in order to for the traditional institutions to maintain their power. We are already seeing it with many sites being unwilling to deal with the compliance headache of GDPR and just blocking European users, plus it seems like half the internet is off limits to China because everyone blocks Chinese IP addresses because of their bad behavior.

Ultimately the only people who benefit as the internet gets more and more locked down and more and more regulated is the people at the top who are able to reassert control of the information those unwashed masses receive.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#12

Post by llamataboot »

BurningFrog wrote: post #9
llamataboot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about intentions, seems like the intention behind a ton of this stuff is to "protect the children", or "fix a problem" etc etc, but there just isn't enough awareness of possible side effects - not unique to tech legislation - just look at the policy ratchet of "you can always run by being tougher on crime, very hard to run on being not as tough" -- and arguably there is also some interaction with tech co…

It's a good mental practice to always be aware that stated intentions and actual reasons are entirely separate things. They do sometimes, mostly by chance, coincide. The advanced level of this is to be aware this applies even to your own actions.

The super advanced level is to realize it applies to all of your /thoughts/ which is mostly a pattern matching brain and personality built around the ways it found to make sense of some things justifying the chaos in retrospect :D

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#15

Post by hyperman1 »

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this?

The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they.

So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer world. I'll ignore its laws just as I ignore Afghan laws requiring women to stay at home or whatever country's laws to forbif gays from existing.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#16

Post by mellavora »

TillE wrote: post #7
groffee wrote: post #2

> Or it would have, if the nine MPs across three parties who were scheduled to attend actually showed up. Only one did. Everything else aside, if MPs don't show up for a scheduled meeting they should just be sacked. How many of us can just blow off meetings like that with no consequence?

It just underlines what should be fairly obvious: that such official meetings are not how things are actually decided in representative democracies. I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences.

> I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences.

yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block unless there is an extreme question of conscience.

You could contrast with for example the US system, where the original intent was that the senators/representatives would represent their state, not the party. Worked well for a while. Now, however, they also follow party line or face consequences. But there are realistically only two parties, and the the "first past the post" system locks us into 2 parties.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#17

Post by camdat »

Zak wrote: post #10
dane-pgp wrote: post #3

> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors This is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230. It takes politics back to the simpler age where there were just a few entities d…

> [Preventing public discourse] is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230 What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?

>algorithms that have an editorial effect?

Isnt this every non-chronilogical sorting algorithm?

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#18

Post by xdfgh1112 »

hyperman1 wrote: post #15

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this? The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer wor…

Yeah, this already happens to some extent with American and Asian sites blocking Europe and the UK because they don't want to deal with GPDR.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#19

Post by LegitShady »

hyperman1 wrote: post #15

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this? The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer wor…

the louder someone tells me in advance they don't care, the more they care about something going on here, and in your case its to talk about the EU and the UK. This was an article about the UK, if you didn't care you didn't need to post here at all, just as people from the US don't need to post to say "I'm from the US, why do I need to care about EU laws?" you don't, but you also don't say anything intelligent about it by saying you live somewhere else.

Posting to say you live somewhere else and don't care about the article doesn't contribute to any intelligent conversation, and usually means you do care about something involved, strongly, but aren't willing to say so.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#20

Post by yrgulation »

hyperman1 wrote: post #15

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this? The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer wor…

> So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer world.

Umm yeah no. Perhaps regulation wise but no, the uk is not a “small” country in the “computer world”.

Post reply on HN