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

UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 130 posts

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#101

Post by jimnotgym »

kentrado wrote: post #86
jimnotgym wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You misunderstand. Nice, start with an insult! > they don't have to navigate around that pesky 4th Amendment. They got around that in the UK already by not having a 4th Amendment...or indeed a written constitution. > They do it so they have a massive backlog of information, This implies a level of competence I do not recognise in the UK government.

In which universe, is that an insult? You are assuming malice.

You told me I misunderstood the facts, and implied therfore that I was naive. It is a classic 'forum' pattern, that people accept, but they shouldn't. It is a kind of sly underhand way of calling someone dumb

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#102

Post by psd1 »

gustavus wrote: post #38

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquillity of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated wit…

Yeah bollocks. Guy Fawkes was attempting to reinstate a monarchy that the people roundly, and almost universally, despised.

The Jacobins were, exclusively, Catholic landed gentry.

Lopping off Chuckie's head set the stage for Britain's golden age, which goes to show: Tories have always been stupid as well as evil.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#103

Post by psd1 »

TeaDude wrote: post #65
mattlondon wrote: post #9

I wonder if this sort of thing would lead to more people self-hosting again since it seems to be targeted at "big tech". So because Facebook, tiktok, YouTube et al start over-censoring, people just think fuck it and start hosting their own content again?

Facebook, Twitter et al have entire office floors to deal with legal threats. The UK police love to go after "soft" targets and there's no-one softer than someone who's life can immediately be ruined by arresting them and thus getting them fired due to missing work. Edit: I now see you mean "host their own personal content" but the point still stands.

Although you do have a point, the freighted language isn't fair.

Big white-collar crime is a different, and much more resource-intensive, set of challenges to investigate and prosecute. As such, it is not a constabulary remit - it needs bodies such as the SFO, which depend on extensive budgets to be effective. Blame the government for not prosecuting the big white-collar fish.

I'm sure it grinds every copper's gears that the bastards get away with it.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#104

Post by globular-toast »

psd1 wrote: post #100
globular-toast wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's supposed to get rid of stuff that makes people uncomfortable, like knowing about the existence of people in pain who want to end it. The bright, happy marketing of McDonald's is quite the opposite! Have it your way! Yay! Look forward to animal welfare issues being hidden in the same way too.

While the bill is appalling, don't downplay the issue. Voluntary euthanasia is a total strawman. "kys" is widely-understood netspeak nowadays. It means "kill yourself". Children are cruel. Mostly because they are mentally insufficient - it takes time and mistakes to learn human values. (Although cruelty lingers into adulthood in some.) The new(ish) problem is that, previously, ideally, bullied teens could come home a…

Get children off the internet. Seriously. This is an adult place and it's insane that we ever let them on. Children aren't allowed in adult places for very good reasons. Not just for them, but for us too. Children ruin adult places, as can be see here.

Letting a child on the internet should be considered abuse in the same way as letting them into a strip club or drug-taking establishment would be.

There must be ways to allow children to learn to use computers and information technologies without letting them anywhere near the internet. It's just extreme laziness on our part that we don't bother trying.

But, of course, the children argument is the real strawman here. Nobody is interested in the above solution because this is really about preventing adults from using the internet as they currently do.

Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of the stuff the internet enables is abhorrent and harmful but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#105

Post by perihelions »

gustavus wrote: post #38

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of everyday routine, the security of the familiar, the tranquillity of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past, usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, are celebrated wit…

- "How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. They were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."

Timeless observations. The most powerful force controlling a democracy is, simply, us. And the root cause of all the most damaging policy errors is us, with our banal inadequacies: our stupidities, our fears and angers, our irrationality.

This truth is entirely vanished from modern democratic narratives, because no one wants to hear it, and no one benefits from advancing it. Democracy means you're in power; civics means you're responsible.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#106

Post by HeckFeck »

globular-toast wrote: post #104
psd1 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the bill is appalling, don't downplay the issue. Voluntary euthanasia is a total strawman. "kys" is widely-understood netspeak nowadays. It means "kill yourself". Children are cruel. Mostly because they are mentally insufficient - it takes time and mistakes to learn human values. (Although cruelty lingers into adulthood in some.) The new(ish) problem is that, previously, ideally, bullied teens could come home a…

Get children off the internet. Seriously. This is an adult place and it's insane that we ever let them on. Children aren't allowed in adult places for very good reasons. Not just for them, but for us too. Children ruin adult places, as can be see here. Letting a child on the internet should be considered abuse in the same way as letting them into a strip club or drug-taking establishment would be. There must be ways…

This is the real answer - we'd think it mad if someone proposed that children play with pedal cars on open motorways. And madder still if someone else proposed the solution to the danger was to make motorways 'safer' for children in their Smobys at the expense of every adult motorist.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#107

Post by john_the_writer »

psd1 wrote: post #100
globular-toast wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's supposed to get rid of stuff that makes people uncomfortable, like knowing about the existence of people in pain who want to end it. The bright, happy marketing of McDonald's is quite the opposite! Have it your way! Yay! Look forward to animal welfare issues being hidden in the same way too.

While the bill is appalling, don't downplay the issue. Voluntary euthanasia is a total strawman. "kys" is widely-understood netspeak nowadays. It means "kill yourself". Children are cruel. Mostly because they are mentally insufficient - it takes time and mistakes to learn human values. (Although cruelty lingers into adulthood in some.) The new(ish) problem is that, previously, ideally, bullied teens could come home a…

My kids (mid teens) don't have smart phones. (both have a nokia).. Zero social and net access only at the kitchen table (while at home)

They have heaps of friends IRL, and hang out at the skate park, and in the mall.

They may have access to social at school, but when they're at home, online bullies have zero access.

Getting un-plugged is very easy. They've never been plugged. It's my job as a parent, and honestly nokia phones are way less expensive.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#108

Post by john_the_writer »

globular-toast wrote: post #92
kulahan wrote: post #43

The bill makes sites prove they are committed to removing content: * promoting or facilitating suicide * promoting self-harm Serious question - how will this affect discussions around euthanasia? Can people just not discuss that online in the UK anymore?

Why make an exception for euthanasia? People should have the right to do anything to their own bodies. The language is interesting, though. At what point does it become "promoting" or "facilitating" suicide? If I tell you I don't plan on suffering a long and painful end, is that promoting suicide? If I tell you that inert gases like nitrogen or carbon monoxide seem like a nice way to go, is that facilitating it?

I wonder how it would play with the CanadianBroadcastCorp. Where assisted suicide is legal. Would accessing CBC require drivers license verification?

Also what form of government ID would be required? I have mates who have really crappy passports from small 2nd/3rd world countries, and that's all they have. Would they be able to visit CBC?

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#109

Post by john_the_writer »

TeaDude wrote: post #65
mattlondon wrote: post #9

I wonder if this sort of thing would lead to more people self-hosting again since it seems to be targeted at "big tech". So because Facebook, tiktok, YouTube et al start over-censoring, people just think fuck it and start hosting their own content again?

Facebook, Twitter et al have entire office floors to deal with legal threats. The UK police love to go after "soft" targets and there's no-one softer than someone who's life can immediately be ruined by arresting them and thus getting them fired due to missing work. Edit: I now see you mean "host their own personal content" but the point still stands.

Last year some small single dev company got sued and dude lost his house, because he used google fonts, and didn't realise it was against GDPR. This is my worry really. What I want, is a way to tell my website that the user is sitting in these places. I want to be able to know the user is there, so I can geo-fence them off.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#110

Post by john_the_writer »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #96
mattlondon wrote: post #9

I wonder if this sort of thing would lead to more people self-hosting again since it seems to be targeted at "big tech". So because Facebook, tiktok, YouTube et al start over-censoring, people just think fuck it and start hosting their own content again?

What do you mean again? Very few people outside a small clique want or care about self-hosting anything.

Most ISP won't even let you do it anyway. I know the players in Canada don't and I think Australia too. So even if you had the inclination to do it, not going to happen in our current world.
Post reply on HN