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

Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

therectangle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#101

Post by AngryData »

exasperaited wrote: post #98
AngryData wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tipless knife may prevent accidents, but if you purposefully tried to stab yourself or someone else with one of those knives, do you honestly believe it wouldn't tear right through your flesh? Neither my butter knives or bread knives have tips, and yet I could easily stab people with them.

FWIW the data suggests that thin cotton clothing can stop these knives much more effectively, and therefore could at least make impulse knife crime (indoor assaults) much, much less deadly. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rounded-knif... Let's Be Blunt have more data: https://www.letsbeblunt.co.uk

I don't really find anything in those sources convincing. One is a researcher for an anti-knife crime advocacy group that makes vague statements about how it will reduce injuries, but don't specify how much, and says their research still needs to be validated before publishing. And the other stuff is just statistics of how many people get stabbed with kitchen knifes with the assumption that if everyone had blunt knives instead that either less people would be stabbed or their stab wounds would not be so serious, which is the point I find suspect to start with.

Yes if you wear enough cloth it can block blunt stabs okay, but I very much doubt peoples regular clothes are going to do anything except drag some dirty cloth into the wound unless they walk around with thick work bibs on all the time or 3-4 layers of denim. And even that is still very limited protection to someone actively trying to stab through it. A screwdriver is even more blunt than these blunted knives and it would have no problem going through any clothes except maybe a reenactors linen gambeson.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#102

Post by duskwuff »

john01dav wrote: post #40
Zak wrote: post #30

> a statement like “we should stop young kids watching porn” is so agreeable that only the nuttiest amongst us could even begin to disagree with it I mostly disagree with it. I don't want prepubescent children watching porn of course, but the vast majority of them aren't doing that with any regularity, nor do they have any desire to. It isn't a problem that demands a robust solution with serious downsides. I do think…

I'd prefer the HTTP header be on the response. That way, it can't be used for fingerprinting and can easily put the website in a more fine grained category (e.g., porn, gore, political extremism) and the user agent can be configured to filter based on this. You could then create limited but present liability for mislabeling.

I'd be worried that doing that would invite bad followups - e.g. requiring web browsers to block tagged content by default (or always), defining LGBT or other politically sensitive content as pornographic and mandating that it be tagged, penalizing web site operators for failing to tag their web sites, etc.

But in principle, I still agree. As someone who has managed some adult-oriented spaces online, I would love to have a way to put a sign on the door that, in effect, says "adults only", and have it be technically enforced for users who have chosen to do so.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#103

Post by tzs »

VikingMiner wrote: post #33

> In reality, this wouldn’t happen, because, generally, people understand that stabbings are a cultural issue, rather than a technical one Many UK MPs don't understand this. I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news. For whatever reason they don't seem to understand that literally anyone can make…

I would love it if my steak knives did not have a point. Never once have I needed to stab my steak. The only thing I’ve ever stabbed with them is myself by accident.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#104

Post by snozolli »

BizarroLand wrote: post #93
snozolli wrote: post #49

Children shouldn't have unsupervised access to the Internet. Stop off-loading parenting onto politicians who infringe on liberty in the name of a (false) sense of security.

They're not offloading it onto the politicians. The politicians are taking that onto themselves against the will of many of the parents.

They're not offloading it onto the politicians.

The people voting them into office certainly are.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#105

Post by john01dav »

duskwuff wrote: post #102
john01dav wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd prefer the HTTP header be on the response. That way, it can't be used for fingerprinting and can easily put the website in a more fine grained category (e.g., porn, gore, political extremism) and the user agent can be configured to filter based on this. You could then create limited but present liability for mislabeling.

I'd be worried that doing that would invite bad followups - e.g. requiring web browsers to block tagged content by default (or always), defining LGBT or other politically sensitive content as pornographic and mandating that it be tagged, penalizing web site operators for failing to tag their web sites, etc. But in principle, I still agree. As someone who has managed some adult-oriented spaces online, I would love to…

This is another reason to do it as a header -- you can make lgbt its own category, instead of pretending that it's porn. This isn't perfect though, since children need to be able to learn about that even if their parents are bigots. The child could themselves be lgbt, and honest information instead of rumors of taboo can help them not develop similar bigotry.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#106

Post by justlikereddit »

Problem goes back to UK government, an offense to the senses that can only be described as a malignant entity whose main goal is supporting injustice, misery and evil.

The introduction to any level of this degenerated amalgam, from lowly bureaucrats to top level asshole in command is to read 1984 and then pass a test where you have to describe how to recreate such a system but make it even worse. Supplementary extracurriculars is to be close friends with rapists and pedophiles.

"Surely you're exaggerating this you online troll"

No I don't, you just haven't scratched the surface to the modern Belgian Congo that is the UK, vile doesn't even begin to describe it.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#107

Post by InterGuru1 »

exasperaited wrote: post #95
AndyGravity wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster thinks that knife crime can be reduced by making knives not pointy. An idea that is rightfully mocked by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It is ridiculous on the face of it. Anyone believes in it is believing in something ridiculous. Believing in things that are obviously ridiculous is delusional. Therefore it is not name calling. It is a statement of fact. Repeatedly sending someone a link to…

It's your opinion. This guy (a chef and a long-serving royal marine) has a different opinion, for instance: https://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/news/2025/may/commando-chef-... This former circuit judge who now works for a knife crime unit: https://www.fightingknifecrime.london/news-posts/the-need-fo... This research unit proved that they are less dangerous: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rounded-knif...…

[dead]

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#108

Post by kjellsbells »

There used to be a phrase in UK politics: "Something Must Be Done", expressing the incredible momentum to be seen to be doing something for noisy constituents...and not worrying too much if it fixes the problem or not.

Technological solutions against humans' sex drives seem to be doomed to failure. For one we're largely talking about teenagers who are infamously horny and tech savvy, but even if we weren't, one glance at the history of MPs utterly failing to keep their trousers on (even when they know the stakes for being discovered arr ludicrously high) would put paid to that idea that people won't do stupid things for their libido.

However...porn does damage young minds. It does move the overton window to dangerous places (witness the rise in nonconsensual sexual choking, for example). Coupled with a generalized incapacity (or sense of hopelessness in the face of 24x7 algorithms?) for parents to keep their kids away from this stuff, what should be done? For Something Must Be Done.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#110

Post by arp242 »

VikingMiner wrote: post #72
arp242 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We believe that paedophiles are using an area of internet the size of Ireland, and through this they can control keyboards." – Syd Rapson MP in 2001. But really, with 650 MPs there's bound to be a few that are a bit silly at least some of the time. You can hear some wild takes at the local pub too (or nextdoor), but that doesn't mean everyone in your area is a moron.

I too have watched Brass Eye, and they literally had MPs telling people about the dangers of "cake" in a previous episode. It showed that MPs and TV celebrities would literally say anything Anchorman style if it was put on a teleprompter / script in front of them. They are nothing other than paid actors. While I don't believe everyone in Parliament is a moron. I think more than enough of them are moronic, out of touc…

Some journalist shows up with a somewhat implausible story and can tell any lie to convince you it's real. I can see how an MP might fall for it, and it's a mistake to think you're somehow above that. We also don't see any of the false positives; did they go "MP shopping" and we only saw the ones that did fall for it?
Post reply on HN