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

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#111

Post by arp242 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #89
arp242 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand Keir Starmer on this. Or well, on anything really. The public has been pretty clear what they want most of all is a competent government that will take care of basic core tasks like cost of living, NHS, etc. Instead he takes a massively unpopular Tory culture war bill and implemented it as if it was his own idea (in addition to a number of other unforced baffling choices over the last year).…

Yes, exactly. You do in fact understand Starmer. You just hope you're wrong. The UK's aristos have decided that Farage should be the next PM, which is why he's been all over the media. Starmer is wholly owned by business interests which exist for the benefit of said aristos, and his job is to pander to those interests. He is absolutely indifferent to what the public wants, and he is willing to force through incredibl…

To be clear: I was joking, and I think what you're saying here is a load of cynical conspiratorial bollocks.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#112

Post by k1t »

gushie wrote: post #86
k1t wrote: post #41

Some sites (eg Google) offer child friendly versions where safe search is enforced, by accessing the site using a different set of IPs. Some DNS providers (eg Cloudflare 1.1.1.3) automatically resolve to those safe IPs when available. The government should require sites with "unsafe" content to make "safe" versions available (eg force safe mode, readonly, no signup). Sites that are wholly inappropriate for children s…

By default for me (in the UK) it still seems possible to view porn in a Google image search in an incognito browser tab. I don't think non technical parents can be expected to change their DNS settings to something safe to block it. I'm a bit unclear as to what the online safety bill is solving if Google can ignore it.

I 100% agree that today expecting average parents to manage DNS is unreasonable. My point is that sites need to provide some sort of consistent way for inappropriate content to be identified, then software will evolve to make it easy for non-technical parents to apply the restrictions.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#113

Post by pixxel »

arp242 wrote: post #111
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. You do in fact understand Starmer. You just hope you're wrong. The UK's aristos have decided that Farage should be the next PM, which is why he's been all over the media. Starmer is wholly owned by business interests which exist for the benefit of said aristos, and his job is to pander to those interests. He is absolutely indifferent to what the public wants, and he is willing to force through incredibl…

To be clear: I was joking, and I think what you're saying here is a load of cynical conspiratorial bollocks.

[dead]

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#114

Post by const_cast »

exasperaited wrote: post #42
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 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, This genuinely needs qualification and I suspect, based on discussions I have had with friends who are teachers and teaching assistants, that you would be horrified by how often very young children (seven, eight, nine years old) are viewing material that only a…

I view it as: yes, in general, "we" should stop kids watching porn. But should I stop kids watching porn? No, they're not my kids.

We don't necessarily need governmental or even technical solutions to everything. Sometimes the solution is "parties involved, figure it out". Ultimately, these aren't my kids, and I don't care much.

If it is really a big problem, then the people who care, i.e. each individual parent, should be taking up the problem. But, they're not. Which signals, to me, it's not actually that big of a problem.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#115

Post by ddmf »

arp242 wrote: post #54
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…

Since gambling laws have been relaxed in a number of countries over the last few years, there has been a rather concerning rise in teenage gambling addiction. This is perhaps a better example than porn. I'd be much more worried about my 14-year old spending all of their (or my) money on gambling than having a wank every once in a while. That said, I have accidentally landed on porn sites over the years (including in…

I'm sure I read somewhere that gambling isn't restricted by this Act, under request of the gambling industry.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#116

Post by TheBigSalad »

snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #29
TheBigSalad wrote: post #14

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I really hate this statement: Until we start thinking about the true test of any policy: implementation and enforcement. The true test of policy should be the desired outcome behind that policy.

If the desired outcome is world peace and the means of which is murdering every human then I don't think the desired outcome is all that relevant.

Is this HAL from space odyssey?

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#117

Post by TheBigSalad »

hexis wrote: post #27
TheBigSalad wrote: post #14

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I really hate this statement: Until we start thinking about the true test of any policy: implementation and enforcement. The true test of policy should be the desired outcome behind that policy.

Why would the desired outcome be a more true test than the actual outcome?

The test is whether or not the desired outcome is being achieved.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#118

Post by TheBigSalad »

gotoeleven wrote: post #25
TheBigSalad wrote: post #14

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I really hate this statement: Until we start thinking about the true test of any policy: implementation and enforcement. The true test of policy should be the desired outcome behind that policy.

You're saying the true test of a policy is its stated intentions? This attitude is exactly why we get so many terrible, unworkable policies with terrible unintended consequences (though often the consequences are so obvious that the claims that they are "unintended" are incredible).

The test is whether or not the desired outcome is being achieved.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#119

Post by hexis »

TheBigSalad wrote: post #117
hexis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the desired outcome be a more true test than the actual outcome?

The test is whether or not the desired outcome is being achieved.

Yes, but my point is what weight would the desired outcome have? Why not just observe the actual outcome and judge it directly?
Post reply on HN