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

UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

bsky.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 298 posts

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#111

Post by fmajid »

dustincoates wrote: post #5

Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From the article: >First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primari…

The numbering as Category 1 does suggest that is the first and foremost purpose of the Act.

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#112

Post by skeezyboy »

perihelions wrote: post #71

In the Oxford philosophy-exam thread from yesterday, I was distracted by question #3: "Should anonymous posting online be forbidden?" [0] Never mind the quality of essay you (or your machine surrogate) could write about that. The striking thing is this is now within firmly within the Overton Window in British academia—this is what they seemingly teach their cultural elites in their elite schools. In place of Enlighte…

british nanny state has been in parlance the 60's, its not a new idea really

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#113

Post by abtinf »

darrenf wrote: post #97
nxm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is happening in Britain is people are being actually arrested for “offensive” speech, which is of course subjective, subject to abuse, and open to totalitarian oppression. This is why the First Amendment in the US constitution is so important

Arrests are up, but sentences are down — i.e. fewer convictions/criminal records https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off... > there are several reasons why an arrest may not result in a sentence, such as out-of-court resolutions, but said the “most common is “evidential difficulties””, specifically that the victim does not support taking further action. As mentioned at the top of the above docume…

That quote could be taken straight out of “Yes, Minister”.

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#114

Post by khalic »

doublerabbit wrote: post #100
khalic wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn’t turkye’s failed coup less than 10 years ago? Direct result of public intervention The French yellow vest The Dutch farmer protests I can go on if you want

Those are European, cool. Any successful UK protests? As that is the country we are talking about here.

Are you going to move the goalpost further if I give you one?

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#115

Post by L0in »

khalic wrote: post #63
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU wants to scan every private message you send. Are there protests in the streets? "The EU could be scanning your chats by October 2025 – here's everything we know" ( https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/the-eu-co... ) "Chat Control is back & we've got two months to stop the EU CSAM scanning plans" ( https://tuta.com/blog/chat-control-criticism )

Chat control is being actively campaigned against, and is not yet law. Civil disobedience, demonstrations and other more disruptive forms of protest come after the democratic options have been exhausted. Is this really news to you?

> demonstrations and other more disruptive forms of protest come after the democratic options have been exhausted

Are they though?

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#116

Post by skeezyboy »

khalic wrote: post #37
yungporko wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's really nothing anybody can do. protests dont work, riots dont work, petitions dont work, and theres nobody else to vote for who isn't also a cunt.

I’m just going to say it: you are wrong, protests, public pressure and civil disobedience are why you have many of the right you have today. I get you don’t have the will/energy/possibility to do anything, but don’t go around telling lies about the usefulness of public intervention.

how are the plebs meant to operate the state machinations? even Farage went to private school. We are a generation away from being able to make a difference beyond the riots

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#117

Post by tekla »

doublerabbit wrote: post #100
khalic wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn’t turkye’s failed coup less than 10 years ago? Direct result of public intervention The French yellow vest The Dutch farmer protests I can go on if you want

Those are European, cool. Any successful UK protests? As that is the country we are talking about here.

Brexit

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#118

Post by skeezyboy »

khalic wrote: post #99
extraisland wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really get annoyed when someone suggests this (it not your fault). You are believing what you are told at school about how Politics works. Many of us understand this is unrealistic. Here is an incomplete list of reasons why I would never get involved directly in politics: 1. It takes literally decades to get a political party off the ground without major backing. All the new parties that you hear of are bankrolled…

Sorry for your past, happy you got out of it. 1. Listen, yes it’s very hard work, but it’s this or be squeezed until there’s nothing else. And when people start having famines we’ll have a new French Revolution, millions will die, and this will require a lot more energy than doing changes today. 2. Will do, I don’t know enough on that subject to have an opinion on that. But unjust, unmovable systems, like monarchies…

give an example of a non violent movement such as youre describing. i dont think one has ever existed and actually achieved anything

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#119

Post by nrawe »

moomin wrote: post #92
nrawe wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't believe that's correct. There have been some people arrested for inciting violence via social media during the Southport riots. There is also Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has been remanded in custody for contempt of court for continuing to libel an immigrant even after his claims were proven to be false. And by contempt of court, he literally has produced a movie contin…

Vandalism and destruction of property is a shockingly low bar. The suffragettes threw an axe at the king and no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation.

I'll stand to be wrong, but I believe in one case a member of staff and two police officers were also assaulted. Terrorism isn't necessarily about body count, it's about motivation. If the motive is political change, and the ends is violence/criminal damaged/anti-social behaviour that tends to be enough. Similar cases exist in the US, too.

I personally think its a bit of a stretch and will likely be undone. However, to pretend they are simply peaceful protests being unfairly targeted is also incorrect.

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#120

Post by ChocolateGod »

moomin wrote: post #92
nrawe wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't believe that's correct. There have been some people arrested for inciting violence via social media during the Southport riots. There is also Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has been remanded in custody for contempt of court for continuing to libel an immigrant even after his claims were proven to be false. And by contempt of court, he literally has produced a movie contin…

Vandalism and destruction of property is a shockingly low bar. The suffragettes threw an axe at the king and no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation.

Breaking into a military base and attempting to damage military equipment used to defend the country is a very high bar.
Post reply on HN