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

121–130 of 298 posts

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

#121

Post by vidarh »

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #40
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…

There oddly seems to be a concerted effort online to paint the UK as some kind of failing police state recently. This narrative seems to have really taken off with some Americans, who now seem completely convinced that the UK government is some kind of totalitarian oppressor who are snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile, Brits just look on at this narrative wondering what the hell they're talking about. Look, I…

As someone who does live in the UK, and has for 25 years, while I too see the distortion you talk about, things have taken a distinct turn towards authoritarianism to the point that I watch what I write under my own name.

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

#122

Post by kindkang2024 »

khalic wrote: post #9

What’s with england and its complete lack of response to this kind of power grabs?

How to rig freedom?

It’s simple: you only need the wille to rig and the power to freely manifest that will. No matter how elegant the design of a democratic system, or how many procedural safeguards exist, nothing can stop you.

Sad but true—if there isn’t enough power to balance that wille.

May all who value freedom also have the power to defend it.

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

#123

Post by jemmyw »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #33
CommanderData wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko I strongly suspect it's also meant to curtail growing support among youth for Palestine in the Israel/Gaza conflict. https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 Essentially creating an internet for children/teens that echos the government narrative.

The online safety act was drafted long before Oct 2023. But broadly I agree, in the sense that the government are uncomfortable with political movements they lack the ability to shape or control. In hindsight it's incredible just how much influence the British government has historically had over media. The largest TV and radio stations were often directly government owned (BBC, Radio 1, Channel 4) and many newspaper…

> Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction

Before Brexit I would have said so too. The government regularly clashed with the BBC. And Channel 4 news was a delight. Recently the TV channels have clearly been brought into line via governance and the need to change the funding.

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

#124

Post by jbjbjbjb »

khalic wrote: post #9

What’s with england and its complete lack of response to this kind of power grabs?

All the main parties are behind it, some say it doesn’t go far enough.

The vast majority of the British public absolutely love to ban things. If you listen to talk radio or daytime tv most of the time they’ll be having a discussion on banning something. We have a nanny state and the public like it that way.

Personally I use an allow list for my kids internet access and don’t rely on the state to parent them. I guess that’s too much bother for most people.

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

#125

Post by pyrale »

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…

I'm going to say something that many here won't like given the usual reaction to European regulation, but social media platforms have enabled multiple foreign influence political campaign operations during election times in Europe, and notably led to the invalidation of the 2024 Romanian presidential election [1].

As of recently, probably bolstered by the new US admin, US social media platforms have taken a more confrontational towards regulators in EU countries where they operate. For instance, Twitter refused to cooperate with a French investigation [2].

It really is unsurprising that European countries muscle up their legislative response to what they see increasingly as media platforms going rogue in support of operations aimed to distort political debate in Europe. The only alternative would be to outright ban US social media and build EU platforms.

[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lection_pr%C3%A9sidentie...

[2]: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/07/21/x-refuse...

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

#126

Post by ants_everywhere »

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #40
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…

There oddly seems to be a concerted effort online to paint the UK as some kind of failing police state recently. This narrative seems to have really taken off with some Americans, who now seem completely convinced that the UK government is some kind of totalitarian oppressor who are snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile, Brits just look on at this narrative wondering what the hell they're talking about. Look, I…

it's become fashionable for people to just lie about things in order to shock the audience into their point of view.

What's more, they try to bully other people into lying about things to get their way. For example, I can't tell you many times I've read comments saying we'll never get anywhere if we insist on playing by the rules.

Playing by the rules here means things like being honest.

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

#127

Post by extraisland »

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.

There are a number of issues with this view:

- I've been to many protests in my time and often I believe them to be counter productive e.g. Critical Mass. I travelled to London twice to see what the protest was about. This was in the mid-2000s. I saw lots of annoyed commuters, lots of people getting drunk/high and it was more of a social gathering than a protest.

- Street movements are easily infiltrated by malign actors e.g. The CIA have a term called "initial instigator", this is where you turn a riot into a protest by inserting a person or people that will cause trouble. The CIA (and I would imagine British Intelligence) have handbooks on how to subvert/run a protest/riot. You can find these online.

- Many of the protesters you see maybe part of a rent-a-mob. You can literally go to company, and much like you would for film or TV hire a bunch of people to be in the background.

- I have plenty of will and energy to get involved. However often I find that many leaders make the mistake of being too inclusive. This means that often you will end up with people that will intentionally or unintentionally turn your movement into something else. If you listen to some of the account of people that were at Occupy Wallstreet, this is one of the reasons why the protests failed.

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

#128

Post by normie3000 »

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.

> no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation

Is this true? I'd be surprised.

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

#129

Post by vixen99 »

nrawe wrote: post #87
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

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…

In one area at least, there is progress: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-speech-rules-to-prot...

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

#130

Post by nickslaughter02 »

throwaway_dang wrote: post #26

From my perspective, the UK is a failing state and not worth thinking about. Not much can be learned from the UK except what to avoid doing if you don't want to become them.

List:

1. Don't handcuff 90-year-olds with dementia and put a hood over their heads (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66317636)

2. Don't take inspiration from Minority Report / Black Mirror - "AI to help police catch criminals before they strike" (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ai-to-help-police-catch-c...)

Post reply on HN