Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#131

Post by Zak » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

xoa wrote: post #77

Zak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Preventing public discourse] is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230 What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?

> What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect? You mean, "repeal Section 230"? Because the entire point of Section 230 is to allow imperfect biased moderation without having to eliminate all user content. Such calls are ridiculous, stupid, or malicious on a host of levels. Making editorial decisions about what to allow on your own private property is core 1A…

The main thing I have in mind is machine learning algorithms that optimize for engagement. Those aren't necessarily biased in favor of a specific political position, but tend to amplify rumors over well-sourced reporting, demagoguery over reasoned debate, and often malicious false claims.

Off the top of my head, I don't have a good way to differentiate those algorithms in legal terms. As another comment points out, even sorting chronologically has an editorial effect of sorts, but these things are different and I know it when I see it. Perhaps someone wiser than me has an unambiguous definition.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#132

Post by causi » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end of the most horrific online abuse

Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading them. This is stuff from the first week of 1990s computer class in elementary school.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#133

Post by cge » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #34

9dev wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would it be? There's about 67 million people living in the UK, compared to the 447 million in the EU - depends on your definition of "small", but our company will likewise ignore any specific UK regulations. The handful of customers there isn't worth any additional overhead compared to the EU+US.

Of the countries in the world, the UK ranks sixth in GDP.

The problem with that measurement is that top GDPs fall off quickly. While the UK is the sixth, it's only around 3-4% of the global GDP, and while I can't find values from the same year at the moment, likely has a lower GDP than California. The EU is around 18% of the global GDP; the US, China, and EU together make up around 65% of global GDP, and each of them has at least triple the GDP of any other individual country.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#134

Post by comex » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #111

di4na wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair re Section 230, the interpretation the court have of it is... wildly on the side of the platform. In particular, it allows a company to wiggle out of its TOS if it seems the TOS could be construed at being more stringent than Section 230. There is definitely some change to do to section 230. I do not think it needs a repeal, but i do think it needs some rethinking and probably some more regulation on priva…

Bullcrap. There is nothing to wiggle out of because they don't have any actual obligation. Terms of service are a mutual courtesy and not a legal contract. They cannot have you arrested or fined for posting swears on their Christian Minecraft server but they can ban you.

If there’s an “I Agree” button you have to click, it’s a “clickwrap” contract, which courts in the US generally treat as enforceable. [1]

If the terms are just linked somewhere, it’s a “browsewrap” contract, which may or may not be enforceable. [2]

Other jurisdictions may differ.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#135

Post by Iv » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #78

commandlinefan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer This horribly written law can easily be interpreted to apply to ISP's as well - so if the ISP is allowing these peer-to-peer systems that allow "unsafe" content to be shared, they're liable for it too, or they have to shut down the peer-to-peer systems. Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand.

> Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand. Unless the UK significantly increases its military capacity and sets up world government, they will not be able to shut down the internet. The internet will still exist. The best they can hope for is a great firewall / North Korea type situation which would require a much more authoritarian (moreover fu…

Conservatives all over the world dream of setting up a chinese-style firewall in their countries. They are angry that it was first done by a clearly authoritarian regime which brings some resistance to the idea, but otherwise, in the name of fight against terrorism or child pornography, they would have set it up already.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#136

Post by dogleash » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

ChrisKnott wrote: post #101

joering2 wrote: post #67

> If a British child could merely type your URL into a browser, the site is in scope. Seems incorrect, no? The visit is more important than just typing URL. Worst-case scenario I will check your IP and if its in UK/GB scope, you will see "Unable to browse this site due to your-stupid-anti-blah-blah-UK-policy"

The whole article is written like this - hyperbolically presenting the least generous reading she possibly can of the proposed law. > [A pretty reasonable set of questions that companies must consider regarding how children might be harmed on their service] > "you’re probably curled up in a ball crying" No actually, I wasn't. Filtering out the breathless commentary, the actual proposals don't seem that bad...? Certai…

> presenting the least generous reading she possibly can of the proposed law

It's fine if you don't like the flourishes in her writing, but this is the correct way to read proposed legislation.

If the uncharitable reading describes the law enabling/preventing things in a way the authors don't intend, all they have to do is clarify the scope in the text of the bill.

The light least favorable to the drafting party is needed now. In 5 years when there are legal cases over the bounds of the law, the courts will use the text of the law rather that call in the authors and politicians that voted for it and check what they intended for the law to mean. Or maybe they would, I don't know how British courts work.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#137

Post by getSood666 » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

throwaway4aday wrote: post #53

Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media etc.? When government or industry makes it nearly impossible for consumer needs to be met we inevitably see a grey and black market spring up to meet those needs. My prediction is that if legislation like this becomes widespread we'll see a freely distributed application rise to prominence among a ga…

[dead]

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#138

Post by notnotjake » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #130

The extra-territoriality part is interesting. It's still part of the post-Brexit hangover. GDPR got enforced globally because a) it covered 500 million rich europeans so you could not ignore that market b) it was the first and not insane. This is insane - and worse the UK is just, just small enough that you could if you wanted, turn off the service to those geo-IPs and carry on. I wonder. If any non-English speaking…

What is the mechanism that allows it to apply extraterritorially? How can they make me comply?

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#139

Post by nickmyersdt » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

HeckFeck wrote: post #104

cowtools wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brits don't have freedom of speech AFIK. it was never in their social contract.

We had it through negative liberty, opposed to positive liberty. The approach was that everything was permitted except that which is forbidden. So, instead of a 'right to' free speech, rather we _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted). This was the understanding that would've permeated Parliament, the courts, the palace, and the hearts and minds of everyone who understood it…

What happened in 1997?

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#140

Post by reaperducer » Mon, Jul 11, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

causi wrote: post #132

who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end of the most horrific online abuse Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading…

While I don't disagree with you, it's important to remember that these companies spend billions of dollars to literally make their product addictive.

In school we teach kids how to be responsible with alcohol and drugs. But some still become addicted. The same applies to social media.

The difference is that instead of the pusher being some shady character at the back of the school bus, it's a massive company with marketing, public relations, and lobbying teams.