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

161–170 of 298 posts

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

#161

Post by xienze »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #70
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

There are very significant concerns about the actions of the Westminster government recently no doubt – this is stupid legislation, and it compounds with other stupid legislation (see the recent arrests for supporting proscribed groups). Everyone should be protesting this nonsense. That said, there is equally a clear and obvious effort to distort what is happening. And I don't think anybody should really be taking le…

Ignoring the usual baiting about how those brown people are illegal aliens and that’s the underlying reason they’re being rounded up — European countries are always held up as the standard the US should strive towards. So yes, it’s fair game for us to criticize them when they do things like police “offensive” speech.

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

#162

Post by dgroshev »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #70
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

There are very significant concerns about the actions of the Westminster government recently no doubt – this is stupid legislation, and it compounds with other stupid legislation (see the recent arrests for supporting proscribed groups). Everyone should be protesting this nonsense. That said, there is equally a clear and obvious effort to distort what is happening. And I don't think anybody should really be taking le…

The government in power has little to do with the Act, it was passed two years ago by a different party that is now refusing to own the mess that they created. Sure, one can say that the government could be more diligent at repealing bad laws, but the Parliament had quite a few things on its plate already, so it's not surprising that this Act coming into power during the summer recess wasn't high on the agenda.

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

#163

Post by password54321 »

khalic wrote: post #9

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

That requires coordination and corporation in a society that is fragmented. It is hard to have a non-hostile interaction these days let alone unity over an online related issue.

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

#164

Post by closewith »

rmccue wrote: post #101
Yeul wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American and I find the English legal system hilarious. In practically all countries a bunch of smart people got together in the 19th century to write a constitution but the British thought that they were above such petty concerns.

The UK has a constitution, it's just not written in a single place. Many (most?) western societies have a similar concept for civil and criminal law with common law jurisdictions, where precedent is used rather than an explicit, exhaustive legal code. Effectively, the UK's constitution is to written constitutions as common law is to civil law.

That's nonsense as there are plenty of common law countries with monolithic constitutions. Unlike common vs civil law systems which are both widespread globally, the UK is the outlier in having no written constitution.

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

#165

Post by exe34 »

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…

I think it's fair to say that the maggats will say whatever they need to achieve their aim, not what they believe to be true. They have the national guard deployed in their capital to stifle dissent by the same orange taint who said he wasn't allowed to do that when it was his people trying to stage a violent self-coup (and he has since pardoned those criminals).

What they want is a similar fascist group in the UK to do well in the next election - and freedom of speech is one of the easiest things to moan about when criminals are getting nabbed.

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

#166

Post by khalic »

extraisland wrote: post #127
khalic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

You’re analysing things in a vacuum, there are historical and contemporary examples of public protest, pressure campaigns and civil disobedience leading to policy change, and you’re arguing they’re what, all CIA plants or impossible? If not, please make your point clearer.

Have you any proof that these rent a mob thing exists? You used “maybe part”... Please find a specific service for renting a mob, not a single individual or small group. Or proof that this service exists, because this is an awfully convenient way to bend the narrative to your side “they were all faking it” is almost never a valid hypothesis

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

#167

Post by closewith »

zimpenfish wrote: post #150
nrawe wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brit, I'd agree that it's not ideal. However, the characterisation of terrorist scare in the 2000's, is somewhat off. Over the course of the last two decades, there have been numerous terrorist attacks, most notably 7/9, which have led to increased vigilance and securitisation. So while travelling in Hungary, Croatia, or Italy over the last few years I've noted the difference, I also appreciate that each country…

> Over the course of the last two decades, there have been numerous terrorist attacks And don't forget the 3-4 decades before that where terrorist attacks were just a fact of life in the UK.

> And don't forget the 3-4 decades before that where terrorist attacks were just a fact of life in the UK.

Most of which were performed by the British Government through police, military, and paramilitary forces against its own citizens.

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

#168

Post by exasperaited »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #28
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…

Doesn't this just mean that it is about "protecting children" and influence over public discourse? The fact remains that the Category 1 rules impose onerous duties on websites that have a significant influence over public discourse, with the effect that many of them will see their influence significantly reduced and may have to fold altogether if they cannot afford to comply. In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA…

> In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA itself that the definition of Category 1 is not primarily about capturing porn sites.

Indeed it is not.

The main focus of the Category 1 stuff is evidently whether big sites are actually doing enough to allow children (and parents) to report threats and danger and not see content they don't want to see.

It is for example about trying to reduce harms to children from pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content as well, and about compelling the Category 1 services to provide mechanisms so children can report bullying, grooming and online sexual exploitation from other users.

And also to provide some access to oversight and reporting from to those mechanisms.

That is to say: if a Category 1 service is open to children, it needs to have workable mechanisms to allow children to report threatening and disturbing content and messaging from other users, it needs to at least provide context/warnings around and probably filter pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content, and it is required to be able to present evidence of how those tools are being used and whether they are effective.

If you've ever tried to get Facebook to take down a scam ad (like, for example, the plethora of ads now using an AI-generated Martin Lewis) you will understand that there are genuine concerns about whether the tools available to non-adult users are effective for anything at all.

Category 1 regulations have not yet been finalised and they are not merely being imposed; the likely Category 1 services are being consulted.

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

#169

Post by gadders »

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…

>> some kind of totalitarian oppressor

Well, it's only really happening for people on the Right. If you're firmly within the left wing Overton Window (apart from perhaps Israel/Palestine), you don't have much to fear from Two Tier Kear.

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

#170

Post by angusturner »

nickslaughter02 wrote: post #130
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... )

As an Aussie, I was feeling somewhat consoled about the state of the US by the fact that the EU and UK still seem to have their heads screwed on.

OSA and chat control have made me seriously rethink that…

Has everyone lost their mind?

Post reply on HN