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

181–190 of 298 posts

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

#181

Post by varispeed »

pyrale wrote: post #125
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 conf…

OSA has nothing to do with prevention of influence though. It's about building scaffolding for mass surveillance.

If it was about influence, there are better ways to handle it, without forcing entire population to give up their personal data to some dodgy "age-check" companies. Many run by foreign hostile intelligence agencies.

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

#182

Post by roenxi »

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…

I think the original paraphrase is actually pretty reasonable even with the full context - what is Section 1 doing in the Act if it is primarily aimed at protecting children? There is a lot more public discourse going on than there are unsafe children. If the act deals with both it is, practically, an act aimed primarily at influencing the public discourse with some child-related rules tacked on. Something like 80% of a persons life on the internet is engaging with public discourse and 20% is as a child.

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

#183

Post by nrawe »

zimpenfish wrote: post #147
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…

> its not particularly different to other groups like environmental activists that commit criminal acts being proscribed I can't find any on [0] - do you have examples? [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...

I should note that my comparison was to a US organisation proscribed as an eco-terror organisation, the name of which escapes me, and which I couldn't find in a quick scan back through my reading or here[0]. I came across them through a podcast interviewing both sides about a decade out. I'll keep looking though and try and qualify my source :)

I guess what I mean is this: while I think the PA proscription is probably misjudged, it's not without its precedent.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism

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

#184

Post by redeyedtreefrog »

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... )

Black Mirror is the new 1984. Right wing people think "this is a parable of what left-of-centre politics gets you, look how clever I am". Left-of-centre people know that the author of 1984 fought for the socialists in the Spanish Civil War and that the author of Black Mirror is a Guardian journalist.

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

#185

Post by desas »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #142
rmccue wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will argue that the UK doesn't have a Constitution and that's because of this one thing: No parliament can bind a future parliament. A Constitution is exactly this: a contract binding all future Parliaments to a specific set of axioms that must be respected.

The US constitution is very similar, except in two important regards: amendments require two thirds majority votes in both houses and ratification by 75% of the states.

We don't have the state mechanism. You could argue the four nations could serve a similar purpose, though there's a debate about how democratic that is when England makes up something like 85% of the UK population (and doesn't have its own legislature).

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

#186

Post by whywhywhywhy »

khalic wrote: post #53
extraisland wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting for the alternatives won't make any difference either. The power structure is designed in such a way that it is difficult for the Government itself to do change anything.

Then create a new party, give talks about this, mobilize your friends, family, make them understand that civil liberty is literally worth dying for

Influence for this is obviously a 3rd party bankrolling it, it all came together in about 6 weeks in multiple countries. Doesn't matter who you vote in they'll just bankroll the next one too.

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

#187

Post by closewith »

jemmyw wrote: post #123
spacebanana7 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Before Brexit I would have said so too.

Given the dubbing of Gerry Adams, the coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan war crimes, and anything related to Ireland, I don't know you could possibly have believed this.

It was just that pre-Brexit, you agreed with the propaganda.

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

#188

Post by gadders »

esskay wrote: post #82
ap99 wrote: post #18

For the Americans looking at this act, you're maybe putting it in the context of American politics and thinking who cares if the porn sites have my face or id. But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else.

> But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else. It's hard to take this seriously, especially when if I ask for citations it'll likely be a couple of extremely obscure cases where the details are being conveniently glossed over.

You can get arrested for offending people in Whatsapp group chats: https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-model-paul-busetti...

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

#189

Post by dgroshev »

yungporko wrote: post #30
khalic wrote: post #9

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

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.

We just had the government backtrack on stopping giving money to better off pensioners (WFA) and tightening regulations on disability benefits (PIP) under pressure from the backbenchers and the media.

If your preferred cause is not cutting through in that way, it's worth asking what's different about the cause.

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

#190

Post by andai »

khalic wrote: post #84
andai wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that look like?

There is widely available literature analyzing public disobedience, I suggest you find some reliable source in your favorite learning media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

Thanks. So, Gandhi style peaceful resistance? Would that work in England, the way it did in India occupied by England?
Post reply on HN