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

211–220 of 298 posts

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

#211

Post by pyrale »

varispeed wrote: post #181
pyrale wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do agree it's not a good way to do it and mass surveillance is part of what we'll get as a result.

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

#212

Post by liveoneggs »

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.

All sides of all governments desperately want to install every oppressive thought-policing and free-speech limiting technology possible. They lust after China's "social credit score" and will do anything to control you.

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

#213

Post by pixxel »

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…

[dead]

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

#214

Post by tene80i »

khalic wrote: post #66
tene80i wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the point being made is that you are saying England when it is the entire UK under discussion. You are missing out three of the four nations of the U.K.

Don’t they have their own governments of sorts? Also, I would never accuse Irish or Scott’s of being passive in their response to political changes…

They do, but with limited powers. It’s not exactly the same as US states and the federal government, but you can think of them as regional governments or levels of government in that sort of way. The Scottish Parliament can pass some types of laws for Scotland. But Westminster (usually) passes laws for the entire UK.

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

#215

Post by pixxel »

redeyedtreefrog wrote: post #204
mcjiggerlog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yup entirely this. The biggest sign of this is Tommy Robinson, who has blatantly committed outrageous cases of stalking, harassment, and contempt of court, for which he has been convicted. But because his schtick is complaining about Muslims he is then treated as a hero of the US right, gets invited on right-wing talk shows and gets bigged up by Elon Musk. I recently had a guy sit next to me on a plane bring him up a…

[dead]

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

#216

Post by vidarh »

nrawe wrote: post #106
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.

So, here's the thing, the BBC has a whole section of its news site dedicated to the conflict, including documentation of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and Hamas. Its produced documentaries detailing the settlers movement. The BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. LBC regularly has pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people on. GBNews, Sky and the Murdock-verse have their views mostly from a pro-Israel POV, more left-le…

> I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested.

You might "just" get threatened with arrest:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-t...

Or you might get arrested:

https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/peter-tatchell-arres...

There are many similar ones, but they are now much harder to find due to the hundreds of arrests over Palestine Action.

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

#217

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by amanaplanacanal »

KaiserPro wrote: post #131
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

> Britain is people are being actually arrested for “offensive” speech This isn't actually new though. The difference is that they'd normally be nicked for breaching the peace, which is loosey goosey enough to be used for most things. ASBOs are far more totalitarian as they can legally stop people from doing legal things. (ie stop a child playing in a park) But to tackle your main point, Yes people are being arrested…

I think you mean broadcast TV. Broadcast radio is similar. The legal justification is something about the limited supply of public airwaves. Those regulations wouldn't fly in the US for any other medium.

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

#219

Post by khalic »

extraisland wrote: post #196
khalic wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ind…

> 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. I am not analysing things in a vaccum. I gave you some reasons why I don't believe these things are productive today. One of those is an example…

Oh yeah these services seem totally legitimate… you know what, keep believing what you want buddy, have a good day

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

#220

Post by vidarh »

toyg wrote: post #45
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.

Britain has always been very hypocritical about freedom of speech. Take for example "Speaker's Corner", an area of Hyde Park were police will tolerate any sort of speech - except that, if there are complaints and the speech is considered potentially unlawful, they will arrest the speaker right after he's done speaking.

Speaker's Corner has never been a place "were police will tolerate any sort of speech". It's a place where anyone can speak.

You're still subjected to exactly the same legal restrictions on the speech itself as anywhere else in public, and that's nothing new.

Post reply on HN