Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#261

Post by extraisland »

abustamam wrote: post #248
cm2012 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No i awkwardly phrased it. Im saying that demographic (also the majority here on HN) loves porn more than any other demographic.

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that the majority of HN loves porn? I've seen a few random references to it but nothing that would indicate that HN loves porn any more than any other community loves porn.

He is trying to cast the illusion that anyone that doesn't believe the YouGov polling on here (e.g. me) is suffering from cognitive bias.

While that is possible, it doesn't negate the fact I have good reasons to be suspicious of polling organisations such as YouGov.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#262

Post by Mogzol »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #129
willtemperley wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. HTTP 451 "Unavailable For Legal Reasons" was made for this moment.

No, they should block with a very visible message, tailored to the british public. I know what that status message means, you know it, but the general public doesn't. They need the black page with big letters they used before with sopa/pipa/etc.

You can return a 451 error with a descriptive page, same as how sites have custom 404 pages

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#263

Post by lupusreal »

abustamam wrote: post #248
cm2012 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No i awkwardly phrased it. Im saying that demographic (also the majority here on HN) loves porn more than any other demographic.

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that the majority of HN loves porn? I've seen a few random references to it but nothing that would indicate that HN loves porn any more than any other community loves porn.

He didn't say the majority of HN loves porn. He said that male demographic likes porn more than any other, and that demographic is the majority of HN. It doesn't logically follow that the majority of HN supports porn.

Fake statistics just to illustrate the difference. Males 18-40 support porn at 60%, which is higher than any other demographic. HN is 60% males 18-40. With these numbers, 36% of HN is males 18-40 who support porn, and if all other demographics on HN oppose it, then those 36% are the minority.

(By the way, I have no idea what the real numbers are, and don't really care. I'm just responding to an evident confusion about what was actually said.)

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#264

Post by varispeed »

bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

> It creates a safer online world for some.

The thieves no longer have to hack servers in order to obtain sensitive data, they can just set up an age-check company and lure businesses with attractive fees.

In that sense it is safer (for criminals).

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#265

Post by kieranmaine »

Ravus wrote: post #97
phpnode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other point is that recent polls suggest the British public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation [0], which is not reflected in most of the narrative we see online. Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. [0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

It's sadly an example of terrible leading question bias, to the point where I'm surprised that it even got a 22% oppose rate. The percentages would change dramatically were one to write it as, "From everything you have seen and heard, do you support or oppose the recent rules requiring adults to upload their id or a face photo before accessing any website that allows user to user interaction?" Both questions are fact…

This doesn't quite cover what you're looking for but I think a previous survey led with a question that mentioned uploading ID - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202....

I can't find the survey it's entirety, but I think the above question was followed by (this is based on the number at the end of the URL, which I'm guessing is quesiton order) - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#266

Post by adamm255 »

drawfloat wrote: post #197
bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.

If the current government reversed it, the 'oh think of the children' angle from the Tories/Reform against them would be relentless. I cant say they have been amazing at messaging as it is.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#267

Post by zdragnar »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #256
fmbb wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the British monarchy that is performative, not their democracy.

Ironically, while I am absolutely not a monarchist, it provides a kind of stability to British democracy, because it mostly transcends party politics, unlike other presidential systems. Indeed, the founding fathers of the US identified political parties as a threat to their republic.

And yet, there were defacto political parties in the delightfully misnamed federalist and anti-federalists. It was this divide that led to the first political parties.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#269

Post by yupyupyups »

entuno wrote: post #71
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #10

Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no". > The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and eff…

Those petitions aren't really worth anything - governments have ignored ones with over six million signatures before. And they also ignored this one a few years back that had just under 700,000 signatures to "make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account": https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/575833 Ironically, the primary reason they gave for rejecting it was: > However, restricting…

>These users include young people exploring their gender or sexual identity

And who would they need to hide from?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#270

Post by Ntrails »

bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments.

It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a government that can barely keep up with the fires of its own making let alone the many the world is imposing upon them. Along with that, watching the horse trading going on over every change they make - I don't see how they ever get a meaningful final text over the line.

It's not a mainstream political priority at all to my knowledge, so I'm mostly curious why you disagree!

Post reply on HN