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

271–280 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#271

Post by JumpCrisscross »

extraisland wrote: post #261
abustamam wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I have good reasons to be suspicious of polling organisations such as YouGov

You have secret reasons to suspect all polling?

If that is the case, and where suspicious means automatically rejecting anything that doesn’t agree with your vibes, then yes, that is a deep and flawed bias and statistical illiteracy.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#272

Post by dh2022 »

andrepd wrote: post #103
echelon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Three links from manifestly right-wing organisations decrying the lack of free speech on the left are not exactly convincing.

Linking from right-wing organizations does not make the facts presented in the articles less true… you should critique the content of the articles, not their origin.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#273

Post by Metricon »

extraisland wrote: post #121
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...

People constantly cite this poll as it is proof that British people want this. You cannot trust the YouGov polling. It is flawed. > Despite the sophisticated methodology, the main drawback faced by YouGov, Ashcroft, and other UK pollsters is their recruitment strategy: pollsters generally recruit potential respondents via self-selected internet panels. The American Association of Public Opinion Research cautions that…

It seems like some things always remain the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#274

Post by matt-p »

yupyupyups wrote: post #269
entuno wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

School bullys, parents, friends, community members, church leaders and many others I imagine. The idea was that it would have your real name and it was verified by your ID.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#275

Post by yamazakiwi »

yupyupyups wrote: post #269
entuno wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From people who would harm them?

Oh you're that anti-games, anti-porn guy, best to ignore anything you say.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#276

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

zdragnar wrote: post #267
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, they cannot be avoided really, except by a system where party allegiance cannot influence the choice (like hereditary power).

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#277

Post by ajsnigrutin »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #133
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…

> Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? I'm quite critical of the implementation of this legislation but the idea of an American company throwing their weight around trying to influence policy decisions in the UK gives me the ick. Fair enough…

> Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in?

They do that by staying out of such countries. Many US companies don't want to work with EU GDPR and just block all european IPs, wikipedia has full right to leave UK. They are under no obligations to provide service to them in the same was as pornhub is under no obligation to provide services in eg. a country that would require them to disclose IP addresses of all viewers of gay porn, etc.

Saying that it was a democratic decision without people actually being asked if they want that (referendum) is just weaseling out instead of directly pointing out that it's a bad policy that very few brits actually wanted. Somehow no one uses the same words when eg. trump does something (tarifs, defunding, etc.), no one is talking about democratic decisions of americans then.

Wikipedia has the full right to say "nope, we're not playing that game" and pulling out, even if an actual majority of brits want that.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#278

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zdragnar wrote: post #267
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> this divide that led to the first political parties

Maybe in Britain. Parties were definitely a thing going back to Roman politics.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#279

Post by simonw »

kieranmaine wrote: post #265
Ravus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-resu…

Are there any credible surveys on this topic that don't use the term "pornographic websites" in the survey question?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#280

Post by albertgoeswoof »

Lio wrote: post #154

One of the most interesting things about this legislation is where it comes from. Primarily it was drafted and lobbied for by William Perrin OBE and Prof Lorna Woods at Carnegie UK[1], billed as an “independent foundation”. William Perrin is also the founder of Ofcom. So he’s been using the foundation’s money to lobby for the expansion of his unelected quango. It has also been suggested that one of the largest benefi…

Another source to back up the first claim https://carnegieuk.org/blog/online-safety-and-carnegie-uk/

I would like to see much more thorough journalism on the origin of these laws

Post reply on HN