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

281–290 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#281

Post by michaelt »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #220
OhioMan2943 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The old generation of idealists grew up and we raised no one to replace them. I know because I'm in that emotionally and ideologically stunted generation.

Why did they raise no one to replace them?

A lot of 1990s tech optimists thought that people with awful opinions were the unfortunate victims of a lack of access to books and education; and the strict gatekeeping of broadcast media by the powerful.

This new multi-media technology was going to give everyone on the planet access to a complete free university education, thousands of books, and would prevent the likes of Chinese state-run media suppressing knowledge about Tienanmen Square.

And after they receive this marvellous free education, all the communists and nazis and religious nutjobs will realise they were wrong and we were right. We won't need any censorship though, in our enlightenment-style marketplace of ideas, rational argument is all that's needed to send bad ideas packing, and the educated audience will have no trouble seeing through fallacies and trickery.

Also the greater education will mean everyone can get better jobs and make more money, and with this trade with China we're just ramping up they'll see our brilliant democratic system, and peacefully adopt it. The recently fallen Soviet Union is of course going to do the same, and it's going to go really well. We'll all live happily ever after.

This Bill Clinton chap has a federal budget surplus, now we're not spending all that money on the cold war, so we'll get that national debt paid off in no time too.

You may be able to figure out why this particular brand of optimism isn't so fashionable these days.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#282

Post by joemi »

cft wrote: post #36
andiareso wrote: post #19

All US companies should boycott the UK in solidarity. See how fast the regulators walk back the bill.

why would they? This is great for the large media corps: - Increases barrier to entry for smaller competitors - Reliable user data (age, race, who knows what else) derived from video age verification Anecdote: My mom recently visited Spain. The process of buying a local SIM card was as follows: • Show your US passport at a major local cellular provider’s store (Movistar) to have its number associated with the SIM. •…

> then close your eyes and smile when prompted

I was about to ask about this, but then I realized it must so that you can't just point it at a photo of someone.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#283

Post by matt-p »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #145
Henchman21 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it quite right that the public gets ignored all the time? How do you force your representatives to actually represent their constituents?

I have just described how the public drives the democratic process to ensure everyone gets a voice, not just whoever shouts the loudest. That's the opposite of ignoring the public.

If the public truly drove the democratic process we'd have proportional representation or something other than the current system.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#285

Post by yupyupyups »

matt-p wrote: post #274
yupyupyups wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>parents

You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids.

Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet.

The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic.

If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into question their desire to protect children online in the first place.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#287

Post by matt-p »

phpnode wrote: post #85
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…

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...

Ok and how about if it was phrased;

"Are you in favour of requiring ages verification for Wikipedia and other websites"

"Are you in favour of uploading your ID card and selfie each time you visit a site that might contain porn"

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#288

Post by immibis »

dh2022 wrote: post #272
andrepd wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Brandolini's Law is relevant. If we havs to carefully point-by-point critique every point our opponent makes, while they get to use ChatGPT to write nonsense at fifty times human reading speed, we lose.

To work around this, when a bullshit-producing organization is cited, it's proper to ask for an alternative citation from an organization that produces mostly non-bullshit. If it truly isn't bullshit content, there should be many, so cite one.

It's just spam filtering. I don't reply to "forward this to ten people you know or suffer eternal damnation" but my ignorance doesn't mean they're right. If you put important content in an email starting with "Dear Sir or Madam, I have a business proposal, I am a Nigerian prince" that's on you and the fact that I ignore your email doesn't mean I agree with whatever you wrote in the email.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#289

Post by skeaker »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #195
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that would be tricky, since Wikipedia is not a business, and is nor is it specifically American. (Other than a foundation in the US that runs the servers) . There are Wikipedias in many of the world's languages! If the UK effectively bans public wikis above a certain size (even if by accident), then it is the law of the land that Wikipedia is banned. Or at least the english wikipedia, which is indeed very large…

By Wikipedia I meant the foundation of course. I'm not sure localisation automatically makes them a multinational entity. Windows is available in Chinese but we both understand that Microsoft is not a Chinese company. It is fair to say it's not a business, but essentially there's no difference to my feeling that private entities from other countries shouldn't be throwing their weight around in local democracy. Do you…

> Do you feel that Wikipedia today is banned through the letter of the law? If so why is there a question of it continuing to operate there?

This isn't so much up to feeling as it is up to interpretation of the law. If there isn't a good way for Wikipedia to hide parts of itself and the law requires that it does, then it is effectively banned by the letter of the law.

The question of it continuing to operate exists because it is an obvious good to society that the law is yet to act on shutting down themselves. Right now it continues to exist in the UK despite being illegal due to the good will (or incompetence if you're not feeling generous) of the UK government.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#290

Post by yupyupyups »

yamazakiwi wrote: post #275
yupyupyups wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I'm not anti-games.

>From people who would harm them?

Like who? I really hope you don't mean the kids' parents.

Post reply on HN