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

281–290 of 298 posts

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

#281

Post by spwa4 »

exasperaited wrote: post #168
NoboruWataya wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In fact it is pretty obvious from the OSA itself that the definition of Category 1 is not primarily about capturing porn sites. Indeed it is not. The main focus of the Category 1 stuff is evidently whether big sites are actually doing enough to allow children (and parents) to report threats and danger and not see content they don't want to see . It is for example about trying to reduce harms to children from pro-su…

> It is for example about trying to reduce harms to children from pro-suicide and pro-anorexia content as well, and about compelling the Category 1 services to provide mechanisms so children can report bullying, grooming and online sexual exploitation from other users.

Except ... if the government really wanted to improve children's and teenage mental health in the UK, they could easily increase the budget for treatments and youth services. That would be the first thing to do, and they're doing the opposite.

Which shows that they just don't care. Taking needed money away from the most vulnerable children on one hand and claiming that new legislation protects children ... does not sum to protecting children.

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

#282

Post by Jensson »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #249
desas wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing applies in the US doesn't it? There has essentially only been two political parties (three if you squint hard enough) for nearly the entire existence of the country?

The US problem is the lack of proportional representation. Getting support of 49% of the population gets you 0% role in government.

UK also has that problem, but its even worse with a minority supported government getting majority power.

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

#283

Post by tacticus »

nrawe wrote: post #119
moomin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vandalism and destruction of property is a shockingly low bar. The suffragettes threw an axe at the king and no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation.

I'll stand to be wrong, but I believe in one case a member of staff and two police officers were also assaulted. Terrorism isn't necessarily about body count, it's about motivation. If the motive is political change, and the ends is violence/criminal damaged/anti-social behaviour that tends to be enough. Similar cases exist in the US, too. I personally think its a bit of a stretch and will likely be undone. However,…

Yeah the assault one is interesting cause they didn't end up charging them with it at all... perhaps reading the police statements without corroborating evidence is problematic.

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

#284

Post by octo888 »

khalic wrote: post #39
gambiting wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the UK for 15 years now and the complete political apathy is probably what bothers me the most about this country. Few years back when they made it so that every ISP had to log your entire browsing history and keep it for a year and 17 different government agencies(including DEFRA, the agriculture ministry!) can access it without a warrant, barely anyone cared. Wasn't really mentioned in public media, o…

Thank you for the insight, I thought the economic hardship after brexit would make them realise the importance of civic duty…

After COVID*

Oh wait it's a bit hard to differentiate isn't it, given the timing...

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

#285

Post by octo888 »

foldr wrote: post #88
gambiting wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the UK for 15 years now and the complete political apathy is probably what bothers me the most about this country. Few years back when they made it so that every ISP had to log your entire browsing history and keep it for a year and 17 different government agencies(including DEFRA, the agriculture ministry!) can access it without a warrant, barely anyone cared. Wasn't really mentioned in public media, o…

>Few years back when they made it so that every ISP had to log your entire browsing history and keep it for a year This is a significant exaggeration in two respects. First, SSL ensures that ISPs cannot log your literal browser history. They can log which domains you visit, how often you visit them, how much data was transferred, etc. etc. Second, the law requires ISPs to be able to retain this data on a specific ind…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/internet-provi...

> Two internet providers are tracking and collecting the websites visited by their customers as part of a secretive Home Office trial, designed to work out if a national bulk surveillance system would be useful for national security and law enforcement.

> Home Office sources indicated that it was taking advantage of abilities in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to test what data can be acquired, how useful it is in practice, and how it might be used in investigations.

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

#286

Post by IanCal »

mdp2021 wrote: post #20
icarouse wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see much of the rest of it as being similar to alcohol licensing laws. Pubs and bars have restrictions on how they operate, for the good of the community and society.

Now picture the profiles of those who would present a document to enter a pub, and picture the profiles of those who would present a document to access a forum.

This isn’t about presenting a document to enter a forum.

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

#287

Post by mdp2021 »

IanCal wrote: post #286
mdp2021 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now picture the profiles of those who would present a document to enter a pub, and picture the profiles of those who would present a document to access a forum.

This isn’t about presenting a document to enter a forum.

In fact I miswrote: I understand it is about presenting a document to access webpages. In the equivalent proposal in Australia, they spoke about presenting a document to access search engines. Surely my mention of "forums" was rushed on the spot and reductive.

So, what did you mean? Have I fell into some confusion in legislations?

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

#288

Post by foldr »

octo888 wrote: post #285
foldr wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Few years back when they made it so that every ISP had to log your entire browsing history and keep it for a year This is a significant exaggeration in two respects. First, SSL ensures that ISPs cannot log your literal browser history. They can log which domains you visit, how often you visit them, how much data was transferred, etc. etc. Second, the law requires ISPs to be able to retain this data on a specific ind…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/internet-provi... > Two internet providers are tracking and collecting the websites visited by their customers as part of a secretive Home Office trial, designed to work out if a national bulk surveillance system would be useful for national security and law enforcement. > Home Office sources indicated that it was taking advantage of abilities in the Investigatory Powers…

Again, this refers to the domains, not the full URL. As a factual point, ISPs do not retain full browser history, and the IPA does not require them to do so for all customers all the time. It's true that we do not know how much data ISPs are in fact recording. I agree that this is concerning. I am opposed to the IPA. However, I also think that we should take the time to get the facts exactly right when criticizing it. This is understandably an emotive issue for a lot of folks on HN, and there is a tendency to let factual inaccuracies slide if they are part of an argument against internet surveillance. In my opinion the IPA is bad enough as is, and it is not necessary to exaggerate its effects in order to make a strong case against it.

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

#289

Post by const_cast »

gadders wrote: post #258
hopelite wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it was effectively facilitated by the British government through its actions and policies. The whole highest order issue in the whole west is that there is not only effectively zero responsibility, zero accountability, but also zero consequences. The easiest to understand example of this may be how corporations can commit all manner of what are effectively crimes (i.e., it is what you would be charged with)…

The rest of your text may have a bit of a point, but: >>effectively facilitated by the British government through its actions and policies. Nothing justifies blowing up teenage girls you deluded psychopath.

> Nothing justifies blowing up teenage girls you deluded psychopath.

This is why there is zero accountability in the West. Because as soon as we say "hey, policy had some hand in this", people like yourself come out of the woodwork with language such as this to shut the conversation down.

Believe it or not, Terrorism IS a policy issue. If you have bad policy, then you are partially responsible when terrorism happens!

Even natural disasters are a policy issue. For example, here in Texas we had a flood where a lot of people, including young girls, drowned.

This is the type of thing that gets affected when you, say, cut budgets for weather and climate surveillance services. But when you point this out, braindead republicans will say "wowww so you're politicizing the death of little girls? Shame on you!"

But it is political, because everything is political, because politics is literally how modern humans structure their society. It's not team sports. If you cut money for thing X, things that rely on thing X will die, and that includes humans.

The reason people want to shut this coversation down over and over again is because they don't want to be accountable. They voted for something, knowing deep down it's bad and it's gonna lead to some people dying, and they feel immense shame for this. So, they would prefer to simply pretend the issue does not exist, then to have some accountability.

You see, they vote for policies for their direct consequences, but then they don't want to be responsible for those consequences either. That's not possible, those two don't compute together.

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

#290

Post by IanCal »

mdp2021 wrote: post #287
IanCal wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t about presenting a document to enter a forum.

In fact I miswrote: I understand it is about presenting a document to access webpages. In the equivalent proposal in Australia, they spoke about presenting a document to access search engines. Surely my mention of "forums" was rushed on the spot and reductive. So, what did you mean? Have I fell into some confusion in legislations?

The problem here is there is a big bit of legislation and people are focussed on one outcome of it, which is what you will have heard.

It’s a bill about safety online. The onus is moved to the provider to mitigate harms or decide they don’t apply/are low risk.

For porn providers the outcome is fairly clear, to check your users are of age. This was kind of always the case but “are you over 18 yes or no” is not enough.

For other sites it’s making sure there are reporting mechanisms for child abuse content. It’s making sure there’s moderation to manage grooming, self harm stuff etc.

People can fairly argue about the bill but it’s not about age or user verification. That’s one outcome for one set of sites.

Post reply on HN