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

291–300 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#291

Post by Arch-TK »

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…

I wish all non-UK entities which may be affected by this law just dropped the UK. But unfortunately it seems they have too much money invested in not doing that.

But I'm sure even if that happened, the public consensus would just be "good riddance".

This is an absolutely bizarre country to live in.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#292

Post by pram »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #112
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…

It's quite right that petitions are (mostly) ignored in Parliamentary matters, IMHO. MPs are elected to Parliament, they get input from their constituents. Bills are debated, revised, voted on multiple times. There are consultations and input from a board range of view points. A petition is in effect trying to shout over all that process from the street outside.

Yeah who do these peasants think they are?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#293

Post by throwaway29812 »

bakugo wrote: post #192
vaylian wrote: post #182

Wikipedia has been introduced as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyone can publish problematic material or false information. But it's also Wikipedia's greatest strength that it has been so open to basically everyone and that gave us a wide range of really good articles that rivaled the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is a product of the free internet. It is a product of a world that many politicians still…

> And they also do it to score brownie points with their conservative voting base. Care to remind me what side of the political spectrum was desperately trying to silence all health-related discourse that did not match the government's agenda just a few years ago?

[dead]

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#294

Post by quotemstr »

Metricon wrote: post #273
extraisland wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is a Yes, {Prime Minister,Minister} for every occasion in tech.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#296

Post by johnnyanmac »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #242
johnnyanmac wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all it's issues, it's practically bad faith to argue that the UK is a democracy in the spirit of the term. I believe that's how the EU works with law? Oh yeah, they left that.

I have no idea what this means.

Representives not representing their constituents makes democracy a sham. If you think representatives as of late are acting in good faith, I question yours.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#297

Post by matt-p »

yupyupyups wrote: post #285
matt-p wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ques…

I do, of course. It's just worth considering that not every parent is how you or I might like or imagine them to be.

For some children their parents finding out they're gay would cause a great deal of real world physical or phycological harm. It's a really tricky thing to navigate, but aside from saying 'no children should be allowed access to the internet unsupervised' it gets really difficult.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#298

Post by kelipso »

yupyupyups wrote: post #285
matt-p wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ques…

Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#299

Post by tempestn »

I was just vacationing in the UK last week and ran into this ridiculous thing trying to browse (entirely non-pornographic, fwiw) Reddit threads. Which I opted not to read rather than going through the hassle and privacy breach.

Also got to experience the full force of the cookie law, which I hadn't realized I was only seeing a fraction of here in Canada.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#300

Post by jacquesm »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #205
__oh_es wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd - they also believe it wont be effective https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

The moment the Russia Ukraine war hit, the top 10 apps in Russia was half VPNs. As long as websites don't want to lock out any user without an account, and as long as vpns exist, it'll be hard to enforce any of this. At least for now, that's one line big tech won't let them cross easily.

It isn't a requirement to enforce this. All it does is to ensure that you will be more at risk of breaking the law and that little detail will show that you intended to evade the law so your presumption of innocence gets dinged: apparently you knew that what you were doing was wrong because you used a VPN so [insert minor offense or thought crime here] is now seen in a different light.

Selective enforcement is much more powerful as a tool than outright enforcement, before you know it double digit percentages of the populace are criminals, that might come in handy some day.

Post reply on HN