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

"If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#31

Post by miohtama »

matt-p wrote: post #25
wooger wrote: post #22

I find it bizarre that x isn't already blocked in Britain given that it's full of porn, and seemingly doesn't do any of the required proof of age checks required by every other porn website under current UK legislation.

We don't actually really have the ability to hard block stuff. ISPs can be subject to court orders individually but the costs of implementation are bourne by the third-party or government so they don't like doing it. Best case you get the top 5 ISPs to block it because they already have the infrastructure in place, the smaller ones don't though.

The UK has blocked porn sites on ISP level for 15 years now, no court order needed AFAIK.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#33

Post by matt-p »

miohtama wrote: post #31
matt-p wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually really have the ability to hard block stuff. ISPs can be subject to court orders individually but the costs of implementation are bourne by the third-party or government so they don't like doing it. Best case you get the top 5 ISPs to block it because they already have the infrastructure in place, the smaller ones don't though.

The UK has blocked porn sites on ISP level for 15 years now, no court order needed AFAIK.

Covering order/notice is required yes. Many ISPs who don't have one and the government don't bother as they'd be paying implementation costs.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#35

Post by [deleted] »

lm28469 wrote: post #26
matt-p wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of a sudden??

When a was a teenager, not so long ago really, everyone wanted to move the US and saw them as a global cultural power. The only people who truly disliked them were a minority anti capitalists, most people had positive views about Americans. Now wherever I look at, from far left to far right, virtually no one fully support the BS they're currently pushing, even the usual bootlicking lapdogs are staying silent. In rece…

[deleted]

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#36

Post by sam_lowry_ »

miohtama wrote: post #29

Note that the recent controversy is about Grok, not Twitter. The UK wants to ban generative image models without censorship. Grok has had censorship functions before. But someone found a week or so ago they can ask Grok to redraw clothes as bikinis. Not sure if this was a real SNAFU, not intentional.

So what?

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#38

Post by chrisjj »

miohtama wrote: post #29

Note that the recent controversy is about Grok, not Twitter. The UK wants to ban generative image models without censorship. Grok has had censorship functions before. But someone found a week or so ago they can ask Grok to redraw clothes as bikinis. Not sure if this was a real SNAFU, not intentional.

> Note that the recent controversy is about Grok, not Twitter.

You heard the prime minister yesterday. He was abundantly clear that X needs to act, and needs to act now. It is time for X to grip this issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/09/no-10-con...

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#39

Post by nirui »

wooger wrote: post #22

I find it bizarre that x isn't already blocked in Britain given that it's full of porn, and seemingly doesn't do any of the required proof of age checks required by every other porn website under current UK legislation.

Funny enough, based on my observation, X (formerly know as Twitter) is more likely to ban/shadowban normal users who has weak engagements than algorithm-optimized bots.

A lot of bots are posting pornographic content or selling illegal items on that platform. And since many of the bots are "verified", it is harder to filter them out completely. The whole thing is a mess at this point.

Post reply on HN