The biggest issue is that legislation seems to be drafted by people who have little or no expertise in their area. We've seen other examples of poorly drafted legislation in the UK - eg Computer Misuse Act 1990, which is intended to address hacking but can be read in such a way as to outlaw firewalls, and so on. Parliament as a whole is in desperate need of reform, it's based on archaic principles that just don't work anymore, but those in a position to enact reform seem to prefer the status quo.
UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
301–310 of 394 posts
Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservatives + Reform got more votes than Labour. More people voted against Labour than for them. In any other system they wouldn't have won, and at the very least wouldn't have a majority. The other thing to consider is that the electorate basically moved to the right in 2024 (Tory voters moved to Reform), but parliament shifted hard to the left.
Not sure what your point is bit Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid combined got way more votes than Tories + Reform
Now that's a good point. They would need to actually debate things if parliament had this composition.
Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#303Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#304Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#305The biggest issue is that legislation seems to be drafted by people who have little or no expertise in their area. We've seen other examples of poorly drafted legislation in the UK - eg Computer Misuse Act 1990, which is intended to address hacking but can be read in such a way as to outlaw firewalls, and so on. Parliament as a whole is in desperate need of reform, it's based on archaic principles that just don't wor…
I’m not sure if it’s similar in the UK, but here they don’t even seem to care. We have public consultation periods for most bills here in Australia, and it’s basically only ever a box-ticking exercise. You can have literally hundreds of experts carefully articulate all the obvious problems with a bill in a detailed submission, then some will be invited to give testimony and answer questions of Senators with concerned looks on their faces, and then those senators (of both parties) will happily vote the flawed legislation through with no amendments. The only changes that do happen are arrived at through secretly negotiated political horse-trading between the parties, with literally none of the expert, industry and public consultation taken into account.
The only way to win is to lobby hard (with a lot of political donations) so your views get put forward in the secret negotiations. Literally none of the feedback from experts or voters matters. Because it’s always going to be one or the other major party (although there is some encouraging movement towards possible minority government, which in our current political landscape is the only way I can see any positive change possibly happening - but it depends massively on the quality of those who end up with the balance of power).
Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What content promotes eating disorders? There are numerous sites and social media pages on all the major platforms that literally promote anorexia. That you’ve never heard of them should perhaps encourage you to take a more curious and less combative approach to this topic.
> There are numerous sites and social media pages on all the major platforms that literally promote anorexia. Although probably a just cause I'd say that the western world does have an obesity problem though, not an anorexia one. So a better example would be all the sites encouraging people being lazy and fat and eating junk while labelling anything criticizing the unhealthiness of obesity as supposedly engaging in "…
>the western world does have an obesity problem though, not an anorexia one
It has both, and they are linked. It is a false ontology to place them in opposition, just because one is "too fat" and the other "too thin".
It's also very arguable that obesity is the "worse" problem. Yes it causes negative health outcomes, and is more widespread, but anorexia is more immediately and dramatically harmful, even fatal, and disproportionately affects teenagers during a critical growth phase, often causing irreversible disfigurement.
Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
let me guess: criticizing this law constitutes “harm” already. better not enter this jurisdiction for the foreseeable future
Do you feel better off in a jurisdiction where, for example, anti-vaxxing is promoted?
I wouldn't trust the science on something I'm injecting into my body if it was illegal for people to disagree about it.
Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#308> People in the UK will be better protected from illegal harms online What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated). If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the inte…
>How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not? I remember there were stories about GDPR at the time that some site simply decide to block all IPs from EUR, and some sadly because they believe they dont comply, simply shut down the site. In a world ( well US at least ) where the trend is moving to deregulate things. UK decided to quite literally regulate everything. This is sad.
> In a world ( well US at least ) where the trend is moving to deregulate things. UK decided to quite literally regulate everything. This is sad.
This is being pushed by banks and tech billionaires, including the world's richest man.
Why is that considered a good trend for regular people?
Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#309> People in the UK will be better protected from illegal harms online What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated). If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the inte…
News over the weekend: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/dec/13/steven-bartlet...
Further in the past, we can look to the “Adpocalyse” on YouTube caused by a glut of terrorist content on social media and it being monetised by ads from major brands.
To your last question: that’s why they’re submitting their plans to Ofcom, so they can get into compliance. The link even highlights that regulation is based on risk. Have a larger platform or want to operate in a greyer area? You need to show how you’ll comply in more detail.
Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
No more combative than “2+2 isn’t five”. If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default , most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.
Do you do this with everything? Search down examples of child sexual abuse material and murders before you believe they exist? I don’t think it a “dubious” claim at all - you’ve been on the internet there is a community for _everything_ it’s not surprising there is a community for this.
I suppose the difference for me is I've not seen any examples of Child sexual abuse online. Its obviously a bad thing, so steps taken to prevent that directly are a good thing. When you start restricting everyone, in order to stop that harm, then you need to start quantifying risks.
This isn't arresting murderers, this is restricting the sale of rope that murderers might use on their victims. or to get more specific. this isn't banning clubs where murderers can get together. this is imposing checks on all clubs to make sure there aren't any murderers in them.
If it reasonable for the boy scouts to do checks on their members to make sure that a few of them aren't planning a murder? should the boy scouts be responsible if a few boys do go and murder someone? a murder that was planned in the scout hut?