Live data from Hacker News

UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

ofcom.org.uk

341–350 of 394 posts

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#341
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online. What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable? Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.

Threatening people online was already illegal.

Ok, lets replace this with murder.

MPs are getting murdered, so they introduce a new law to prevent murder.

Is the parents comment acceptable?

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#342
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Threatening people online was already illegal.

Ok, lets replace this with murder. MPs are getting murdered, so they introduce a new law to prevent murder. Is the parents comment acceptable?

Murder is already illegal, and threatening to murder someone is already illegal. Any further legislation, the burden of proof is on them not on me or the parent poster. Otherwise one day they might claim that me taking a shit will lead to their murder and have my toilets removed.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The country doesn't need high earners per se, it needs people that contribute effectively. There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much. It all makes much more sense once you realise that governments spend before they tax and so what really matters is real resources.

Assuming the country wants to import goods and services, then they are going to need to be able to sell goods and services. The desirability of the goods and services the country is selling can be roughly indicated by the population's purchasing power. If more and more people are earning less, then that is not a good sign for the desirability of the country's goods and services.

No, the import ability of a country is indicated by the ability of the country to balance it's imports with exports, which are either real exports or are financial assets.

There most certainly is not a one to one correspondence of stuff to money.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#344
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ofcom really isn't actually independent on Online Safety in any way. It has to obey instructions on prioritisation from the secretary of state and has no real operational flexibility. As with much of the (dire) UK legislation here, the government saying something is true until it is blue in the face does not make it true.

The Online Safety Act provides for Ofcom to develop its own codes of practice and guidelines based on the provisions of the act and public consultation (including with the platforms). It has an enormous amount of leeway in deciding how to implement the Act. Ofcom has operational independence. Neither its investigations nor its enforcement actions are directly controlled by the Government. The Government does approve…

I love how this got downvoted. I literally consulted on the draft legislation.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, with two MPs murdered in the last decade. 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? 2. They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this.

> 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? The Online Safety Act isn't about making these things illegal. It's about making it more difficult to do the illegal things in the first place. To take an analogy: money laundering legislation exists to make it harder to use the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate life. Being a drug dealer is already illegal, yet we don't use that as an argument against…

"The purpose of the system is what it does." 99% of people are not drug dealers, yet we still experience the deadweight loss of KYC and AML. Therefore AML exists because agents of the state like to screw with us, waste our time, and steal our cash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor MPs. Being power hungry must really suck in the age of social media :(

Really? You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online. What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable? Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.

Every law that the MPs create is itself a threat against the people. A prescriptive law can only be described as "Do what I say, or I will hurt you." Agents of the state create laws, and then take your money and pay that money to men with guns to come after you if you fail to comply.

Law === Threat

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#347
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About banning ads for “certain types of porridge”: > …the majority of porridge, muesli and granola products will not be affected by the advertising restrictions but some less healthy versions (with added sugar, chocolate, syrup) could be affected. > Sometimes products may be marketed as, or perceived by consumers to be, healthy but in fact contain surprisingly high levels of saturated fat, salt or sugar. Source: http…

I was in Tesco, buying a orange juce The standard version was 100% orange pressed The "healthy" low cal version was 50% orange 50% water and sweetener addictives Same brand/price The British Heart Foundation also recommends cola zero as healthier than 100% juice

This is comparing cola to oranges; like others said, fruit juices are generally not recommended in amounts greater than 150ml per day according to UK’s healthy eating guidelines.

> Pure fruit or vegetable juices and smoothies should be limited to a combined total of 150ml a day. This is because crushing fruit and vegetables releases the sugars they contain to produce free sugars. Free sugars also include the sugars added to food or drinks, and sugars found naturally in honey and syrups. These free sugars are linked to excess weight and tooth decay.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/healthy-eating-ap...

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't about people disagreeing, but promoting that disagreement with the intent to misinform others. People are free to disagree as long as they don't put others and their children at risk - if that's the case it should be considered illegal. I'm all for people who promote misinformation to be allowed to present their peer-reviewed research in a special court.

How would this special court work? Can anyone including amateur scientists access it freely? Are the arguments public? What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have." The fact that it's clear makes it difficult for the government to shut down opposition political speech. I also think scientific inquiry should be an open process.

Similar to how you regulate any mass media channels (TV, Radio, etc). You have a regulator in place, for example, anyone with +10.000 followers, or who gets +10.000 views should be considered a person of influence and be liable for their claims.

I agree with you, I think everything should be made public, including influencers' income statements.

> What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have."

Thankfully there are laws in place, and the point is more laws should be in place to make people liable for disinformation.

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#349
The U.K. is jailing people for mean tweets, and has been for a while:

- "More than 30 people found themselves arrested over social media posts. From what I’ve found, at least 17 of those have been charged." -- the BBC, this is specifically for the Southport riots. They have been doing this for years, of course.[1]

- "First people jailed over social media posts during unrest 9 August

Today's live coverage has mainly come from the courts, with jail sentences handed down for those involved in the violent disorder since the fatal stabbings in Southport last Monday.

Here's a quick summary of key events today:

    In the first case of a person going to jail for posting on social media during the disorder, Jordan Parlour, 28, of Seacroft, Leeds, received a 20 month sentence for inciting others to target a Leeds building which housed asylum seekers
    At least two others also received jail sentences for social media posts that stirred up racial hatred 

    Suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones appeared in court charged with encouraging violent disorder after he was filmed apparently telling a crowd that far-right demonstrators should have their throats cut
    6000 officers with specialist training in public order are "prepared and ready" to deal with any potential unrest over the weekend
    About 600 people have been arrested this week with hundreds more expected in the coming days and weeks, police say, with the use of facial recognition technology fast tracking the process "[2]

- This woman merely livestreamed other people doing naughty things, and called some people "tramps". "Much of the TikTok stream had been rather amateurish, Mr Rudge argued, giving a view of the cobblestones in Tamworth but showing no acts of violence." LOL. 9 months in prison. [3]

- More: [4]

- More: [5]

- "This is in relation to some comments you made on Facebook (police arrest old man in his home, good video): [6]

- "We do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media to look for this material, and then follow up with arrests." - Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales. Video worth a watch. [7]

-

Punishment is often also extremely swift. Facebook video --> court --> prison in a matter of a week and a half. Of course, if you stand accused of e.g. raping children, it will take a year and a half.

-

This country has gone right off a cliff and is currently in free-fall.

-

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr548zdmz3jo

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cpdlvz80pjzt?post=asset%3A3678...

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgdkvwwwqyo

[4] https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1857720874146664670

[5] https://x.com/SamanthaTaghoy/status/1857928002014761201

[6] https://x.com/i/status/1823087302886965636

[7] https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1821178852397477984

And more

https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2024/08/think-before-you-...

https://news.sky.com/story/wife-of-tory-councillor-jailed-fo...

Re: UK's Online Safety Act comes into force

#350
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel like allowing deliberate misinformation of people is a better standard for the jurisdiction in which you want to live?

Who determines what is misinformation? And after we have established this, who determines whether it was deliberate?

> Who determines what is misinformation?

Who determines laws?

> And after we have established this, who determines whether it was deliberate?

Democracies have institutions with the tools and power to investigate. It's like a regulator is a new concept.

Post reply on HN