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

341–350 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#341

Post by watwut »

ljosifov wrote: post #223

US should slap travel bans on UK politicians travelling to Disney parks and similar in Florida with their families. And/or with their older children visiting NYC. The combined pressure of the wives and their children, will knock sense in their thick skulls quickly. In the sense of - being stupid is not cost free. Atm it's cost free for them, and costly for me.

US is not exactly desirable location for tourism right now.

And like, appeal of of florida Disneyland as a dream place to go to was never all that huge abroad. The Disney cult/dream is more of an American thing.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#342

Post by lazide »

extraisland wrote: post #147
cm2012 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All polling has problems like this, but YouGov has the same methodology for everything and usually gets within a margin of error of +-8. Even if they have an especially bad sample, the UK probably really does support the law. Think about how many people are less comfortable with porn than tech interested males between age 18 and 40.

> All polling has problems like this, but YouGov has the same methodology for everything and usually gets within a margin of error of +-8. The way the very question was asked is a problem in itself. It is flawed and will lead to particular result. > if they have an especially bad sample, the UK probably really does support the law The issue is that the public often doesn't understand the scope of the law. Those that…

Of course - control the question, and you guarantee the answers.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#343

Post by LAC-Tech »

Parliamentary democracy has proven absolutely useless in defending alienable rights like freedom of speech.

I have been trying to think what sort of system is ideal to replace them. I think there has to be some kind of strong constitution that guarantees aforementioned rights. But I also think it's instructive to look at America wrt how that can go awry - ie their constitution is routinely ignored, and a lot of the political decision making is done by fifth columnists lobbying for a foreign nation.

Regardless, we need to start having these conversations. It's not a matter of getting different people into Westminster. Westminster is illegitimate. Let's think about what's next and how we can get there peacefully.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#344

Post by bravesoul2 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #338
bravesoul2 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need new 6xx codes. "Requests that are fine, need no redirection and have no errors but are blocked because of politics, overbearing laws or regime"

That's what 451 means. It's "user error, you are trying to access the site from some dystopian society that prohibits it".

Yeah but I want to know if I should submit, protest or revolt. I need more codes :)

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#345

Post by OtherShrezzing »

bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

>2. The next government will take great delight in removing this law as an easy win.

As a rule of thumb, governments don't take actions which reduce their power.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#346

Post by msgodel »

cm2012 wrote: post #259
abustamam wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what makes you say that the majority of HN loves porn? I've seen a few random references to it but nothing that would indicate that HN loves porn any more than any other community loves porn.

It's just a statistical correlation. Who loves porn demographically? 1) Men. 2) Men age 18-40 in particular. 3) No evidence for this but in my experience tech people tend to like porn more than others for whatever reason. So a survey of HN users would show more pro-porn respondents than a survey of the UK or the US or EU as a whole.

In a number of recent polls in English speaking countries young men have been one of the strongest anti-porn demographics actually. I think HN being tech adjacent with the history and practical reality of how the internet works along with being more libertarian (or at least liberal) is going to bias that more than the gender distribution.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#347

Post by treyd »

protocolture wrote: post #61
thomastjeffery wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. R…

>I personally find it rather frustrating that Wikimedia is suddenly so willing to bend over for fascists. Where did their conscience go? I absolutely abhor the "Kids these days" sort of argument, but it does seem the case that we lowered the barrier of entry sufficiently in the tech sector that people who simply dont give a shit, or actively want to harm our values, now outnumber us greatly. What has happened previou…

> we lowered the barrier of entry sufficiently in the tech sector that people who simply dont give a shit, or actively want to harm our values, now outnumber us greatly.

I don't think it's a matter of number but activity. There are numerous ways that entities with no morals can make huge amounts of money by exploiting people online (via weaknesses in human psychology adapted for hunting on a savannah), both children and adults. It's hard to make money doing the opposite.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#348

Post by preisschild »

rawbot wrote: post #31
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…

In the age of AI chatbots having consumed all of Wikipedia, its relevance has waned. So I don't think they have the same pull as they did before.

Besides the fact that LLMs still make up stuff?

Yea great, make everyone even dumber by forcing them to use AI slop

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#349

Post by codedokode »

type0 wrote: post #305
johnnyanmac wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> top 10 apps in Russia was half VPNs... and as long as vpns exist, it'll be hard to enforce any of this. Russia found good way to enforce it, they changed the law and give out prison sentences for using VPNs

Not yet - only for searching extremist and terrorist content, no matter using VPN or not. Oh, almost the same content that is regulated by Online Safety Act in UK.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#350

Post by preisschild »

codedokode wrote: post #337

In Russia there is a plan to make special SIM cards for children, that would not allow registration in social networks. Isn't it better than UK legislation? The whole idea that every site or app must do verification is stupid. It would be much easier and better to do verification at the store when buying a laptop, a phone or a SIM card. The verification status can be burned in firmware memory, and the device would al…

> Isn't it better than UK legislation?

Not at all, because SIM cards are bound to your real identity. So the government knows exactly which websites you visit.

Post reply on HN