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

361–370 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#361

Post by mathiaspoint »

speerer wrote: post #258
mathiaspoint wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A British constitution makes no sense, power is delegated from the king not from the member states like in the US or Canada. The only way the UK could end up with a constitution that's meaningful and not performative would be after a civil war.

We already have a constitution. It just isn't a written constitution: > The United Kingdom constitution is composed of the laws and rules that create the institutions of the state, regulate the relationships between those institutions, or regulate the relationship between the state and the individual. These laws and rules are not codified in a single, written document. Source for that quote is parliamentary: https://…

Right of course every state has a "constitution" but the contemporary connotation of the word means an enforceable law that meaningfully constrains the state's power.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#362

Post by mathiaspoint »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #276
zdragnar wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, there were defacto political parties in the delightfully misnamed federalist and anti-federalists. It was this divide that led to the first political parties.

Oh, they cannot be avoided really, except by a system where party allegiance cannot influence the choice (like hereditary power).

Arrow's theorem would cause them to emerge even then.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#363

Post by protocolture »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #328
protocolture wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Hey hey hey.. hold on, wait a minuet. What did you just say about the ACCC. Those guys make sure we have good warranties and cracking down on scams. They are the good guys protecting us from the scammers and cooperate greed.

They also worked tirelessly at the behest of the largest 4 ISPs to ensure that the NBN would be as expensive and anti competitive as possible.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#366

Post by echelon »

watwut wrote: post #206
echelon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, here are some liberal leaning sources saying things you might not like if you believe these things, including vile things said by extremist groups, should be censored: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html https://archive.is/TpU8Q https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/31/how-the-resurge... Please note: I 100% abhor white supremacy and any kind of racism. But you can and should defend t…

> We need to support the speech of all groups we detest - baby eaters, satanists, polygamists, racists, sexists, murderers, capitalists, Marxists, televangelists, etc. - in order to champion free speech for all. Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right. In what world is NY times left leaning. > If you'…

> Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right.

It absolutely has.

LGBT rights:

https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-202...

NAMBLA:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-defending...

HIV:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/outmemphis-v-lee

BLM:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/in-a-major-win-for-our-r...

Women's rights:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-rejects-ap...

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#368

Post by pnw »

Lerc wrote: post #327
Ravus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sadly an example of terrible leading question bias, to the point where I'm surprised that it even got a 22% oppose rate. The percentages would change dramatically were one to write it as, "From everything you have seen and heard, do you support or oppose the recent rules requiring adults to upload their id or a face photo before accessing any website that allows user to user interaction?" Both questions are fact…

I live in a country where 91.78% of the population voted for a referendum that bought back hard labour in prisons. As one of the few who voted against it I have yet to encounter a single person who voted for it who both supports hard labour and realised that was in the question being asked.

Why do you claim the 1999 referendum reintroduced hard labor in NZ prisons? I've never seen anything to that effect. The reforms were related to bail, victims rights and parole.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#369

Post by simplyluke »

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…

Attributing the actions being taken by the UK (and much of the EU) to a lack of understanding is a quite generous interpretation. That may have been true a generation ago, but it's not now.

Many of us think that they understand a free internet very well, specifically the threats it places on their uses (and abuses) of power, and that the laws are quite well designed to curtail that. The UK currently, without identity verification, arrests 30 people per day for things they say online.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#370

Post by Tadpole9181 »

freedomben wrote: post #92
amenhotep wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, as someone living in the UK, the only way people here are going to realise what's going on and apply meaningful pressure to the government is if these organisations force us to. And because once they've given up on one country, they'll give up on the rest just as easily.

Is there backlash for this sort of thing? When they did their blackout thing some years back, a lot of people who were sympathetic to the cause were also highly annoyed at the disruption to their workflows, to the point that if it had gone on much longer it might have backfired on Wiki. I've seen similar affects with protesters blocking roads and such. I always wonder if it's just a small minority or if it happens mo…

Backlash? What are they gonna do - not look at the Wikipedia they don't have access to?

It's not funded by ads or anything, this literally is easier and cheaper for them, and Britain loses an enormous trove of knowledge.

Post reply on HN