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

IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

prestonbyrne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 418 posts

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#381

Post by tomhow »

fukka42 wrote: post #363
tomhow wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand it's difficult for you as an American Can you please not post abusive comments like this to HN? We're looking for curious conversation here. We ban accounts that comment like this repeatedly. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this. It's a simple observation of fact, and if you were to read the rest of this thread objectively you'd see it is accurate. Why are you not yelling at the people hurling insults at the UK? Is it because you're American and this hurt your feelings so it's bad, but hurting others their feelings is fine? The Americans are literally threatening violence and war in t…

> Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this

The sentence that crossed the line egregiously was: "I understand it's difficult for you as an American to realize that other countries exist and are just as valid as America".

This breaks the following guidelines:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer...

Eschew flamebait

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

> Why are you not yelling at the people hurling insults at the UK?

I'm not yelling, I'm politely reminding you to observe the guidelines, which I do several times daily here and it's nothing to do with the specifics of what your position or side is. Upthread comments are also flagged and killed, with my help, and I may reply to them too, but your comment was particularly egregious. Just because others post bad comments, it doesn't justify you making bad ones too. That's a basic principle we all should have learned in childhood.

> Is it because you're American and this hurt your feelings so it's bad, but hurting others their feelings is fine?

I'm not American, neither is dang, and I don't even live in America. I'm Australian, and cricketing rivalries aside I quite like the UK, but that has nothing to do with how we moderate HN.

HN is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. If you want this place to continue to exist, please do you part to make it better not worse.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#382

Post by tavavex »

estimator7292 wrote: post #378
pessimizer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the big things I've been wondering about the decision of the Anglosphere to all switch to a service economy: why would you do that when your population is both smaller and dumber than the populations of other countries? The UK (nor the US) has no advantage in providing services, all it can do is demand that other people be prevented from providing them.

Because capitalism can't accept the inevitable fact that infinite exponential growth is literally impossible. It's not a "service economy" it's a "rent extraction" economy. Capitalists need more growth and more returns now and since innovating, producing goods, and providing customer service costs money, we simply charge people a monthly fee to use their heated car seats. This is what the brutal, messy end of capital…

Your concerns are true, but I'm not sure if this answers the question above. After all, the shift to service economies started a very long time before the crisis ramped up to what it's like today. And even today, under a crust of rent-seeking businesses, circular investing and outright scams, there's plenty of quiet, boring businesses that provide actually important and relevant services. It can (and probably will) still get so, so, so much worse than this. So clearly, there's more factors in play here that made most of the first world transition to providing services, since we weren't remotely close to running out of ways to extract and sell goods then (and still aren't, not yet).

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#383

Post by jmward01 »

whatsupdog wrote: post #305
jmward01 wrote: post #279

Let's start with a bang. Passports and strictly enforced borders are dumb and this is a clear example of exactly why. Increasingly the digital world -is- the world and arbitrary geographical boundaries are causing nothing but problems. We are taking the ideas of physical borders and passports and, badly, applying that broken idea to a virtual space with typical results. It blows me away that the real problem with str…

There's at least 2 billion people in the world that would move to North America and Europe in the blink of an eye if all the borders were opened! Can your countries support all of them without collapsing your systems?

People can fly in 'easily' right now and just not fly out. We used to be able to walk across boarders with nothing needed or, at most, a drivers license and '2 billion people' didn't suddenly show up. This 'argument' that 2b people will suddenly come in has been tested and proven wrong. It is hard to move, especially when impoverished. It is hard to leave the things you know, even when you have a good plan and resources set up in the new country. Universally, the immigrants I have met are hard workers and make things better but sentiments like this one cheapen the struggles they have overcome to get here. The stats back this up with lower crime rates from immigrants and the economic boon they bring to the industries they dominate. It really isn't OK to spout '2b people will suddenly show up'. I flat out deny your premise and won't take your follow-up bait of 'can you survive if..'. We have survived and thrived with more open borders. It is only now that we are becoming weak and fearful because of tighter borders.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#384

Post by jmward01 »

bad_username wrote: post #337
Razengan wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's start with a bang. Passports and strictly enforced borders are dumb This. It's weird how it's not considered a basic human right to be able travel to where you want, and even live where you want as long as you can support yourself and comply with the local laws and customs. And that's how it was for like 99% of the time that humans have existed. When did keeping people locked inside "borders" even become a th…

> It's weird how it's not considered a basic human right to be able travel to where you want, and even live where you want as long as you can support yourself and comply with the local laws and customs The "as long as you can" is exactly the reason. There is no way to ensure the travelers or migrants can (and want) to do that, if you don't have a border.

Really? If I go to another country and commit a crime they can't enforce their laws on me unless they stop me at the border? I don't see how stopping me at the border stops me from committing a crime when I get past it or stops the country from enforcing their laws when I am caught. What did the border magically do to change enforcement?

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#385

Post by gerdesj »

throw_a_grenade wrote: post #318
1over137 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably meant “et al”, Latin for “and others”.

inter alia , “among others”

Yes: inter alia: amongst other things

Sorry, I'm a bit old school. When you get AI waffle spitting out abbreviated Latin, you will know the end of the world is nigh!

EDIT: Spell out my preferred translation of int. al.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#386

Post by mike_hearn »

toyg wrote: post #320
mike_hearn wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who are most responsive to NGO campaigning aren't overlapping much with people who read The Sun. Sorry but Murdoch can't be blamed for this one. The OSA is mostly supported by people who read The Guardian or The Times and watch the BBC. It was originally the work of academics (not big tabloid readers usually) like Lorna Woods, who is supposedly a professor of "internet law", a guy who is the founder of Ofc…

Politicians, who write the actual laws, are all extremely sensitive to tabloids.

That hasn't been true for at least 20 years. The tabloids have routinely attacked Conservative/Labour policy for a long time now, and nobody in Westminster even noticed let alone cared. They're much more sensitive to being attacked by the BBC or the Guardian because that's what they, their staffers, friends, colleagues and to a large extent their voters are consuming.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#387

Post by mike_hearn »

hunterpayne wrote: post #276
mike_hearn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PPS I know of no government that thinks it can enforce their law outside of their borders against foreigners. The USA does this quite regularly. Look at FATCA as one example.

That law only covers US citizens (that are living abroad). So no, that's not a counter example.

No, it places requirements on all bankers worldwide regardless of whether they have any presence in the USA. This is enforced requiring compliance from all US banks, and then by making any bank that comes into compliance sever relationships with any peered bank that isn't in compliance, so via a sort of recursive graph walk it brings every bank globally under US law because every bank is ultimately connected to some US bank somewhere.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#388

Post by sleepybrett »

zamadatix wrote: post #306
sleepybrett wrote: post #252

The UK should build a national 'firewall' and prosecute anyone who gets around it via vpn. I'm sure the citizenry will fucking love that and then they can proceed to repeal the law.

Public sentiment in the Uk is actually pretty supportive of this law. I wouldn't be surprised if the firewall did happen eventually, but with support from the public instead of outcry.

their funeral.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#389

Post by tatersolid »

vessenes wrote: post #150
miki123211 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another option is an anti-money-laundering like system. It would need to be set up by an extremely powerful country, either the US or an alliance of smaller countries through international treaty. It would work as follows: There'd be a "naughty list." Anybody on the list would be arrested upon entering a participating country. This would include past or current company employees (if employed after the listing date).…

You're aware this exists, yes? It's called the OFAC list. It's not generally used to list technologists or web sites related to speech, though, as far as I know.

Interestingly many, if not most cybercrime organizations are on the OFAC list. So many companies who have paid when hit by ransomware have violated US law.

I am unaware of any prosecutions in this area.

https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#390

Post by dgroshev »

Hizonner wrote: post #284
dgroshev wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how filter bubbles and propaganda work. Take this case: the law was enacted two years ago by a different government, the regulator follows the law as enacted, and yet no one cares about this little nuance. In reality, it's a decent technocratic government trying to reverse a decade of mismanagement and fighting about five hundred fires at the same time. It's OK to good.

The party currently in power enthusiastically supported the OSA when it was enacted, and has been enthusiastic about implementing it. They're not just mechanically enforcing something that they inherited.

> enthusiastically supported

That's not how "enthusiastic support" looks like: https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1416

Post reply on HN