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.
I agree with you on the decade of mismanagement and five hundred fires, but Labour (and the Lib Dems) supported this bill when it was being voted on.
IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
391–400 of 418 posts
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You shouldn't even be expected to geoblock." I read the article and I remain confused. I've just come to this story after seeing it on HN so I might have misunderstandings from being unaware of the background. Also, I neither reside in the US nor UK so I'd have not seen local media reports. In short, I gather UK's Ofcom is threatening a US web site for online content that is lawful within the US's jurisdiction and u…
> I am bewildered that Preston Byrne has even bothered Preston is not a legitimate lawyer and has never actually represented anyone. He only larps as an expert and spends an inordinate amount of time constantly trying to tell other lawyers how wrong they are, using his black-and-white god complex attitude.
He might be a political activist, but he is a real lawyer.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am bewildered that Preston Byrne has even bothered Preston is not a legitimate lawyer and has never actually represented anyone. He only larps as an expert and spends an inordinate amount of time constantly trying to tell other lawyers how wrong they are, using his black-and-white god complex attitude.
He might be a political activist, but he is a real lawyer.
By my subjective opinion, "real lawyers" represent clients, and most of the time win. This guy just complains and acts like he knows everything, and is often wrong.
When I said legitimate that's what I was referring to, not simply "passed the bar".
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
He might be a political activist, but he is a real lawyer.
By my subjective opinion, "real lawyers" represent clients, and most of the time win. This guy just complains and acts like he knows everything, and is often wrong. When I said legitimate that's what I was referring to, not simply "passed the bar".
So a lawyer who only picks cases they can win is more of a real lawyer than, say, a public defender?
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I profoundly disagree. Politicians might despise the tabloid press, but they are still very much susceptible to it - because their barrage inevitably seeps into broadsheets and the general press. A simple example: the likes of the Guardian despise Farage, whereas he's an absolute darling of tabloids. Was he invited to BBCQT a billion times because broadsheets wanted him there? Obviously not.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt Ofcom are motivated by "concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis" Do you have evidence for that? Because when I search I do see them doing investigations concerned with abuse of people including mentioning coercive and controlling behaviors https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... > If all of them followed a policy like UK's Ofcom, the internet would…
It's not a fallacy since there is nothing special or noteworthy about the UK. If every other country sent out such letters, then you'd have to block every country except your own. That's a fact. There are 195 countries in the world, no law office could possibly ensure you're complying with the laws of all of these countries within your own country. The laws are not even consistent, for example you violate the EU's GD…
What’s your company? Perhaps you have an ethical obligation to your users and should have these regulations in place. We’ve seen what happens when companies are underegulated (Facebook, etc etc)
And here’s why your argument is a fallacy:
“This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience” [1]
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ha, with the dots I would have realized what it is. I was confused by the 1st version having no dots.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you on the decade of mismanagement and five hundred fires, but Labour (and the Lib Dems) supported this bill when it was being voted on.
They didn't: https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/1416
Here's every vote on the Online Safety Bill: https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons?SearchText=Online+...
Labour & Lib Dems may have voted against the exact text presented to the house on a number of occasions, but it's well documented that they not only supported the general principle of the bill but wanted it to go further.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-09-12/debates/818...
>I agree with the Minister that this is a groundbreaking Bill, but we must be clear that there are still gaps.
- Debbie Abrahams (Labour)
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is quite literally killing people outside its borders every day. It even ran a program of kidnapping and torturing people from foreign countries for years, and still maintains a network of prisions outside America. The US very much thinks it can enforce its laws however and in whatever twisted fashion it likes.
> it can enforce its laws however and in whatever twisted fashion it likes. The whims of its god-emperor/president. A lot of the enforcement is against US law.
That would be an acceptable response if it was just the last one president doing it, but it's been ongoing since WW2 at the very least.
I hold Russia as a whole accountable for Russia's recent war in Ukraine, it's their Responsibility to get rid of their leader when he started an unjustified invasion.
I hold the U.S. as a whole responsible for their successive presidents antics.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it not possible that there is concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis? It’s one thing to be talking about suicide or assisted suicide because you’ve decided it’s right for you and your situation. It’s another to be dealing with depression from trauma, unable to get help and have no support system, and then be coerced by individuals on forums with ulterior motives. I’m not saying…
> It’s one thing to be talking about suicide or assisted suicide because you’ve decided it’s right for you and your situation. And that's what the site is for. They could improve by blocking all countries where there's free access to assisted suicide though. > It’s another to be dealing with depression from trauma, unable to get help and have no support system, and then be coerced by individuals on forums with ulteri…
> THEN, not before. If they could get help, they would. But they can't so they end up there.
This is honestly disgusting and exactly the problem. You don’t know why they couldn’t get help. There are many possible reasons and instead they should be continued to be encouraged to find proper mental health counseling, not feed into a mental health crisis talking about suicide.
And it’s not your place to decide what is suffering or not for them. That is exactly the problem. The fact that you checked on this persons profile and decided based on that he’s continuing to suffer is exactly the issue. You are not a trained mental health provider I’m sure. Encouraging someone in that place to commit suicide is exactly the problem. You are not a soothsayer who can see into this persons future. What if in 10 years that person has a child and finds true joy and meaning, glad that they went through what they did in the previous years. There are many such cases.
It’s also not your job to somehow “ease suffering” for a person on the internet you don’t know, with some kind of self satisfaction and sense of control over another’s life that you took away an individual’s suffering by helping them kill themselves.
Instead the person needs to decide for themselves, by themselves, AND they need to be in a healthy mental state to make that decision. Depression is not a healthy mental state, it’s a period of delusion.
Your comment only proves exactly why sites such as this need massive regulation, and anyone who knows someone who contemplates suicide and came out the other side living a fulfilling life with joy and happiness would understand exactly why.
And I could agree that a site talking about assisted suicide is a net positive, but the burden is on that site to ensure it is not encouraging people in mental health crisis to suicide. In an open, mostly unmoderated forum that is a very high bar indeed, and it's even higher when the company hosting such a site has a profit motive. Trained mental health providers should be available and reviewing discussions in those situations, and such regulation requiring that is in my opinion not a hinderance on free speech.
And for anyone reading these comments and suffering with depression, if you’re unable to find good mental health care, first and the very least read the following book, and know that there are people who can help you find the light on the other side:
https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380...