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

Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

webdevlaw.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 480 posts

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#41

Post by hyperman1 »

LegitShady wrote: post #19
hyperman1 wrote: post #15

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this? The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer wor…

the louder someone tells me in advance they don't care, the more they care about something going on here, and in your case its to talk about the EU and the UK. This was an article about the UK, if you didn't care you didn't need to post here at all, just as people from the US don't need to post to say "I'm from the US, why do I need to care about EU laws?" you don't, but you also don't say anything intelligent about…

But it does. Laws like this tend to spill over to other countrys, unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe away from the mess they created. So one way to fight this law is to make clear the rest of the world is not going to play along.

So as a person, I of course do care. The UK used to be fairly good concerning human rights, privacy, cooperation, ... This represents another step back. So the best thing to do is ignore this insanity as good as possible.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#42

Post by raverbashing »

mellavora wrote: post #16
TillE wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just underlines what should be fairly obvious: that such official meetings are not how things are actually decided in representative democracies. I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences.

> I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences. yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block…

> And those seats are expected to vote as a block unless there is an extreme question of conscience.

Actually no. It depends on the "whip" guidance (in the UK)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)#Instructions

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#43

Post by dcow »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #22
llamataboot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The super advanced level is to realize it applies to all of your /thoughts/ which is mostly a pattern matching brain and personality built around the ways it found to make sense of some things justifying the chaos in retrospect :D

Correct but this is a different phenomenon. You are talking about post hoc justification for your behavior, where your brain is very good at making up stories that have nothing to do with the original motivation. I believe GP is referring to the fact that the true aim of much of this legislation had nothing to do with protecting kids from the beginning. They use that rhetoric because it's easy to get people on board…

I didn’t get that impression. You’re not wrong that something can be justified “for the children” but have an ulterior motive. But I think what’s being argued is that the initial motive is actually honestly for the children and that that goal blinds people to the reality of how bad or pointless or even perversely harmful the proposed solution is.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#44

Post by mcintyre1994 »

mellavora wrote: post #16
TillE wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just underlines what should be fairly obvious: that such official meetings are not how things are actually decided in representative democracies. I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences.

> I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences. yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block…

> yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats.

Important context since this is about the UK: we don't have a representation seat distribution like that, we have first past the post. In the last election (2019) these are the results for each party with at least 10 MPs:

- Conservative Party, 43.6% of votes, 56.2% of seats (outright majority).

- Labour Party, 32.1% of votes, 31.1% of seats.

- Scottish National Party, 3.9% of votes, 7.4% of seats. The SNP only campaign in Scotland and win most seats there, which makes them extremely over-represented by FPTP.

- Liberal Democrats, 11.6% of votes, 1.7% of seats.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#45

Post by mixtur2021 »

noduerme wrote: post #32
LegitShady wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the louder someone tells me in advance they don't care, the more they care about something going on here, and in your case its to talk about the EU and the UK. This was an article about the UK, if you didn't care you didn't need to post here at all, just as people from the US don't need to post to say "I'm from the US, why do I need to care about EU laws?" you don't, but you also don't say anything intelligent about…

Here's something novel, then: I've lived all over the world, but I wouldn't step foot in post-Brexit, xenophobic Britain if you paid me. I'm reading this gleefully thinking of ways to flout whatever implementation is settled upon, while homegrown British companies rot. I am, in fact, rooting for your economy to utterly collapse.

In perception polls on xenophobia across Europe, UK scores very well. Here is a report from the EU from 2019:

https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-20...

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#46

Post by Nextgrid »

LatteLazy wrote: post #38
com2kid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ended up making social media accounts require annual payments So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts? Looks like quarterly ARPU is about $12 per US user per month. So a $5 a month subscription would destroy their business model. However go back 6 yea…

Those things won't change, the charge will just be on top. And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200?

> And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200?

The fact that money is involved would put them under legal scrutiny. It may not actually be a bad deal - the fee can be refunded if the appeal is legitimate (the fee is just to deter spammers) and if they still act maliciously you can take them to small claims court since there's now a defined monetary loss.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#47

Post by slowmovintarget »

_fat_santa wrote: post #29

If this applies to every site that hosts user generated content then that's nuts. When the internet first started, part of the appeal is that you could just make stuff without people looking over your shoulder, asking for forms, etc. Seems that the internet we created today is technically the same as the one from before, but now with governments throwing up red tape at every corner. Makes me wonder what a site like H…

We're also going to get the big companies triggering investigations of smaller up-and-comers to stamp out competition. Better Reddit? Think of the children. Better Twitter? Think of the children. Facebook without the algorithm? Think of the children.

Just like what we see with the DMCA. Cheaper toner cartridges? Think of the creatives!

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#48

Post by dane-pgp »

ok123456 wrote: post #36
noduerme wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

> a few confused people mill around the rotunda and take selfies.

That's like calling 9/11 "a few planes being temporarily diverted from their flight paths".

The facts[0] paint a different picture:

"13 percent of those nearly 700 arrested as of early December are members of militia groups like the Oath Keepers or extremist groups like the Proud Boys."

> could have been avoided by winning by clear and resounding margins

If you don't care about the clear and resounding margin of the popular vote, or care about the voter suppression efforts in red states, or the fact that Biden won 74 more electoral votes than Trump, then I don't know what to tell you.

> by having a track record of passing legislation that people want

You're basically saying "Unless the winners pass exactly the legislation that the losers want, then the losers will resort to violence". You're advocating for terrorism. Anyway, you might be surprised to know that the Republicans had control of at least half of the legislature since 2015, so the 1/6 rioters really should have directed most of their anger towards the GOP.

[0] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/january-6-capito...

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#49

Post by LegitShady »

hyperman1 wrote: post #41
LegitShady wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the louder someone tells me in advance they don't care, the more they care about something going on here, and in your case its to talk about the EU and the UK. This was an article about the UK, if you didn't care you didn't need to post here at all, just as people from the US don't need to post to say "I'm from the US, why do I need to care about EU laws?" you don't, but you also don't say anything intelligent about…

But it does. Laws like this tend to spill over to other countrys, unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe away from the mess they created. So one way to fight this law is to make clear the rest of the world is not going to play along. So as a person, I of course do care. The UK used to be fairly good concerning human rights, privacy, cooperation, ... This represents another step back. So the best thing to d…

the rest of the world is not a monolith, and nobody speaks for the rest of the world in aggregate, so 'making it clear' doesn't matter. They left the EU so they could control their own laws, I don't think someone from the EU being childish about "I live in the EU, I don't care" about UK law makes a persuasive statement about politics.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#50

Post by nbevans »

hyperman1 wrote: post #15

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this? The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer wor…

Doesn't matter if they ignore the laws as then they have to pay fines which bolsters the Treasury anyway. It's win-win. That's why the EU itself loves to regulate in this way because dishing out tickets to American big-tech is a big money spinner for a superstate that is fast running out of money. The real problems start when these fines are being seen in the halls of power as disruptive to trade; as then it becomes a bilateral political issue which can of course blow up in a full blown trade spat very quickly.

Also your example of ignoring Afghan laws on women doesn't work. If you tried to setup a business in Afghanistan that was say an online tutoring programme tailored for Aghan women. How quickly do you think your DNS will get pointed to 0.0.0.0 on the Afghan internet? And how quickly will they seek to prosecute you as a director of that business? As a foreigner living abroad, you'll probably be fine but you won't be making money from your target market. So you're finished. The law worked and you didn't ignore it.

Post reply on HN