What’s with england and its complete lack of response to this kind of power grabs?
Why single out England particularly?
UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
41–50 of 298 posts
Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is unfortunately quite a common tactic being used by people opposed to the OSA. Recently there was an article in the i newspaper which claimed you have to show ID to order pizza online, and it's because of the OSA. Turns out their source was a misleading tweet by a political activist who had ordered from Deliveroo or similar and were seeing the usual message shown to people who order alcohol. Nothing to do with…
Hmm. New account, no history before this thread. Not at all suspicious. So, DSIT, Age Verification Industry Association or Molly Rose astroturfer?
A new account would tend not to have any history.
It seems uncharitable to immediately assume bad faith.
What is it about the content of the comment you disagree with?
I think it provides a further example to the parent post that regardless of what one thinks about the Act, the discourse isn’t entirely neutral.
Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is unfortunately quite a common tactic being used by people opposed to the OSA. Recently there was an article in the i newspaper which claimed you have to show ID to order pizza online, and it's because of the OSA. Turns out their source was a misleading tweet by a political activist who had ordered from Deliveroo or similar and were seeing the usual message shown to people who order alcohol. Nothing to do with…
Hmm. New account, no history before this thread. Not at all suspicious. So, DSIT, Age Verification Industry Association or Molly Rose astroturfer?
There's a bunch of HNers who always rotate accounts. It's a little annoying but a green commentator in itself doesn't mean an astro turfer.
It's also a perfectly reasonable point, you just don't agree with it.
Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#44This sounds like a misinterpretation. The OSA is primarily about making online service providers responsible for age verification, if they supply adult content. No different in principle from having to prove one's age to buy cigarettes, alcohol, knives, etc. No-one says "cigarettes are censored!", because, obviously, they're not. Same for adult content online. It can still be accessed, as long as proof of age is prov…
False equivalence, the local pub doesn’t keep track of your identity.
My local knows exactly who I am, that I'm over 18, where I live, who my kids are, how old they are, what I like to drink etc.
Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#45For the Americans looking at this act, you're maybe putting it in the context of American politics and thinking who cares if the porn sites have my face or id. But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else.
Britain has always been very hypocritical about freedom of speech. Take for example "Speaker's Corner", an area of Hyde Park were police will tolerate any sort of speech - except that, if there are complaints and the speech is considered potentially unlawful, they will arrest the speaker right after he's done speaking.
Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#46Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#47Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#48Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From the article: >First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primari…
The reading of the quote that the tweeter provided is even worse.
I'd rather not be subjected to fake news on HN.
Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#49The Times is more or less lying here.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...
> On 18 March 2024, the Secretary of State was provided with a Submission which made it clear that Category 1 duties were not primarily aimed at pornographic content or the protection of children (which were dealt with by other parts of the Act).
Notice this is under Sunak, not Starmer. The Times chooses when to support and opposite the Online Safety Act based on which party is in government, and provides evidence for its view by lying through omission.
The Online Safety Act is undeniably terrible legislation, but you won't find good-faith criticism of it from the Times.
Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
#50Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From the article: >First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primari…
There oddly seems to be a concerted effort online to paint the UK as some kind of failing police state recently. This narrative seems to have really taken off with some Americans, who now seem completely convinced that the UK government is some kind of totalitarian oppressor who are snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile, Brits just look on at this narrative wondering what the hell they're talking about. Look, I…
I suspect it's projection as a defense, because a number of Brits do see the US as some sort of failing police state that's snatching people off the streets.
I guess if you get your attack in first you'll be able to go "we're not the fascists, you're the fascists."
None of that is to excuse the legislation, of course, which is not very good and will have a lot of poor consequences.