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

"If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#41

Post by rvz »

matt-p wrote: post #15
seanalltogether wrote: post #9

Maybe Britain will introduce a ban unless X sells 80% of its UK operations to UK investors. nudge nudge wink wink

That would unironically be a good way of dealing with this. However it would probably be seen as just as hostile. I'm very against banning websites, however social media as a whole is doing detrimental harm to children and adults alike so I would not shed a tear as long as we also ban meta/tiktok/YouTube shorts.

> however social media as a whole is doing detrimental harm to children and adults alike so I would not shed a tear as long as we also ban meta/tiktok/YouTube shorts.

You would then have to ban the VPNs as usage will just accelerate if that happens.

The result would be no better than what happened to TikTok when that went offline in the US.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#42

Post by matt-p »

rvz wrote: post #41
matt-p wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would unironically be a good way of dealing with this. However it would probably be seen as just as hostile. I'm very against banning websites, however social media as a whole is doing detrimental harm to children and adults alike so I would not shed a tear as long as we also ban meta/tiktok/YouTube shorts.

> however social media as a whole is doing detrimental harm to children and adults alike so I would not shed a tear as long as we also ban meta/tiktok/YouTube shorts. You would then have to ban the VPNs as usage will just accelerate if that happens. The result would be no better than what happened to TikTok when that went offline in the US.

Yes, since you have to provide proof of age to watch porn now most people have a VPN. I'm not sure I advocate blocking it, just it would not particularly bother me incrementally at this point, but it would be unfair to single X out as if Meta are perfectly fine.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#43

Post by rvz »

wooger wrote: post #22

I find it bizarre that x isn't already blocked in Britain given that it's full of porn, and seemingly doesn't do any of the required proof of age checks required by every other porn website under current UK legislation.

Explains why hundreds of Mastodon servers immediately vanished (or they would be fined under the OSA) and have relocated to Japan, where it is already infested with CP with zero moderation.

EDIT: Unfortunately, some here continue to deny this and it's widely known that Mastodon (and the top servers) have been infested with CP and it is still big in Japan [0][1] for years.

Excluding the default instance, the top 3 Mastodon servers (Pawoo, baragg (d_o_t) net, and mstdn (d-o-t) jp) are the biggest and have tons of CSAM.

The common denial, Exhibit A. [2]

[0] https://ethanzuckerman.com/2017/08/18/mastodon-is-big-in-jap...

[1] https://htxt.co.za/2023/07/child-abuse-material-is-thriving-...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46554198

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#44

Post by DangitBobby »

lm28469 wrote: post #14

[flagged]

A lot happened. Trump and his ilk being in power has uniquely facilitated an extended "masks off" period so the rest of the globe has repeated refutations of the US's previous reputation as sometimes belligerent but mostly benevolent. That large swaths of the population could repeatedly openly support the corruption, the vulgarity, the cruelty, and the lawlessness of the administration revealed an unmoored civic/political process at best and underlying cultural and institutional rot at worst. In short, the US has revealed itself to have already declined to a point where it's no longer wise to allow it global hegemony. A dying Republican party, willing to do anything and everything required to remain politically relevant managed to dismantle 70 years of carefully executed foreign policy and unseat us as the global hegemon.

From the inside, I feel the cultural rot runs deep, political tension is high even among family, and the institutional inertia will prevent us from making the necessary political reform (end gerrymandering, end legalized bribery, reform our voting system to eliminate the 2 party system) before violent internal conflict occurs.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#45

Post by DangitBobby »

close04 wrote: post #32
lm28469 wrote: post #14

[flagged]

Much like Musk, any "organism" that reaches a certain level of power and influence becomes decadent and eventually gets to the point where it stops caring what others think, even for appearances.

Enough people were not enjoying the results of the country's global power that an increasingly irrelevant political party was able to convert generalized angst into effective anti-establishment (anything status quo, doesn't matter what) populist platform. The unreasonable people are enjoying that the correct people are being hurt and that we are belligerently projecting what global power we have left, while "reasonable" people are having every Trumpian move sanewashed through the media they choose to consume. Everyone else (more than half, I suppose) is anywhere from concerned to terrified.

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#46

Post by rich_sasha »

lm28469 wrote: post #26
matt-p wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of a sudden??

When a was a teenager, not so long ago really, everyone wanted to move the US and saw them as a global cultural power. The only people who truly disliked them were a minority anti capitalists, most people had positive views about Americans. Now wherever I look at, from far left to far right, virtually no one fully support the BS they're currently pushing, even the usual bootlicking lapdogs are staying silent. In rece…

> In recent German polls about which countries are considered partners the US is barely ahead of Russia.

Interesting. I thought AfD is ahead in the polls and very pro-Russian, how do I reconcile these observations?

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#47

Post by witte »

rvz wrote: post #43
wooger wrote: post #22

I find it bizarre that x isn't already blocked in Britain given that it's full of porn, and seemingly doesn't do any of the required proof of age checks required by every other porn website under current UK legislation.

Explains why hundreds of Mastodon servers immediately vanished (or they would be fined under the OSA) and have relocated to Japan, where it is already infested with CP with zero moderation. EDIT: Unfortunately, some here continue to deny this and it's widely known that Mastodon (and the top servers) have been infested with CP and it is still big in Japan [0][1] for years. Excluding the default instance, the top 3 Mas…

[dead]

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#49

Post by dredmorbius »

lm28469 wrote: post #14

[flagged]

As with extremist governments and legislators elsewhere in the world, this is largely messaging for the home base rather than foreign consumption.

It's driven by both electoral realities (the US political map and system now favour extreme views), and a level of impunity regarding consequences elsewhere (both within and outside the US).

Re: "If Starmer is successful in banning X in Britain, I will move forward in . . ."

#50

Post by 0manrho »

eterm wrote: post #8

Bizarre that the US legislature is going to bat for the right of a corporation to sell illegal content in a foreign country. The UK should call their bluff on this one, appeasement isn't going to work forever.

It's what corporate capture looks like. She's either peacocking for corporate donors or trying to court musks/MAGA's favor.

Also, there's a difference between 1 rep effectively shitposting on social media and the US government actually doing something.

Regardless I agree, it's not a good look

Post reply on HN