Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem with Wikipedia specifically going all-in on a UK block is, due to the licence, there's nothing to stop someone circumventing the block to make a OSA-compliant Britipedia mirror with minimal effort.
Except the effort and money needed to be OSA compliant. As the whole enwiki is permissively licensed everyone is welcome to do it though.
Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
401–410 of 887 posts
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
>parents You do understand that there are creeps out there grooming children, right? Parents definitely do need to have oversight over their own kids. Children should absolutely not have privacy on the internet. The ID requirement is terrible, but saying that children need privacy to explore their sexuality on the internet is very problematic. If this is the position the UK government holds then that brings into ques…
Yep, I feel like there is a cognitive dissonance somewhere in there. On one thread about social media and internet affecting young people negatively, you have people saying parents should control their kids' exposure to the internet. And in another thread about ID laws, you have people saying kids should have privacy to roam the internet.
For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographic content if the client's user agent sets an HTTP header indicating they don't want to see it? Now you don't have any privacy problems because the header contains no personally identifying information -- you don't even have to be under 18 to opt into it. But then parents can configure the kid's devices to send that header, without even impacting the kid's privacy to view content that isn't designated as pornographic, since the header is an opt-in to censorship rather than the removal of anonymity.
Also notice that an academic discussion of sexual identity isn't inherently pornographic but is something that can require privacy/anonymity.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh far more deceptive than that. "Should there be a reform of our justice system placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious violent offenses?" Now let's play tldr with the law! Luckily it was non binding and stands forever as an argument against binding referendums.
I'm not really seeing the deception here since it specifies hard labour and says it would apply to all serious violent offenses. How could you vote for this and not know you were voting for hard labour?
On the other hand. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44870087
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but I want to know if I should submit, protest or revolt. I need more codes :)
451 is such a good reference though, other codes just wouldn't be the same :(
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did they raise no one to replace them?
A lot of 1990s tech optimists thought that people with awful opinions were the unfortunate victims of a lack of access to books and education; and the strict gatekeeping of broadcast media by the powerful. This new multi-media technology was going to give everyone on the planet access to a complete free university education, thousands of books, and would prevent the likes of Chinese state-run media suppressing knowle…
Also, I think tech optimists might have a tendency to ignore how slow changes actually happen (thinking of how many times we got promised self driving cars or fusion).
My impression is that the covid pandemic had a huge psychological impact on everybody which resulted in anger and fear surfacing at all levels, with bad implications (emotion based decision making, aggressiveness, conflict). No clue if this is real or if it is how it will play out on the long term...
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#406Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, what makes you say that the majority of HN loves porn? I've seen a few random references to it but nothing that would indicate that HN loves porn any more than any other community loves porn.
It's just a statistical correlation. Who loves porn demographically? 1) Men. 2) Men age 18-40 in particular. 3) No evidence for this but in my experience tech people tend to like porn more than others for whatever reason. So a survey of HN users would show more pro-porn respondents than a survey of the UK or the US or EU as a whole.
This does not jibe with my experience. I think perhaps your experience is not a representative sample of tech people. But mine probably isn't either. So it's pointless for either of us to state an opinion here based on our experience with our own slice of tech people.
It's kinda funny how this is a subthread about how YouGov's polling on the Online Safety Act is flawed, but we're committing the same exact sins ourselves.
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#408Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no". > The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and eff…
Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
The old generation of idealists grew up and we raised no one to replace them. I know because I'm in that emotionally and ideologically stunted generation.
Why did they raise no one to replace them?
plus the media and public sphere dysfunction we see through the fact that we haven't seen any new celebrities or public intellectuals elected in the past 10 years, telling people ideas don't get you anywhere.
This will only get worse as we are at the end of progression of this culture and cultural consensus has split between educated legacy media and uneducated young new media which develops its own often incorrect assumptions about the world- like about mental illness assumptions. It's cultural ouroboros- we're destroying parts of ourselves because they've grown too different. We need a new way forward and a new culture of contentment that champions the human.
If you've been paying attention to the subtext in news stories for the past couple of years you may have some idea why this is happening.