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

IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

prestonbyrne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–418 of 418 posts

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#411

Post by toyg »

mike_hearn wrote: post #407
toyg wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BBC couldn't care less about conservative tabloids and certainly excluded Farage as much as they could for the longest possible time. He gets invited regularly now because of his polling numbers, not because of some sudden sea change in tabloid coverage.

> certainly excluded Farage as much as they could for the longest possible time

This is a narrative. Reality is something else. These stats are from June of last year; by that point, Farage (leader of a party with barely an MP for most of the past decade) had been invited more often than SNP leader Alex Salmond, who was literally in power and ruling over dozens of MPs. https://theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-gu...

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#412

Post by fukka42 »

tomhow wrote: post #381
fukka42 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this. It's a simple observation of fact, and if you were to read the rest of this thread objectively you'd see it is accurate. Why are you not yelling at the people hurling insults at the UK? Is it because you're American and this hurt your feelings so it's bad, but hurting others their feelings is fine? The Americans are literally threatening violence and war in t…

> Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this The sentence that crossed the line egregiously was: "I understand it's difficult for you as an American to realize that other countries exist and are just as valid as America". This breaks the following guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less…

Sure.

> The sentence that crossed the line egregiously was: "I understand it's difficult for you as an American to realize that other countries exist and are just as valid as America".

This is actually me being emphatic. I know Americans are raised to believe they're special, most of them never leave their country, and so it is difficult for them to see things from a normal point of view.

Now go moderate the rest of that thread. Plenty of heinously offensive comments you seem to have missed.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#413

Post by fukka42 »

tomhow wrote: post #381
fukka42 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this. It's a simple observation of fact, and if you were to read the rest of this thread objectively you'd see it is accurate. Why are you not yelling at the people hurling insults at the UK? Is it because you're American and this hurt your feelings so it's bad, but hurting others their feelings is fine? The Americans are literally threatening violence and war in t…

> Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this The sentence that crossed the line egregiously was: "I understand it's difficult for you as an American to realize that other countries exist and are just as valid as America". This breaks the following guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less…

Also since when is dang not an American? Maybe he wasn't born there, idk. But he clearly is American.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#414

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Arch-TK wrote: post #329
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #90

So the author repeats that the SaSu site was geoblocked but simultaneously note that all UK are idiots that don't realise a geoblock is imperfect and claim... >The UK regulator has now publicly confirmed that the “mirror” site for my client’s site is not accessible in the UK. The writer then proceeds to describe the way in which the spinning up of a mirror lead to the site becoming available for people in the UK. And…

If SaSu is voluntarily implementing a UK geoblock instead of fighting Ofcom. Ofcom is claiming it's everyone on the planet's responsibility to implement their own geoblocks of the UK rather than for the UK to set up a GFW. If SaSu was trying to circumvent some UK originated blockade of their website, your comment would make sense, but they weren't. Even if you hate how this guy writes, which I can agree is questionab…

>If SaSu was trying to circumvent some UK originated blockade of their website, your comment would make sense, but they weren't.

What's all the business about the mirror and the 'the mirror is none of your business' prose - which sounds very much like 'do not look behind the curtain'.

It really sounds a lot like the reason the gov 'went after' SaSu was they brought up a mirror that didn't block the UK access in the manner of the principle site. But I can't see how that's verifiable for us.

This (attempted circumvention of the block with a mirror; like pirate sites do) seems more likely to me than it being a vendetta; perhaps you have more info that would suggest otherwise?

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#415

Post by llbbdd »

EGreg wrote: post #405
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no way to improve the user experience for this? Company A sells cryptocurrency in country A. Company B is a payment processor in country B. You in country A go to the country B merchant's website and enter your card info to buy something. Your card gets charged by company A to buy cryptocurrency, the merchant gets the money through company B and the transfer of cryptocurrency from company A to company B happ…

You are right and HN has no answer other than “crypto is bad”. We are building exactly this at Intercoin. I hate that most of crypto is zero-sum games. https://intercoin.org/currencies.pdf Also Stripe is launching Tempo blockchain, USDC is launching Arc blockchain. Cool things are coming!

It's not even that crypto is bad, it's that it's not good. The user experience is bad universally. I say this as a tech person that didn't care about it as a technology and had to deal with it anyway and I can't stand it. The first crypto service to actually, God forbid, go study Stripe, Shopify, Google Pay, Apple Pay, please understand, actually understand how people pay for things and compete with their actual competitors in a real way, is going to steal the show I'm sure. Until then it's crypto scammers competing for crypto users and crypto dollars and again no normal people want to put up with this shit at all because it's a stupid game and we're just trying to buy things.

EDIT: I clicked on the PDF out of a sense of good faith interest and curiosity and I regret it. I hope you find something else to do.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#416

Post by llbbdd »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #288
llbbdd wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because crypto is a liability itself and nobody normal likes interacting with it.

Is there no way to improve the user experience for this? Company A sells cryptocurrency in country A. Company B is a payment processor in country B. You in country A go to the country B merchant's website and enter your card info to buy something. Your card gets charged by company A to buy cryptocurrency, the merchant gets the money through company B and the transfer of cryptocurrency from company A to company B happ…

Because one of the functions of government currency is keeping things like prices stable for the sanity of normal people buying food and gas, against the type of upheaval and reactionary change that a global currency is susceptible to. Bitcoin/crypto enthusiasts have historically pretended that stable prices are not important, keeping alive the traditional HN-lauded attitude that any insufficiently solved social problem is merely awaiting heroic overhaul via a Messianic technical spec.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#417

Post by crazydoggers »

zb3 wrote: post #408
crazydoggers wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 su…

> There are many possible reasons and instead they should be continued to be encouraged to find proper mental health counseling There are many possible reasons, that's why they should be PROVIDED with help, not "encouraged to somehow find it" as if they didn't know that something was wrong already.. > And it’s not your place to decide what is suffering or not for them. That is exactly the problem. The fact that you c…

First, do no harm. If a forum and group of people push even one person to commit suicide that would/could have been helped by a different approach, then that community has committed harm.

Doing no harm is a high bar, and that bar requires commitment that online communities and the companies that run them almost certainly cant provide without a lot of effort. The disregard for the possibility that those communities may have caused harm (even if you believe they helped you) is alarming.

> This search for "joy and happiness" is absurd

This is the problem when people with this viewpoint get together in forums, it can create a vicious feedback cycle that are not healthy for anyone.

I'm sorry you are suffering or have suffered. But searching and finding joy and happiness is not absurd. We only have one life to live, and it definitely doesn't need to be suffering. Every one of us has the power to change that (believing you cant is a thought trap, a type of delusion.)

> Nothing bad would happen to that person should they not be interrupted

This speaks volumes. You are saying that the death of a person is nothing bad. A life.. a loved one. A child going through a momentary suffering. That death is BAD. Not understanding that is delusional thinking.

> It doesn't delete these 10 years of suffering which you apparently see no problem subjecting people to

I'm not subjecting them to anything, nor are you by not talking or telling a person how to commit suicide. That persons suffering is not your or my responsibility. But the moment you do talk to that person about how they could commit suicide, then you have taken on a responsibility. And it is an immense one, not to be taken lightly.

Finally I'll say this, all your comments indicate to me someone who is suffering from depression. If you truly believe that not to be the case, I challenge you to read the following book cover to cover, do all the exercises, and once you have finished, look back on your words and ideas and see if you may have been stuck in some delusional thinking:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0380731762?ref_=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cp_u...

And finally, if you ever actually consider suicide, I urge you to question your thinking and consider the possibility you could make a choice that in another mindset you would regret. Imagine getting high on shrooms or LSD and jumping off a roof. Depression is like that... when you come to, you realize you were just on a bad trip.

And as my favorite Starship captain says... "Never give up. Never surrender!"

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#418

Post by tomhow »

fukka42 wrote: post #413
tomhow wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feel free to clarify what you think is abusive about this The sentence that crossed the line egregiously was: "I understand it's difficult for you as an American to realize that other countries exist and are just as valid as America". This breaks the following guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less…

Also since when is dang not an American? Maybe he wasn't born there, idk. But he clearly is American.

It's well known that dang is Canadian. Yes he's spent much of his time in the U.S. since becoming full-time HN mod, but he's still Canadian through and through as far as I can see.
Post reply on HN