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

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#431

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

codedokode wrote: post #337

In Russia there is a plan to make special SIM cards for children, that would not allow registration in social networks. Isn't it better than UK legislation? The whole idea that every site or app must do verification is stupid. It would be much easier and better to do verification at the store when buying a laptop, a phone or a SIM card. The verification status can be burned in firmware memory, and the device would al…

Rare case of Russian doing something more honestly. Implementing it as a device flag sent to websites, and making it easy to set for the device of any minor, is an elegant and unintrusive solution.

If you get w3.org and major browser and os vendors in on it, it simply becomes a legally enforced an universal parental control without much drawbacks.

But that would not permit the complete tracking of identity of all individuals in a country with their ptivate Internet activity and political stance.

And that's a massive loss to the true purpose of any law pretending to protect children; Just like the multiple attempts to outlaw encryption or scan all private or messages.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#432

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

UnreachableCode wrote: post #372
cm2012 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tech people? I have met utter goons obsessed with porn that barely understand how their phone actually works.

A lot of them work in Westminster.

Old news, but I suspect there hasn't been a sudden outbreak of puritanism.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/mps-peers-and-staff-...

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#433

Post by Larrikin »

yupyupyups wrote: post #285
matt-p wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

School bullys, parents, friends, community members, church leaders and many others I imagine. The idea was that it would have your real name and it was verified by your ID.

>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…

Shutting down the conversation by saying parents should have the last say is how we got these ridiculous laws in the first place.

What happens when someone wants to explore their sexuality by finding someone other than the pre-approved person from the parents?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shafilea_Ahmed

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#434

Post by mvdtnz »

jacobolus wrote: post #425
anigbrowl wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People read "greater emphasis on the needs of victims" and stop processing afterwards.

No, we didn't. We knew what we were voting for. And I'd vote the same way today.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#435

Post by bouncycastle »

michaelt wrote: post #281
johnnyanmac wrote: post #220

Earlier 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…

were you one of those believers at the start?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#436

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

physarum_salad wrote: post #96
phpnode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other point is that recent polls suggest the British public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation [0], which is not reflected in most of the narrative we see online. Whether they support how it has been implemented is a different matter, but the desire to do something is clear. [0] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/202...

The curtain twitcher/nanny state impulse is pretty strong

The Home Office is full of fascists, many of whom may - allegedly - have questionable personal habits and interests.

None of this has anything to do protecting the public. If that was the goal there are any number of other ways to manage this.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#437

Post by djeastm »

alphager wrote: post #423
Aeolun wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t make any sense. It’s not wikimedia’s responsibility to ensure people from the UK don’t hit their servers by typing wikipedia.org into the browser bar.

According to UK law, it is.

Can you cite said law for us?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#438

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #398
Lerc wrote: post #360

Earlier 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?

I can easily point to deception in two words

1) Hard 2) Words

"Should there be a reform of our justice system" -> "should the law be passed"

"emphasis", "restitution", "compensation" -> too hard to skim, brain is bailing out

---

the only way to provide valid direct democracy is to provide more than enough explanations and rewordings from both sides of the debate *at the point of voting* to remove miscommunication

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#439

Post by dboreham »

_9ptr wrote: post #251
Henchman21 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because the bedrock principle on which modern government is based is… drum roll Lie whenever it’s convenient because the public are children anyway and won’t or can’t understand. Through this lens many things make more sense. They’re comfortable with lying because there are zero repercussions for lying.

They are not only children, but also goldfish who forget everything after 5 minutes

tbf it took from 1939 until about 5 years ago for people to forget that fascism is a bad idea.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#440

Post by LAC-Tech »

gundmc wrote: post #391
profmonocle wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly naive question, why should Wikimedia do anything at all? Do they have a legal presence in the UK? If not, why not just say "we aren't a UK based organization so we have no obligations under this law" Let the UK block Wikipedia.

IANAL, but I assume this could open Wikimedia leadership to charges of contempt and eventually lead to needing to avoid visiting the UK or other extraditing countries and potentially pave the way for asset seizures. You generally don't want to antagonize world power governments.

The UK isn't a world power.
Post reply on HN