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

Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

webdevlaw.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 480 posts

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#451

Post by causi »

antonymy wrote: post #201
causi wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's when you create a new account. The obsession with linking your real life to your online life is the most toxic change to internet culture since the web started.

Thank you. I see so many people here who seem intent on linking their online identity to their real life identity, a trend popularized by social media and which is in direct contravention to the common sense advice we used to give people: don't upload PII on the internet. I understand many people rely on social media for professional networking but there's absolutely no reason why you have to use this professional ne…

Exactly. I can't count the number of people whose professional output I greatly admire but who destroyed themselves in my eyes by being fuckwads on Twitter.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#452

Post by wyager »

TeeMassive wrote: post #286
wyager wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't use this thread to shill a shitcoin that doesn't even remotely attempt to solve the issue being discussed in the thread. Even if the shitcoin itself weren't stupid, it's specifically targeting low-power iot devices, not general internet usage.

I thought I was mocking them, but whatever.

Sorry, I'm too desensitized by earnest shills.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#453

Post by GoodbyeMrChips »

Shuang1 wrote: post #271
solarkraft wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how it only goes one way, isn't it?

It's not really weird. We have rights guaranteed to us in the United States that no other country has, so it makes sense we would not extradite.

> We have rights guaranteed to us in the United States that no other country has

Good god!

You really believe your own hype don't you? (I believe the American expression is "drunk the kool-aid").

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#454

Post by calibas »

concordDance wrote: post #419
calibas wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced the "solution" to abuse is to remain completely anonymous online.

What's wrong with it as a solution?

Seems a bit paranoid for one thing.

Also, it's unfair and cruel to put the responsibility for preventing abuse onto the abused. The person engaging in dysfunctional behavior is the problem, not their victims.

Sure, you can avoid being bullied by staying hidden all the time, and I guess that works for some people but it doesn't sit well with me.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#455

Post by barry-cotter »

pjc50 wrote: post #433
int_19h wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since HRA is just a bill, it can be trivially overridden entirely or on a case-by-case basis by any other bill, requiring only a simple majority in the Parliament, thanks to parliamentary sovereignty. So it doesn't really meaningfully protect anything.

Kind of a constitutional problem, but of course until Brexit it was guaranteed by international treaty. And still is in Northern Ireland: https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandp... "The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including po…

The ECHR does not meaningfully guarantee free speech.

> The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the conviction of an Austrian lecturer who suggested that the founder of Islam, Prophet Mohammed was "a pedophile" for marrying a 6-year-old child.

https://neonnettle.com/news/5449-austrian-woman-convicted-fo...

> Woman’s conviction in Austria for calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not breach her right to free speech, European Court of Human Rights rules

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre...

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#456

Post by barry-cotter »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #234
cowtools wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brits don't have freedom of speech AFIK. it was never in their social contract.

Err... you might want to give the ECHR a read, and in particular Article 10.

Woman’s conviction in Austria for calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not breach her right to free speech, European Court of Human Rights rules

The woman, named only as Mrs. S, 47, from Vienna, was said to have held two seminars in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Mohammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha.

According to scripture the marriage was consumated when Aisha was just nine years old, leading Mrs S. to say to her class Mohammad 'liked to do it with children'.

She also reportedly said '... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre...

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#457

Post by GoodbyeMrChips »

causi wrote: post #190
yaseer wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instantly erase someone from your perception in person to person interaction. As easily as you can block a message, so too can abuser create a new account. Online harassment can be as persistent as in-person harassment - there's countless stories of people being continuously harassed. If it were so easy to block people online 'cyberstalking' wouldn't be such a big problem in the same area.

That's when you create a new account. The obsession with linking your real life to your online life is the most toxic change to internet culture since the web started.

> The obsession with linking your real life to your online life is the most toxic change to internet culture since the web started.

Seconded.

As the saying goes; "What is the difference between posting something on the internet and a tattoo on your arse?..... It's easier to remove the tattoo."

Because that personal information you posted or 'offensive' joke you posted when pissed will stay around forever to haunt you.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#458

Post by blfr »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #202
canadiantim wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell it’s more the progressive wing of most countries who are pushing for authoritarian censorship of the internet. Just look at Canada

> ... it’s more the progressive wing of most countries who are pushing for authoritarian censorship of the internet China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia... Aren't progressive by any metric.

China is nominatively communist, the most progressive ideology in existence or at least in the running for the title. They even had one-child policy.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#459

Post by manuelabeledo »

blfr wrote: post #458
manuelabeledo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... it’s more the progressive wing of most countries who are pushing for authoritarian censorship of the internet China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia... Aren't progressive by any metric.

China is nominatively communist, the most progressive ideology in existence or at least in the running for the title. They even had one-child policy.

> China is nominatively communist, the most progressive ideology in existence...

There is no connection whatsoever between progressive social policies, and macroeconomic planning.

Denmark is an extremely progressive country, way more than China in all aspects, yet they run under a free-market capitalist economy.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#460

Post by codedokode »

concordDance wrote: post #416
codedokode wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say the same thing about alcohol or cigarettes. Obviously, kids can find a way to buy them illegally but it doesn't mean that we should allow that. I propose to make it illegal to help kids to obtain access to adult Internet the same way as it is illegal to help them to buy alcohol.

Alcohol and cigarettes physically harm you. As best I can tell internet access is no more harmful than gaming. The two classes of risk are too different for the analogy to work.

If Internet access is not harming, then why do Bills like this exist?
Post reply on HN