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

461–470 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#461

Post by Zarathustra30 »

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…

That solution reminds me of the evil bit. However, if someone has the skills or resources to unset the bit, they likely are allowed to anyway.

https://archive.org/details/rfc3514

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#462

Post by terminalshort »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #64
echelon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Neither the left or the right wants anything. People inside each group do. This is an important distinction that pundits love to invert. I have a very hard time taking any of your sources seriously, particularly when it comes to any categorization of "the left". FEE is a conservative libertarian think tank. Heritage Foundation is the most infamous conservative think tank. Alan Dershowitz is most famous for defending…

Then I recommend you have a look at the polling numbers on free speech presented here: https://www.natesilver.net/p/free-speech-is-in-trouble

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#464

Post by bathtub365 »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #440
gundmc wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have nuclear weapons, are in the G7, are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, 6th highest GDP in the world. What are your criteria?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#465

Post by JoshTriplett »

kelipso wrote: post #298
yupyupyups wrote: post #285

Earlier 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.

That's not cognitive dissonance unless it's the same people saying both.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#466

Post by steve_taylor »

Aloisius wrote: post #453
steve_taylor wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we conflating pornography and Wikipedia?

Wikipedia hosts pornography.

Are you referring to educational pictures of human anatomy? There’s quite a difference between that and porn.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#467

Post by Lerc »

terminalshort wrote: post #456
Lerc wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe you are in the majority? I'm quite confident that being in favour of hard labour is a minority opinion in New Zealand. I guess it is at least consistent with your belief that there is a mandate for Project 2025.

I really don't understand how you can possibly believe that given your prior statement: > I live in a country where 91.78% of the population voted for a referendum that bought back hard labour in prisons.

It is consistent with my experience that most people seem to not realise that they voted for hard labour.

That is indeed the entire theme of this thread, That people can give an answer to a question that in some way does not reflect their honestly held opinion.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#468

Post by codedokode »

Zarathustra30 wrote: post #461
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…

That solution reminds me of the evil bit. However, if someone has the skills or resources to unset the bit, they likely are allowed to anyway. https://archive.org/details/rfc3514

In case with Windows laptop, the verification proof might be for example, a digitally signed serial number of the motherboard (and the OS is itself signed to prevent tampering). While it's possible to work around this, an average kid or adult is unlikely to do it. And in case with a phone there is almost zero chance to hack it.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#469

Post by anigbrowl »

Lerc wrote: post #403
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?

I don't know how you could vote for it, I didn't and was astonished that people did. On the other hand. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44870087

I would probably not vote for it on principle, but my specific question was how the text as quoted could be considered deceptive.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#470

Post by anigbrowl »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #438
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?

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

I agree that it's unnecessarily wordy, but I still don't think it's deceptive. If your brain is bailing out that fast maybe it's better not to vote.
Post reply on HN