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

51–60 of 480 posts

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

#51

Post by mixtur2021 »

noduerme wrote: post #26
buscoquadnary wrote: post #11

My belief is that the open internet began to pose a threat to those in power, they now seek to divide the internet back up along national boundaries via absurd regulations in order to for the traditional institutions to maintain their power. We are already seeing it with many sites being unwilling to deal with the compliance headache of GDPR and just blocking European users, plus it seems like half the internet is of…

Quoted post unavailable.

You are coming across here as a terrible elitist. Language is unnecessary. Referring to people as the "unwashed masses" and then a comparison to chimpanzees. In the context, this reads like de-humanization.

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

#52

Post by ok123456 »

dane-pgp wrote: post #48
ok123456 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> a few confused people mill around the rotunda and take selfies. That's like calling 9/11 "a few planes being temporarily diverted from their flight paths". The facts[0] paint a different picture: "13 percent of those nearly 700 arrested as of early December are members of militia groups like the Oath Keepers or extremist groups like the Proud Boys." > could have been avoided by winning by clear and resounding margi…

>That's like calling 9/11 "a few planes being temporarily diverted from their flight paths".

Yeah it wasn't 9/11. It was more like a 2005 myspace flash-mob that was part of a poorly thought out product promotion.

> ... popular vote ...

We don't elect by the simple popular vote. Amend the constitution to change the rules. By the current rules, it was a squeaker. The "battle ground states" are battle grounds not because of widespread voter suppression, but because the brand of the other team is so bad there.

> You're advocating for terrorism.

Yeah. Medicare for all is terrorism I guess.

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

#53

Post by throwaway4aday »

Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media etc.? When government or industry makes it nearly impossible for consumer needs to be met we inevitably see a grey and black market spring up to meet those needs. My prediction is that if legislation like this becomes widespread we'll see a freely distributed application rise to prominence among a gaggle of others, it'll dominate the chat and social market until even grandma is using it and the establishment will have a right proper freak out as other social media giants implode and everyone is communicating anything they want with zero oversight from the government or industry. This is roughly how I remember the Napster affair going when DRM was pushed hard by the recording industry, it eventually collapsed but not before dealing a massive blow to the status quo and forcing a transition to streaming.

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

#54

Post by sterlind »

xdfgh1112 wrote: post #18
hyperman1 wrote: post #15

As someone from the EU, with no money or anuthing coming in from the UK, why would I even care about this? The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they. So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer wor…

Yeah, this already happens to some extent with American and Asian sites blocking Europe and the UK because they don't want to deal with GPDR.

If this UK bill passes, I'd simply return HTTP 451 with a note that although the UK is blocked from my site, VPNs are not.

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

#55

Post by namlem »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #53

Can someone explain why this won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer and e2e encrypted chat/forums/social media etc.? When government or industry makes it nearly impossible for consumer needs to be met we inevitably see a grey and black market spring up to meet those needs. My prediction is that if legislation like this becomes widespread we'll see a freely distributed application rise to prominence among a ga…

It will probably just lead to a rise in VPNs to access services that block British users.

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

#56

Post by anigbrowl »

hyperman1 wrote: post #41
LegitShady wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the louder someone tells me in advance they don't care, the more they care about something going on here, and in your case its to talk about the EU and the UK. This was an article about the UK, if you didn't care you didn't need to post here at all, just as people from the US don't need to post to say "I'm from the US, why do I need to care about EU laws?" you don't, but you also don't say anything intelligent about…

But it does. Laws like this tend to spill over to other countrys, unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe away from the mess they created. So one way to fight this law is to make clear the rest of the world is not going to play along. So as a person, I of course do care. The UK used to be fairly good concerning human rights, privacy, cooperation, ... This represents another step back. So the best thing to d…

So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer world. I'll ignore its laws

Laws like this tend to spill over to other countrys, unless the politicians in question have to tiptoe away from the mess

Pick a lane.

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

#57

Post by cronix »

mellavora wrote: post #16
TillE wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just underlines what should be fairly obvious: that such official meetings are not how things are actually decided in representative democracies. I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences.

> I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences. yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block…

> So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block unless there is an extreme question of conscience.

Yes, essentially we can just keep the main leaders of each party and assign them everyone's votes from their respective parties (35% in your example) that "won" and get rid of everyone else and end up with the exact same outcome, except orders of magnitude cheaper and more expedient. If you're a member of x party and x party won, why are you actually needed if you're not the leader? Your salary, benefits, retirement and as well as every single person on your staff are all a waste at that point, because you're going to vote for x's position, which is decided by the leadership.

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

#58

Post by anigbrowl »

LegitShady wrote: post #37
noduerme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's something novel, then: I've lived all over the world, but I wouldn't step foot in post-Brexit, xenophobic Britain if you paid me. I'm reading this gleefully thinking of ways to flout whatever implementation is settled upon, while homegrown British companies rot. I am, in fact, rooting for your economy to utterly collapse.

As I said, its not that you don't care, its that you care very very strongly, but wanted to pretend you didn't care, which was why you posted to say 'but I don't live in the UK' as if it was relevant to anyone but you.

You're responding to two different people as if they were the same person.

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

#59

Post by HeckFeck »

I dread to think what this will mean for the free and open Internet - the source of much mirth, yes, and much dread. But that's just a reflection of the human condition. It should be just left be.

Another case of myopic, joyless stodges ruining what they don't understand.

I've paid enough taxes to this worthless, bloated institution that claims to 'protect my liberties' - is it too late to get a refund? Don't they owe me something for clear breach of contract? The 'social contract' isn't what it was when I was born!

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

#60

Post by Nextgrid »

LatteLazy wrote: post #38
com2kid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ended up making social media accounts require annual payments So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts? Looks like quarterly ARPU is about $12 per US user per month. So a $5 a month subscription would destroy their business model. However go back 6 yea…

Those things won't change, the charge will just be on top. And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200?

> the charge will just be on top.

Disagreed - if ad- and engagement-based social media becomes a regulatory minefield then other monetization models suddenly become attractive. The final price will always only be limited by what the market is actually willing to bear.

Post reply on HN