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

UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

openrightsgroup.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#51

Post by Steve16384 »

sickofparadox wrote: post #16
christkv wrote: post #2

So the UK is now China it seems. What a shining light for democracy and justice. There is no way this will be abused by petty little tyrant minister right?

The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll probably reach the unofficial, real number soon enough. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...

You should read the whole article: "A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services." ".

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#52

Post by pixl97 »

nexus6 wrote: post #17
apopapo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly it's not only the UK. There is a global push to restrict communication world-wide. The future is very bleak for fundamental freedoms.

I’m not convinced anymore that we can handle freedom. Many children grow up glued to a phone or tablet watching AI videos and are targets of dis-information from foreign and/or hostile actors.

It is a cynical view of humanity, but one that seems most correct.

If for example there is a deadly virus going around people will quickly restrict freedoms to prevent its spread. And even in the case they don't people that believe in freedom over precautions are evolutionary culled.

So what happens when the issue is actually infohazards? One of the common assumptions the freedom group makes is with all the information they have, anyone else would come to the same set of decisions they have. Of course I see two problems with this.

1. The freedom group is quite often hypocritical. That is, freedom is defined however they think, and anything outside of how they thing is "Not true freedom™". Elon Musk is a common source of this kind of freedom.

2. The individuals personal definition of freedom is anecdotal (We'll call this set A). Set A individual thinks by telling another individual with set B ideas on freedom that set A will win somehow? (A + B = A). That when you put ideas out there, by some magic process the best ideas win and take over and everything is happily ever after.

Of course where number 2 commonly fails is if an infohazard is more addictive than actual knowledge, and where the inoculation to said addiction takes a long time to reach herd immunity. And example would be that it's faster to destroy a nation due to ragebait faster than open democracy can adjust, hence democracy always fails in these conditions. Nice catch-22 situation.

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#53

Post by cucumber3732842 »

chii wrote: post #12
core-utility wrote: post #10

But just a month ago everyone in the discussion about freedom.gov was saying that Europe doesn't restrict internet! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47067270

but now the definition of europe becomes europe but not UK, since it's convenient to maintain the argument rather than discuss the real underlying issue!

Shrodinger's continent. You don't know what it contains until you know what policy position you need to argue for/against.

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#54

Post by pixl97 »

Refreeze5224 wrote: post #32
nexus6 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not convinced anymore that we can handle freedom. Many children grow up glued to a phone or tablet watching AI videos and are targets of dis-information from foreign and/or hostile actors.

We can't handle unchecked pursuit of profit, freedom isn't the issue.

The people who want unchecked pursuit of profit simply beat you to the punch by manipulating the social zeitgeist to accept that the unchecked pursuit of profit is the very definition of freedom.

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#55

Post by apopapo »

nexus6 wrote: post #17
apopapo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly it's not only the UK. There is a global push to restrict communication world-wide. The future is very bleak for fundamental freedoms.

I’m not convinced anymore that we can handle freedom. Many children grow up glued to a phone or tablet watching AI videos and are targets of dis-information from foreign and/or hostile actors.

If "dis-information" is the core of the issue, then perhaps we ought to start banning religions? Despite doing that, China is a champion of spreading "dis-information" within their own walls. Hostile actors are not foreign, most often they are domestic. The biggest offenders are governments. Only freedom opposes their power, which is why they want to restrict it.

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#56

Post by Steve16384 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #26
christkv wrote: post #2

So the UK is now China it seems. What a shining light for democracy and justice. There is no way this will be abused by petty little tyrant minister right?

The UK has been China forever, they have the most surveillance cameras and police home visits per capita of any developed country and their people like it this way.

Do you have a source on that? All I could find was this that said America has the most, behind China: https://www.tooltester.com/en/blog/the-worlds-most-surveille...

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#57

Post by roryirvine »

RansomStark wrote: post #43
direwolf20 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some examples of the speech the UK arrests people for?

there's many to choose from, you can google for more. But here's what got Lucy Connolly a 31 month sentence: "Mass deportations, now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, if that makes me a racist, so be it". Racist maybe, although she doesn't seem to care about race. Offensive, yeah, seems that it could be interpreted as offensive, but thats not technically illegal (the high court…

She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot.

She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card".

The appeal judgment is very clear and is worth reading: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con...

This is a really poor example to use of censorship - there are very few countries in the world where this wouldn't have been against the law. Even the USA, with it's famed first amendment rights, makes it unlawful to "organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot".

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#58

Post by fidotron »

_verandaguy wrote: post #39
fidotron wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Canadian version of this is especially cynical: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c309y25prnlo

To be clear: this is civil action by a family, not the position of the Government of Canada.

There is no meaningful distinction, which is why a civil case in a foreign country is picked up by the BBC.

Furthermore, the Gov are trying to deflect on to OpenAI (and the internet) because a huge part of the failings in that case involve them seizing the weapons from the perpetrator, and then giving them back.

Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s

#59

Post by RansomStark »

roryirvine wrote: post #57
RansomStark wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's many to choose from, you can google for more. But here's what got Lucy Connolly a 31 month sentence: "Mass deportations, now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, if that makes me a racist, so be it". Racist maybe, although she doesn't seem to care about race. Offensive, yeah, seems that it could be interpreted as offensive, but thats not technically illegal (the high court…

She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot. She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card". The appeal judgment is very clear and is worth reading: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con... Th…

If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights.

I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action.

We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing.

From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation:

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said of the decision: "It is astonishing that this Labour councillor, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot-free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse."

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo

Post reply on HN