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

561–570 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#561

Post by pyuser583 »

mathiaspoint wrote: post #222
bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

A British constitution makes no sense, power is delegated from the king not from the member states like in the US or Canada. The only way the UK could end up with a constitution that's meaningful and not performative would be after a civil war.

You mean like a civil war between the Crown and Parliament?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#562

Post by vkou »

llbbdd wrote: post #530
Ntrails wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a government that can barely keep up with the fires of its own making let alone the many the world is imposing upon them. Along with that, watching the horse trading going on over every change they make - I don't see how they ever get a meaningful final text over t…

They should just do the same thing many governments the world over have done - adopt a version of the US constitution. Easy, clean, and only massively ironic.

[flagged]

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#563

Post by pmontra »

nickff wrote: post #551
Ericson2314 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The types of quotes get bandied about all the time, but I don't think they are accurate. Politicians don't want to reduce their power, but politicians != governments. Lots of scary stuff actually empowers the civil service more than it empowers politicians. The main way politicians loose power is also not by the nature of the job changing, but by loosing elections.

Do you live in a parliamentary democracy? If not, you may be unaware that in those systems (like Canada and the United Kingdom), the ruling party is referred to as ‘the government’.

There are many western democracies where there no single ruling party. 'The government' is made by an alliance of many different parties (eg: 25% + 15% + 10% + 5%.) They might share a common overall view of the world but each party can have a very different take on many subjects. The actual government has to do only what all of them agree upon, and the 5% party may have a disproportionate weight because that party leaving the government is as important as the 25% party leaving it.

So, the government is the people in the government and the small parties can be very vocal against it. Opposition from inside is a double edged tool to attempt to get more votes in the next elections, even from within the same coalition.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#564

Post by Ray20 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #32
perihelions wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did do that once, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3477966 ( "Wikipedia blackout page (wikipedia.org)" (2012)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. R…

"suddenly"? Wikipedia has always supported fascist initiatives

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#565

Post by mvdtnz »

Lerc wrote: post #444
mvdtnz wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Wild stab in the dark - you live in Wellington.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#566

Post by gargan »

llbbdd wrote: post #530
Ntrails wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a government that can barely keep up with the fires of its own making let alone the many the world is imposing upon them. Along with that, watching the horse trading going on over every change they make - I don't see how they ever get a meaningful final text over t…

They should just do the same thing many governments the world over have done - adopt a version of the US constitution. Easy, clean, and only massively ironic.

Biggest mistake the Americans did was codify their constitution. I'll probably be pilloried for that but look at the evidence:

- US is about to have military on the streets during peacetime with no terror threat within a codified constitution

- UK has had military on the streets in response to terrorism in Northern Ireland (a real threat) and not for decades. The UK constitution is uncodified and spread over many (10+?) documents ranging from Magna Carta in the 1200s to the Bill of Rights in the 1600s to documents written in the 1800s and then more modern Acts of Parliament.

Importantly the UK constitution can slowly change which means the UK has never had a revolution and never will do. Whereas the US constitution is rigid which achieves the opposite: when it does change it'll be dramatic and as a result of another violent revolution.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#567

Post by PUSH_AX »

monooso wrote: post #501
drawfloat wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.

Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in…

Why? People make all kinds of empty promises to get into power.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#568

Post by PUSH_AX »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #345
bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

>2. The next government will take great delight in removing this law as an easy win. As a rule of thumb, governments don't take actions which reduce their power.

This isn’t power until it scope creeps into surveillance, to protect the poor kids obviously.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#569

Post by globular-toast »

monooso wrote: post #501
drawfloat wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it. I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.

Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in…

They're all using it to virtue signal their hatred of child porn. It's basically religious at this point. You stray from the line and someone just shouts infidel and you get stoned to death.

Unfortunately the atheism movement of a about ten years ago didn't go far enough in making people aware that religion isn't just about big men in the sky who are the same colour as you. What it actually is is a deficiency in human ability, a bypass for the logical centres of the brain and a way to access the animal areas that can get people to do terrible things to each other. Some of them, like Hitchens, definitely understood this, but nobody seems to be talking about it any more and we didn't learn to be vigilant of this deficiency.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#570

Post by Lio »

PUSH_AX wrote: post #567
monooso wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single Labour politician who voted on this bill voted against it. Peter Kyle was one such MP, and now he's making statements like: > I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he’s going to overturn these laws. So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. It's maddening. The worst part is that they've somehow put me in…

Why? People make all kinds of empty promises to get into power.

True but all the other parties are currently saying that they 100% will not reconsider this stupid law[1].

I don’t like Farrage. At all.

He’s also currently the only MP questioning this law and he’s making fair points about it.

The government response is not a clever rebuttal but Jess Philips and Peter Kyle making ad hominem arguments comparing him to one of the nastiest people in our country’s history.

This is government overreach and they know it.

1. It’s stupid not because of its goals but because it doesn’t protect kids but does expose vast numbers of adults to identity fraud just to access Spotify or wikipedia.

Post reply on HN