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

571–580 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#571

Post by yard2010 »

pmontra wrote: post #563
nickff wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 le…

This is not working. A few decades later the biggest party is like 50% of the politicians.

My theory is that power accumulates like money so you end up having few people with all the power. It's not that original, I must've read it somewhere.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#572

Post by Saline9515 »

gargan wrote: post #566
llbbdd wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Political systems do not exist in a vacuum, but integrate into a specific ethnic, cultural and geographic landscape. In a nation of immigrants with frequent demographic changes, having a written constitution anchors the country and prevents some capture of the government.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#573

Post by _9ptr »

dboreham wrote: post #439
_9ptr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not only children, but also goldfish who forget everything after 5 minutes

tbf it took from 1939 until about 5 years ago for people to forget that fascism is a bad idea.

Let me tell you as a german: that's not what fascism looks like. Get your TDS under control.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#575

Post by SwtCyber »

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…

Wikipedia's not perfect, but its transparency and edit history make it a lot less susceptible to the kinds of anonymous abuse this law is supposedly targeting

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#576

Post by ChrisKnott »

Lio wrote: post #154

One of the most interesting things about this legislation is where it comes from. Primarily it was drafted and lobbied for by William Perrin OBE and Prof Lorna Woods at Carnegie UK[1], billed as an “independent foundation”. William Perrin is also the founder of Ofcom. So he’s been using the foundation’s money to lobby for the expansion of his unelected quango. It has also been suggested that one of the largest benefi…

Ludicrous to call William Perrin “the founder” of Ofcom or refer to it as “his” quango.

Passive voice, evidence free conspiracy nonsense that flatters HN biases? Updoots to the left!

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#577

Post by MrGilbert »

ozim wrote: post #558
Jimmc414 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The worst part is that they've somehow put me in the position of defending Nigel Farage. I've come to believe that is the point of forcing people to choose between extreme polarizing positions. It makes disengagement feel like the only moderate move.

Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future.

> Feels utterly demoralizing when you have to vote for lesser evil and not for someone you feel will be better for the future.

Always go for your gut feeling, not for what people are blaring. Especially populists will, as the name suggest, crave for people's attention and a cheap "Yeah, they are totally right!". That's how they win elections. And three months into the new period, they will show their real intentions.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#578

Post by SwtCyber »

amiga386 wrote: post #11

> If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. S…

Pulling Wikipedia out of the UK would make a statement, but it'd also hand the government an easy win, I think

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#580

Post by gargan »

Saline9515 wrote: post #572
gargan wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Political systems do not exist in a vacuum, but integrate into a specific ethnic, cultural and geographic landscape. In a nation of immigrants with frequent demographic changes, having a written constitution anchors the country and prevents some capture of the government.

The UK and US are both equally nations of immigrants in 2025 at about 16% of the population being born abroad. The UK constitution is written but uncodified and unites the country under the King. The constitution can slowly change to deal with immigration, but in the US they're stuck with either what you have or violent revolution...
Post reply on HN