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

61–70 of 480 posts

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

#61

Post by timellis-smith »

noduerme wrote: post #32
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…

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.

Out of interest, have you seen the list of potential future PMs. I would say it is far more diverse and less xenophobic than most European countries.

But yeah believe what makes you happy. Just don't let the hate get to you to much.

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

#62

Post by BurningFrog »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #22
llamataboot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The super advanced level is to realize it applies to all of your /thoughts/ which is mostly a pattern matching brain and personality built around the ways it found to make sense of some things justifying the chaos in retrospect :D

Correct but this is a different phenomenon. You are talking about post hoc justification for your behavior, where your brain is very good at making up stories that have nothing to do with the original motivation. I believe GP is referring to the fact that the true aim of much of this legislation had nothing to do with protecting kids from the beginning. They use that rhetoric because it's easy to get people on board…

I think it's a mix of cynical PR campaigns and honest activism, and I'm not smart enough to say which is the biggest factor in each instance.

Separately, the honest activists are often lying to themselves, in the sense that their real motives are not what the they tell themselves and others.

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

#63

Post by kergonath »

com2kid wrote: post #23
dane-pgp wrote: post #3

> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors This is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230. It takes politics back to the simpler age where there were just a few entities d…

> 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…

> 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?

We pay for TVs (the physical objects), and most of them are still riddled with ads. They will double dip if they can. The reasoning won’t be “if we charge them this much we can drop ads and not lose money”, it will be “if we charge them this much we can have it on top of however much we are doing with ads”.

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

#64

Post by commandlinefan »

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…

> won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer

This horribly written law can easily be interpreted to apply to ISP's as well - so if the ISP is allowing these peer-to-peer systems that allow "unsafe" content to be shared, they're liable for it too, or they have to shut down the peer-to-peer systems.

Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand.

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

#65

Post by BurningFrog »

yboris wrote: post #21
BurningFrog wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good mental practice to always be aware that stated intentions and actual reasons are entirely separate things. They do sometimes, mostly by chance, coincide. The advanced level of this is to be aware this applies even to your own actions.

A great book to realize that the reasons people give for what they do are not the real reasons is Elephant in the Brain https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda... A great book to realize that the reasons you give for what you do are not the real reasons is Strangers to Ourselves https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Ourselves-Discovering-Adapt...

Yes, I learned much of this from Elephant In The Brain. Biggest shock to my belief systems this century.

May have to read Strangers to Ourselves as well.

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

#66

Post by Clubber »

Nextgrid wrote: post #60
LatteLazy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are the alternatives from a advertiser's perspective though? Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore.

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

#67

Post by joering2 »

> If a British child could merely type your URL into a browser, the site is in scope.

Seems incorrect, no? The visit is more important than just typing URL. Worst-case scenario I will check your IP and if its in UK/GB scope, you will see "Unable to browse this site due to your-stupid-anti-blah-blah-UK-policy"

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

#68

Post by kergonath »

camdat wrote: post #17
Zak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Preventing public discourse] is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230 What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?

>algorithms that have an editorial effect? Isnt this every non-chronilogical sorting algorithm?

Even chronologically sorting ones. Any choice made is an editorial choice.

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

#69

Post by cowtools »

commandlinefan wrote: post #64
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…

> won't result in a renaissance for peer to peer This horribly written law can easily be interpreted to apply to ISP's as well - so if the ISP is allowing these peer-to-peer systems that allow "unsafe" content to be shared, they're liable for it too, or they have to shut down the peer-to-peer systems. Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand.

Sure, but there is some limitation to what they could feasibly restrict. Tor with WebRTC bridges?
Post reply on HN