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

621–630 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#621

Post by BDPW »

yard2010 wrote: post #571
pmontra wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Denmark, Sweden and Netherlands have the same system and it works reasonably well actually.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#622

Post by ceejayoz »

mlindner wrote: post #588
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…

[flagged]

It already happened in LA in June.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/general-involved-in-trumps-l-a-...

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#623

Post by Jolter »

bell-cot wrote: post #597
Jolter wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”The lesser evil” is the essence of any two-party system. Which I would somewhat facetiously classify the UK system as. Abolish ”first past the post” and introduce proportional representation now!

Disagree. If the society is essentially "broken", with little sense of everyone working together to build and secure a positive future, then two-party systems can degenerate into "but they're even worse!" races to the bottom. But in better circumstances, there is enormous social pressure (at least on mainstream parties) to be much higher functioning, and willing and able to lead the nation toward a positive future. (…

I would say that what you wrote in the first two paragraphs is all equally true of a system with proportional representation. But you’d avoid a lot of problems:

- people in ”safe” constituencies being permanently represented by an MP from an opposing party, with no recourse except for moving

- policies that constantly pander to voters in ”swing” constituencies

- the two major parties constantly triangulating their policies around the center, rather than voters moving their votes to the party representing their opinions, which ensures that government is always centrist or near-centrist

Etc — these are just my pet peeves about the US and UK systems, I know there are more.

Plus, I think it’s good if a system is more robust against loss of trust that you mentioned. You could argue that in the UK, society hasn’t yet been broken, but looking at the US, don’t you think it’s better not to have that vulnerability?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#624

Post by johneth »

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…

> It’s difficult to verify that because Yoti is privately held and its backers are secret.

You can see some of these things on Companies House. This is Yoti Holding Ltd., but you'd have to look at its subsidiaries, too:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...

(I'm not defending Yoti/similar, just mentioning in case you weren't aware of CH)

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#625

Post by dragonwriter »

bell-cot wrote: post #597
Jolter wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”The lesser evil” is the essence of any two-party system. Which I would somewhat facetiously classify the UK system as. Abolish ”first past the post” and introduce proportional representation now!

Disagree. If the society is essentially "broken", with little sense of everyone working together to build and secure a positive future, then two-party systems can degenerate into "but they're even worse!" races to the bottom. But in better circumstances, there is enormous social pressure (at least on mainstream parties) to be much higher functioning, and willing and able to lead the nation toward a positive future. (…

> But in better circumstances, there is enormous social pressure (at least on mainstream parties) to be much higher functioning, and willing and able to lead the nation toward a positive future.

No, there isn't, and comparative study of democracies has shown that there is a pretty direct relationship between effective degree of proportionality and a wide range of positive democratic outcome measures, as well as producing a richer national dialogue.

A two-party system doesn't just break down into an us-v-them negative dialogue in bad conditions (it pretty much gets permanently stuck there because it works in a two-party system, and it is consistently easier than deepe discussion of issues), it also narrows the space of of potential solution sets that are even available for discussion to an approximation of a one-dimensional space. Multiparty proportional systems leader to a search space with greater dimensionality, as well as making “well, they are worse” politicking generally ineffective.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#626

Post by gargan »

danlitt wrote: post #589
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…

Why do you think that the UK having an unwritten constitution means that revolution cannot happen? Of course putting aside the fact we did have a revolution in the 1600s, and the almost constant revolution happening in Ireland until the 1930s. A fluid constitution is no use when the government is intransigent, and very little can protect a democracy from half the voters voting for a coup. A written constitution only…

The revolution in the 1600s was reversed - as far as I know the UK is the only country in the world to have reversed a revolution.

If you want more healthcare security you're more likely to get that in an uncodified system like the UK. Yes your healthcare rights can be reversed but better that, than never happening at all like in the US.

A codified system also hands vast power to lawyers. The US is a lawyer's paradise of everyone suing everyone, rising political violence due to inflexibility, and more risk of revolution.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#627

Post by ChrisKnott »

Lio wrote: post #581
ChrisKnott wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> Ludicrous to call William Perrin “the founder” of Ofcom or refer to it as “his” quango From his own Carnegie UK webpage linked above: > William was instrumental in creating Ofcom, reforming the regulatory regimes of several sectors and kicking off the UK government’s interest in open data. William was awarded an OBE for his highly influential work at Carnegie UK with Prof Lorna Woods that underpinned the UK governm…

Both the use of “founder” and “the” are inaccurate and misleading (I notice you’ve switched to “a” without comment). He was a government adviser 20 years ago that was central to the work of creating Ofcom. How is he closely related to the running of Ofcom, today?

The conspiracy theory is your suggestion he is deriving some kind of financial benefit to Carnegie via Yoti - what is the basis for this? (I agree it would be a conflict of interest, though not hypocritical).

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#628

Post by _zeso »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #535
_zeso wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikimedia Foundation isn't "doing business" in the UK, they're a nonprofit. Their mission statement is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Part of fulfilling that mission is opposing laws that restrict free knowledge and open access, so why should they not use their…

Because there are legal avenues of protest awarded to them by the United Kingdom. They also definitely "do business" there even if they aren't in it for profit.

Restricting activism to exclusively “legal avenues” is what allows the slow erosion of our freedoms and rights. The rights you enjoy today would not exist if they weren’t fought outside of the legal frameworks of their time. This law is the perfect example of how rights are not guaranteed and need to be constantly fought for.

If they were to block the UK that would just be them no longer “doing business” in the UK, which you seem to agree is perfectly acceptable?

You seem to think that the Wikimedia Foundation exists outside of a political context but the reality is their sheer existence is political and always will be.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#629

Post by vkou »

clarionbell wrote: post #594
vkou wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Constitution is pretty clear on that question. The problem is that in order to persecute president you need congress to act. The constitution simply doesn't account for a situation, when congress willingly ceases vital functions. To be fair, it took over 200 years for this edge case to occur. If this was a software we would marvel at its stability.

> Constitution is pretty clear on that question.

Given that all three branches of government seems to be moving in lockstep on it, (with the military, the secret police, and the police all behind them), you are right - it is clear on that question.

It's clear to all them that, no, anything he does goes, and no, the 14th doesn't actually mean anything.

That's not how I parse it from a cursory reading, but who am I to nay-say the king?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#630

Post by [deleted] »

Jolter wrote: post #585
ozim wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

”The lesser evil” is the essence of any two-party system. Which I would somewhat facetiously classify the UK system as. Abolish ”first past the post” and introduce proportional representation now!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN