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

661–670 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#661

Post by xvector »

anigbrowl wrote: post #470
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can easily point to deception in two words 1) Hard 2) Words "Should there be a reform of our justice system" -> "should the law be passed" "emphasis", "restitution", "compensation" -> too hard to skim, brain is bailing out --- the only way to provide valid direct democracy is to provide more than enough explanations and rewordings from both sides of the debate *at the point of voting* to remove miscommunication

I agree that it's unnecessarily wordy, but I still don't think it's deceptive. If your brain is bailing out that fast maybe it's better not to vote.

Hard disagree. Systems must be designed with typical human fallibilities in mind.

Anyone that phrases a referendum like that ought to be sentenced to hard labor themselves for attempting to subvert democracy.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#662

Post by yupyupyups »

subscribed wrote: post #605
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents have plenty of capacity to exercise control over their children. For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographic content if the client's user agent sets an HTTP header indicating they don't want to see it? Now you don't have any privacy problems because the header contains no personally identifying information -- you don't even have to be under 18 to opt into it. But th…

We're discussing Wikipedia here so unless you're calling them porn peddlers, it's getting more and more bizarre. This discussion started from the categorisation error. Technical means should be irrelevant here.

We are discussing "young people exploring their gender or sexual identity on the internet". This does include pornography, because it's very accessible and not hard to come by if you search for sexual terms. It also includes social media and online games where predators, and again, pornography is present.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#663

Post by xuno »

Sateeshm wrote: post #598
deepsun wrote: post #323

Going to be downvoted, but I support the move to make Wikimedia (and other websites that distribute user-generated content) to verify identities of their users (editors). It is ok to be responsible for what you're posting. We are living in the age of global irresponsibility. And it doesn't mean Wikimedia must make the identities public. Same as any other website -- real identity to be provided only to authorities fol…

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That's a quote from Benjamin Franklin about a taxation dispute, and he was making a pro-Government statement.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#664

Post by hopelite »

Did anyone think at this point, on this trajectory that any British court would have struck this down?

It reminds me of whatever the process is that keeps people in abusive relationships rationalizing how things will be fine now because their abuser promised to stop abusing them for the 100th time.

Our current model of the mind would consider it a delusion, a mental illness.

Considering the past few years and the abuses by government that follow the Biderman’s Chart of Coercion, it seems rather clear that humanity finds itself in a dungeon of the aristocracy once again; sadly enough, due to its own choices and actions.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#665

Post by cindyllm »

hopelite wrote: post #664

Did anyone think at this point, on this trajectory that any British court would have struck this down? It reminds me of whatever the process is that keeps people in abusive relationships rationalizing how things will be fine now because their abuser promised to stop abusing them for the 100th time. Our current model of the mind would consider it a delusion, a mental illness. Considering the past few years and the abu…

[dead]

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#666

Post by mongol »

Jolter wrote: post #650
mrmlz wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sweden has more parties than two and it's the lesser evil here as well - in what world would a party perfectly align to every single thing you like?

It is far, far more likely that you can get most of your opinions represented in a parliament with 8 parties than one with 2 or 3. In Sweden, in the past 50 years, people with ”new” or fringe opinions have successfully started parties, and won seats in either the national or EU parliament, on these issues: - Christianity - Environmentalism - Racism/populism - Internet freedom/privacy - Feminism - Racism/populism, aga…

I don't think the racist label applied to Ny Demokrati is clear cut. It turned out that some of their elected representatives acted this way, but it was not part of their message or program as they won their seats. I see it as more a side effect of quickly populating a party with members without proper wetting.

As background, this party was founded about 8 months before the election in 1991, almost like a fluke. It was not a grass roots movement, but by charismatic founders that quickly had to build an organisation around some hollow ideas about less bureaucracy and lower taxes.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#667

Post by account42 »

Ray20 wrote: post #550
20after4 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do what we say or we might get a warrant and find that stash of CP that we installed on your hard drive. How do you even defend against planted digital evidence? It would be easy to fake and very difficult to disprove. But when it comes to politicians and people with power, I think it's even worse than all of that. It's kind of obvious what Mr Epstein was getting up to with regard to blackmail.

> How do you even defend against planted digital evidence? With your good name. In the end, it is not important what the politician had or did not have on the disk, but who the public will believe more, the secret services, who claim that there was something there, or the politician, who claims that he is being set up and groundlessly persecuted for the purpose of political pressure. And as long as public opinion abo…

I bet you have never witnessed someone being accused of even a much less severe social taboo. They won't even be given the chance to defend themselves.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#668

Post by account42 »

Ray20 wrote: post #547
mrandish wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government will necessarily reverse this. Agreed. I think the supposed justifications for mass population-wide online surveillance, restrictions and de-anonymization are so strong most political parties in western democracies go along with what surveillance agencies push for once they get in power. Even in the U.S. where free speech & personal privacy rights are constitutionally…

Why do you think politicians are idiots? Yes, many of them are really stupid people. But they are not idiots. I think 95 percent of them are perfectly aware of why the laws they pass are really needed. And they pass them EXACTLY FOR THIS, and not at all for protecting children and internet safety.

Why do you think politicians look out for what is "really needed" rather than what is beneficial to themselves.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#669

Post by bigfudge »

MrGilbert wrote: post #577
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.

> 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.

Surely gut feelings are how we get populists voted in? I’d prefer people sat and thought carefully for a while than trusted their gut!

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#670

Post by bigfudge »

ifwinterco wrote: post #618
Roark66 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is exactly how someone like Trump could win (there are worse people than Nigel Farage). I'm amazed people have not thrown out these two parties in the UK already. Yes, the voting system makes it hard, but not impossible. It happened before. However, I think the key reason why Conservatives and Labour are so entrenched is that people make their voting habits a part of their identity. I had a number of face to…

That was true until recently, but in the last 12 months it's all cracked wide open. Reform are leading in the polls, the lib dems are picking up disaffected tory wets, new left wing parties are threatening labour from the left on gaza etc. A long time until the next election but right now it's all to play for

But this essentially has to collapse down to 2 or 3 parties unless these preferences are for graphically concentrated. Which they don’t seem to be. Reform might wipe out the tories with Lib Dem’s cleaning up the scraps, but that doesn’t really move us forward. In fact it’s likely to entrench the moderate left into holding their nose and voting labour?
Post reply on HN