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

71–80 of 480 posts

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

#71

Post by Nextgrid »

kergonath wrote: post #63
com2kid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> They will double dip if they can

If they can, yes. But it will now open them to competition.

Not to mention, if the law is structured in such a way that advertising-based business models remove their (UK equivalent) of Section 230 while purely fee-based models don't (as you'd assume fee-based models benefit equally from any content, where as ad-based models benefit from certain content more than other) then they can't double-dip since the extra liability will wipe out any advertising profits.

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

#72

Post by Nextgrid »

Clubber wrote: post #66
Nextgrid wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Put an ad in the paper? TV? Radio? Those just don't have the viewership anymore.

Ultimately people have a specific amount of disposable income regardless of how much advertising you throw at them, so the market will rebalance. There might be less advertising overall, which is a good thing for many reasons but one of them would be that the advertising that remains becomes more effective. The mediums you mention currently don't have the viewership because all attention is consumed by social media - this may very well change.

In addition, the issue only applies to the common definition of internet advertising. Advertisers can still produce first-party content just like any other user on the platform and people will like/follow/share it if it's useful or entertaining to them. Product placement will still work, and so on.

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

#73

Post by kmeisthax »

sterlind wrote: post #54
xdfgh1112 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this already happens to some extent with American and Asian sites blocking Europe and the UK because they don't want to deal with GPDR.

If this UK bill passes, I'd simply return HTTP 451 with a note that although the UK is blocked from my site, VPNs are not.

Promoting VPN usage could be construed by the UK courts as an attempt to commit subterfuge or dodge jurisdiction. They will not take kindly to this. You really want to make it perfectly clear that you want nothing to do with Britain as long as they have crazy laws on the books.

Related point: if you're intending to get out of GDPR, blocking the EU doesn't really help, because the law applies on the basis of citizenship, not territory. If an EU citizen accesses your website in America, that's still within GDPR scope. If you have EU business assets, ship things to the EU, or have any other ties to the EU, then they still have jurisdiction and you certainly still have to comply with GDPR.

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

#74

Post by stevewatson301 »

tasubotadas wrote: post #6

Good example of why you need to fight even for big tech rights.

The “reigning in big tech” thing that’s been going on for all this while is really a ruse to limit citizen freedom while coming up with laws that only big tech can comply to.

I wish it was more widely recognized and understood by more folks.

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

#75

Post by cowtools »

HeckFeck wrote: post #59

I dread to think what this will mean for the free and open Internet - the source of much mirth, yes, and much dread. But that's just a reflection of the human condition. It should be just left be. Another case of myopic, joyless stodges ruining what they don't understand. I've paid enough taxes to this worthless, bloated institution that claims to 'protect my liberties' - is it too late to get a refund? Don't they ow…

Brits don't have freedom of speech AFIK. it was never in their social contract.

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

#76

Post by antonymy »

namlem wrote: post #55
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…

It will probably just lead to a rise in VPNs to access services that block British users.

My immediate thought as well. As this law will apply to ANY service available to UK users the only feasible solution for smaller websites and app developers will be exclusion to avoid liability. So UK users will simply start using VPNs to by pass region blocks.

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

#77

Post by xoa »

Zak wrote: post #10
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…

> [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?

>What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?

You mean, "repeal Section 230"? Because the entire point of Section 230 is to allow imperfect biased moderation without having to eliminate all user content. Such calls are ridiculous, stupid, or malicious on a host of levels. Making editorial decisions about what to allow on your own private property is core 1A Freedom of Speech, with caselaw dating back to well before the web.

"Editorial effect" is also an utterly meaningless phrase. You probably have some silly politics thing in mind, but moderating against porn or violence also has an "editorial effect". So does having a forum devoted to aircraft or cats. I think trains and birds are great too. But if I want to run a forum specifically about aircraft or cats, I need to be able to delete train or bird posts, and if necessary ban users who won't follow the rules. This is all completely biased and has the editorial effect of shaping the forum to a specific niche of speech, there is nothing common carrier about running a focused forum. And politics could indeed enter into it, what if some political group proposes a law banning aircraft or cats? Rallying and organizing against that could include being biased against those who want to support that law. Colorful and strident invective may be featured. Such is life in a free society.

If you want a soap box that does something else, the law also protects your ability to make that (or to group up to do it or pay someone else to do it or whatever else). And as a practical matter it is now easier and cheaper to do so and get to a potential global audience then at any time in human history (let alone the history of the US). Win the argument in the marketplace of ideas, not using the state monopoly on violence.

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

#78

Post by zarzavat »

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.

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

Unless the UK significantly increases its military capacity and sets up world government, they will not be able to shut down the internet. The internet will still exist. The best they can hope for is a great firewall / North Korea type situation which would require a much more authoritarian (moreover functioning) government than even the UK can muster.

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

#79

Post by tgv »

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.

> Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV

It's a tad more nefarious. Say what you want about cable tv, but it doesn't track your every move.

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

#80

Post by LegitShady »

anigbrowl wrote: post #58
LegitShady wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, its not that you don't care, its that you care very very strongly, but wanted to pretend you didn't care, which was why you posted to say 'but I don't live in the UK' as if it was relevant to anyone but you.

You're responding to two different people as if they were the same person.

didn't notice, but again, same thing with both of them. "Here are some laws in the UK" - they respond with "let me tell you about the UK, I don't care about it but here are the reasons why I care..."
Post reply on HN