Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#701

Post by econ »

Razengan wrote: post #493
econ wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a better formula to design this game. It seems valuable enough to explore. It will be hard to design a formula that can only be gamed by making quality contributions. A quality discussion requires parties who disagree, exchange of ideas and facts and ideally some kind of eventual agreement. The hardest part is to make it enjoyable to use.

Maybe transparent AI is the only way to fairly govern masses of people? Let people regularly vote on which prompts should be added/removed, and have the AI justify all of its decisions, show which information it used etc.

An automated internet trial with robot judges and lawyers nominating users for warning banners of shame.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#702

Post by grafmax »

motbus3 wrote: post #675
grafmax wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange that this is framed as a national sovereignty issue not an issue of UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. This is exactly the thing we don’t want democratic governments to do - congeal with corporate power against their people. Appealing to legality when the laws are themselves unjust is not a defense. The online safety act is broad and vague…

In few years agreeing with you will be considered unsafe Consider this a glomar response.

Obeying in advance makes them stronger.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#703

Post by lofaszvanitt »

grayhatter wrote: post #671
drawfloat wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside whether it’s true, that’s not a thought crime by any definition.

The argument as I understood it was 4chan's existence, degrades society. 4chan's whole gimmick is that you can say whatever you want, because you don't have to identify yourself when you say it. It's a way for Internet denizens scream their intrusive thoughts into the pseudovoid. If expressing intrusive thoughts makes society worse, and should be controlled. That, arguably makes expressing thoughts a crime. You shoul…

Your reasoning is way off. You’re a human being, not some creature running on autopilot. And you’re fully capable of thinking and acting with some intelligence.

What’s happening online just drags things down. People chasing clicks, money, and attention by any means. When platforms like 4chan or influencers resort to gimmicks or self objectification to get views, it encourages people to act less like thoughtful humans and more like they’re reverting to base instincts - like animals. It normalizes shallow, attention-hungry behaviour and chips away at basic self-respect and awareness. One idiot can lead a hundred astray.

Why is it ok for a young woman to put a paper bag on her head in a live chat session, in order to gain more subscribers? Or swallow insults after insults? Is this ok? I don't think so.

You want to tolerate ideas like GGG movies and Dick Wadd gay videos where black guys sodomize whitebois acting as nazis and then piss in steel bowls and force them to drink it from said bowl? How do these "ideas" improve society hm? You need these things to be tolerated?

This whole idea that anyone can do anything and people will decide what's best for them is absolute hogwash.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#704

Post by econ »

Razengan wrote: post #493
econ wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a better formula to design this game. It seems valuable enough to explore. It will be hard to design a formula that can only be gamed by making quality contributions. A quality discussion requires parties who disagree, exchange of ideas and facts and ideally some kind of eventual agreement. The hardest part is to make it enjoyable to use.

Maybe transparent AI is the only way to fairly govern masses of people? Let people regularly vote on which prompts should be added/removed, and have the AI justify all of its decisions, show which information it used etc.

I was thinking of discussion platforms but for general government I had a great idea: we know how to write and publish new laws but we are terrible at unpublishing outdated garbage laws. AI would be great for finding all laws that it thinks are dubious, impractical or otherwise undesirable in today's context and zeitgeist. There can be various manual deletion processes for different categories of absurdity.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#705

Post by int_19h »

grafmax wrote: post #621
koliber wrote: post #574

> The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom And so they should, within the borders of the UK. It's illegal to own unlicensed firearms in the UK. In the US, it is legal. UK authorities can prevent ownership of firearms in the UK via penalties, prevent firms from selling firearms in the UK, and set up import controls to prevent pe…

Strange that this is framed as a national sovereignty issue not an issue of UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. This is exactly the thing we don’t want democratic governments to do - congeal with corporate power against their people. Appealing to legality when the laws are themselves unjust is not a defense. The online safety act is broad and vague…

My impression is that most UK citizens do in fact support their nanny state and its policies, so this is rather an example of democracy in action.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#706

Post by int_19h »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #691
kijin wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If diverting planes becomes a big enough problem for ordinary businesspeople and not just prominent opponents of certain dictators, I'm sure someone will build an app that helps us plan flights accordingly. Traveling from the US to France and need to avoid UK airspace? Sure, let's take a quick layover in Spain. Have you done any of the following things in the last x years? OK, we'll make a big detour around China thi…

> If diverting planes becomes a big enough problem for ordinary businesspeople and not just prominent opponents of certain dictators, I'm sure someone will build an app that helps us plan flights accordingly. Traveling from the US to France and need to avoid UK airspace? Sure, let's take a quick layover in Spain. Have you done any of the following things in the last x years? OK, we'll make a big detour around China t…

> And the second is that you're not the one flying the plane. You thought you were going to Charles de Gaulle but the weather in Paris is worse than expected or some drunk driver crashed the gate and drove out onto the runway and they're diverting all the planes, so after you're already in the air you find out you're actually going to Heathrow.

Such a system would presumably account for possible diversions and plot your flight accordingly.

And yes, that is a thing that some of us do actually need. For example, while I have lived in the West for the past 18 years, I'm still a Russian citizen, and if I ever set foot there again they will likely have some questions for me regarding all the money for the war effort in Ukraine (see Ksenia Karelina for an example). Thus I would very much appreciate the ability to book a flight that is guaranteed to not be diverted to Russia or to any country that is likely to extradite to Russia, and I would pay money for such a service.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#707

Post by int_19h »

hunterpayne wrote: post #424
jay_kyburz wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we are not travailing the US right now.

Because you think ICE will arrest you for being an illegal immigrant? If you seriously believe this, then probably its best you don't go outside anymore. Every time the media reported something like this, turned out they were leaving out something important. Like the professor who was smuggling biological samples into the US. Turns out that's illegal, that's why she went home. If you aren't doing something like that,…

As someone who has travelled a fair bit across the border between Canada and US, CBP agents have always tended to be dicks drunk on their power. I've seen plenty of blatant abuse at the border. So really the only thing that needs to happen for CBP to ruin your day is for an agent to have a bad day for their own. The only difference between then and now is that they're given more tools to do so and actively encouraged to use them.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#708

Post by int_19h »

energy123 wrote: post #128
probably_wrong wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And whi…

Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality.

Are you accounting for the manifestly bad outcomes in countries with "great firewalls", though?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#709

Post by ricudis »

jolmg wrote: post #694
ricudis wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore does exactly that, and they explicitly warn outbound Singaporean travelers that any drug use outside Singapore will be prosecuted as if it has happened in Singapore.

If it's just the outbound Singaporeans, that would be different because they'd at least have the citizenship to claim jurisdiction on.

They're warning everybody, not just Singaporeans. It's just that Singaporeans are the most likely to go travel abroad, have some fun, and then come back like nothing has happened. But if somebody inbound gets caught in a random drug test at the airport (they do that), he's going to be prosecuted just the same no matter their citizenship. There were several (in-)famous examples of this happening.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#710

Post by Ferret7446 »

rbanffy wrote: post #649
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly wouldn't. Let the UK block if they want to. At least the voters there will know who to be angry at.

Why would anyone sane be angry at not being able to access 4chan? Those people are already angry at so many things it would be hard to measure the change.

The only ones angry here are Ofcom/the UK government. Everyone else thinks this is stupid/hilarious.
Post reply on HN