Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

bbc.com

741–750 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#741
post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't understand how you can possibly believe that given your prior statement: > I live in a country where 91.78% of the population voted for a referendum that bought back hard labour in prisons.

It is consistent with my experience that most people seem to not realise that they voted for hard labour. That is indeed the entire theme of this thread, That people can give an answer to a question that in some way does not reflect their honestly held opinion.

> most people seem to not realise that they voted for hard labour

This is incredibly anecdotal, a major victim of selection bias, and also there are possibly effects of agreeableness here b/c it seems like you may be part of a vocal minority on this issue (and I mean that with absolutely no negative connotations). That said, I don't automatically reject vibes based determinations like this because often the high bandwidth of personal interaction can outweigh the problems with low bandwidth questioning in polls. But in this case, when 90% voted in favor, I have a hard time believing it. I think that what you can safely conclude from your experience is that a lot of people didn't know what they were voting for. If you wanted to say maybe it was really 75-25 I could go with that, but 91% in favor (in an actual vote and not a poll) is pretty convincing to me.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#742
post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just do the same thing many governments the world over have done - adopt a version of the US constitution. Easy, clean, and only massively ironic.

Pass. Im glad not to be confined by historical rules invented by people who could not hope to predict the future, and would not choose to put that kind of burden on my descendents.

Amendments can be made with a super-majority's approval

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#743
post #566
post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should just do the same thing many governments the world over have done - adopt a version of the US constitution. Easy, clean, and only massively ironic.

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…

You can amend the constitution. Its been done many times

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#744
post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case with Windows laptop, the verification proof might be for example, a digitally signed serial number of the motherboard (and the OS is itself signed to prevent tampering). While it's possible to work around this, an average kid or adult is unlikely to do it. And in case with a phone there is almost zero chance to hack it.

And this would be just as bad as the UK solution as now you've outlawed any third-party operating systems and computers.

Only for children.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been a criticism for a decade or more

Correct, it is especially of note given the publicity of Wikimedias funding and balances. There is a million more greedy companies than Wikimedia, there is also other places that could use your money though, i.e Internet Archive, which is always desperate for donations.

> There is a million more greedy companies than Wikimedia

How many of them are asking for donations under the guise of an open encyclopedia?

For-profit corporations aren't even relevant when discussing badly-behaving non-profits.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#748
post #650
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…

My point being - i might agree with SDs migration policy and not much else. I might agree on Ms taxcuts etc. etc. But I still have to pick and chose the lesser evil.

Maybe 8 parties narrows the lesser evil down a bit.. But they all end up in coalition anyway so I'm pretty sure i get the same amount of evil as in a 2-party system.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pulling Wikipedia out of the UK would make a statement, but it'd also hand the government an easy win, I think

Better would be to pull operations out of the UK but keep serving UK citizens without restrictions until the UK itself moves to block it.

It's sad, but let's hope the UK blocks it. Perhaps someone finally understands the severity of this "law".
Post reply on HN