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

761–770 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#761

Post by OtherShrezzing »

qcnguy wrote: post #583
OtherShrezzing wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. The next government will take great delight in removing this law as an easy win. As a rule of thumb, governments don't take actions which reduce their power.

They do if they are libertarian governments. Although it's popular to pretend they don't exist, there are plenty of examples of governments reducing their power over history. The American government is a good example of this having originally bound itself by a constitution that limits its own power. And Britain has in the past gone through deregulatory phases and shrunk the state. Unfortunately at this time Britain d…

>The American government is a good example of this having originally bound itself by a constitution that limits its own power

Since its foundation, has the US government ever actually reduced its powers? It established itself with limited power.. But since then, its power has only increased via amendments, to the point where the President is effectively an uncontested emperor type figure.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#762

Post by StopVibeCoding »

fgfarben wrote: post #527
kittikitti wrote: post #394

There are too many Big Tech bootlickers on YCombinator who enabled this. All of a sudden, they get to act surprised and morally superior. I guess this is who the gatekeepers let in, people who publicly seem moral but when push comes to shove they will always act evil.

How exactly did "Big Tech bootlickers on YCombinator" enable the UK's parliament to enact authoritarian censorship laws? Pray tell.

It's not just ycombinator, it's everywhere on the internet. Too many bootlickers big government & big tech bootlickers not sounding alarms as soon as privacy violations happened is what caused this.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#763

Post by StopVibeCoding »

SpaceManNabs wrote: post #313

I am not surprised. Every time I mention the draconian laws around digital speech when flying into london, hackernews historically said I was being ridiculous. The UK has some of the oddest laws I have seen from a western nation.

america and europe are not too far

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#764

Post by _Algernon_ »

codedokode wrote: post #728
jbjbjbjb wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple, Google etc are already implementing the Digital Credentials API standard which would make this type age verification much more secure.

No, "digital credentials" is an awful idea because it requires to store your ID on your phone and thus make it accessible to Apple and Google and secret courts. What I suggest is simply to store a single "isAdult" bit on device, without revealing any identity, and make apps like browser do the censorship on device, without sending any data to a webite. The algorithm is as follows: if isAdult == 0 and website doesn't…

What stops the under age user from setting isAdult = 1?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#765

Post by mathiaspoint »

tzs wrote: post #540
mathiaspoint wrote: post #176

Kind of funny after the authors of the law complained service providers were interpreting it overzealously. No, if Wikipedia falls under it anything meaningful does. You have once again failed to understand the internet.

Many sites were overzealously interpreting it. The difficulty of compliance depends on both how big the size is and the kind of site it is. Many small site overlooked both of those factors.

Again if it has to be applied to Wikipedia there's nothing meaningful beyond a static informational site it wouldn't apply to.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#766

Post by jbjbjbjb »

codedokode wrote: post #728
jbjbjbjb wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple, Google etc are already implementing the Digital Credentials API standard which would make this type age verification much more secure.

No, "digital credentials" is an awful idea because it requires to store your ID on your phone and thus make it accessible to Apple and Google and secret courts. What I suggest is simply to store a single "isAdult" bit on device, without revealing any identity, and make apps like browser do the censorship on device, without sending any data to a webite. The algorithm is as follows: if isAdult == 0 and website doesn't…

I think you misunderstood how the digital credentials api works. It keeps it in your phone’s secure element and lets you share just a “yes/no” proof like “over 18” without revealing anything else. It’s basically the cryptographically secure version of the isAdult bit you’re describing. It also has trust by cryptographically signing the proof and it can handle different jurisdictions.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#767

Post by NoGravitas »

bee_rider wrote: post #40
dkiebd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought people here didn’t like when American companies tried to strongarm democratic governments abroad?

1) There are multiple posters on this site, they sometimes have contradictory opinions. 2) Lots of people like it when a company does an obviously good thing, and dislike it when a company does an obviously bad thing. I guess you’ve made a happy discovery: it turns out the underlying principle was something about what the companies were trying to accomplish, rather than some reflexive “American companies are bad” sil…

> the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#768

Post by NoGravitas »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #133
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #10

Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Remember the "Repeal the Online Safety Act" petition? It has gotten over half a million signatures and the response from the government was a loud "no". > The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and eff…

> Wikimedia should block UK access. That will get the attention of media and popularity contest politicians might change their mind. Or they could respect the democratic decisions of the countries they do business in? I'm quite critical of the implementation of this legislation but the idea of an American company throwing their weight around trying to influence policy decisions in the UK gives me the ick. Fair enough…

As others have noted, blocking /is/ respecting the democratic decisions of the UK. It would bring them into full compliance with the law.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#769

Post by mathiaspoint »

Y_Y wrote: post #238
mathiaspoint wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A British constitution makes no sense, power is delegated from the king not from the member states like in the US or Canada. The only way the UK could end up with a constitution that's meaningful and not performative would be after a civil war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin... It may not make sense to you, but they've been arguing constitutional law there for hundreds of years. Plenty of monarchies also have modern single-document constitutions, like Norway, Spain and Thailand.

The Thai monarch actually has power though which makes the constitution meaningful. A constitution between two parties where one has no power is meaningless.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#770

Post by NoGravitas »

devmor wrote: post #87
tux1968 wrote: post #47

The UK is spearheading this charge, but if they are successful it will have paved the way for many more governments to embrace these policies. How this plays out is important for people living in every western country.

The US has been implementing similar bans sporadically as well. It's being done on a state-by-state basis due to the limited federal power structure of our government making it more difficult for minority power groups like fascists to push legislation. I do believe the social factors leading to support for these bans are quite a bit different, but the core minds behind them are of the same creed.

Don't know why you are being downvoted. It is a literal fact that many states in the US have implemented this type of legislation.
Post reply on HN