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

Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

therectangle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#81

Post by dang »

VikingMiner wrote: post #59
exasperaited wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news. As someone who is clumsy and easily distracted, I have such a kitchen knife. They are commonly available. It works absolutely fine and it has three times minimised an injury that would have been nasty because I am an easily-distracted tired old idiot.…

[flagged]

> You are believing in the same stupid delusion

Please edit out such swipes from your comments. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#82

Post by VikingMiner »

dang wrote: post #81
VikingMiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> You are believing in the same stupid delusion Please edit out such swipes from your comments. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

It isn't a swipe. He is literally engaging in the same thinking. What else am I supposed to say?

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#83

Post by dang »

VikingMiner wrote: post #82
dang wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are believing in the same stupid delusion Please edit out such swipes from your comments. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

It isn't a swipe. He is literally engaging in the same thinking. What else am I supposed to say?

You'd supposed to not tell people they're believing in stupid delusions. That's just name-calling, in the sense that the site guidelines ask you not to do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#84

Post by AngryData »

exasperaited wrote: post #45
VikingMiner wrote: post #33

> In reality, this wouldn’t happen, because, generally, people understand that stabbings are a cultural issue, rather than a technical one Many UK MPs don't understand this. I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news. For whatever reason they don't seem to understand that literally anyone can make…

> I've heard of MPs making (moronic) suggestions such as selling kitchen knives without the point on it. I've literally seen this advertised as a solution on the news. As someone who is clumsy and easily distracted, I have such a kitchen knife. They are commonly available. It works absolutely fine and it has three times minimised an injury that would have been nasty because I am an easily-distracted tired old idiot.…

A tipless knife may prevent accidents, but if you purposefully tried to stab yourself or someone else with one of those knives, do you honestly believe it wouldn't tear right through your flesh? Neither my butter knives or bread knives have tips, and yet I could easily stab people with them.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#85

Post by gs17 »

arp242 wrote: post #47

> I mean, there are already a raft of tools available to stop children accessing harmful content online. There are filters and protections and safeguards on almost every device on the market today. If children are constantly accessing harmful content, it’s because these settings haven’t been enabled by parents or guardians. These parental controls rather suck though; see e.g. [1]. This basically matches my own experi…

> And why isn't there a "Content-Rating: sex" or "Content-Rating: gambling" HTTP header?

There kind of was one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#86

Post by gushie »

k1t wrote: post #41

Some sites (eg Google) offer child friendly versions where safe search is enforced, by accessing the site using a different set of IPs. Some DNS providers (eg Cloudflare 1.1.1.3) automatically resolve to those safe IPs when available. The government should require sites with "unsafe" content to make "safe" versions available (eg force safe mode, readonly, no signup). Sites that are wholly inappropriate for children s…

By default for me (in the UK) it still seems possible to view porn in a Google image search in an incognito browser tab. I don't think non technical parents can be expected to change their DNS settings to something safe to block it. I'm a bit unclear as to what the online safety bill is solving if Google can ignore it.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#87

Post by AndyGravity »

dang wrote: post #83
VikingMiner wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a swipe. He is literally engaging in the same thinking. What else am I supposed to say?

You'd supposed to not tell people they're believing in stupid delusions. That's just name-calling, in the sense that the site guidelines ask you not to do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The poster thinks that knife crime can be reduced by making knives not pointy. An idea that is rightfully mocked by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It is ridiculous on the face of it. Anyone believes in it is believing in something ridiculous. Believing in things that are obviously ridiculous is delusional. Therefore it is not name calling. It is a statement of fact.

Repeatedly sending someone a link to the rules do not in anyway stop this from being a statement of fact.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#88

Post by [deleted] »

AndyGravity wrote: post #87
dang wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd supposed to not tell people they're believing in stupid delusions. That's just name-calling, in the sense that the site guidelines ask you not to do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The poster thinks that knife crime can be reduced by making knives not pointy. An idea that is rightfully mocked by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It is ridiculous on the face of it. Anyone believes in it is believing in something ridiculous. Believing in things that are obviously ridiculous is delusional. Therefore it is not name calling. It is a statement of fact. Repeatedly sending someone a link to…

[deleted]

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#89

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

arp242 wrote: post #58
Havoc wrote: post #3

>Solving problems in the online world is no longer a technical issue Unfortunately I have zero faith in UK government having a moment of introspection here. Instead of realizing it's not fit for purpose they'll double down on the broken approach. Fully expecting the "solution" here to be more regulation, more punishment, more cost, more killing small sites, more inconvenience, more technically unfeasible things (vpn…

I don't really understand Keir Starmer on this. Or well, on anything really. The public has been pretty clear what they want most of all is a competent government that will take care of basic core tasks like cost of living, NHS, etc. Instead he takes a massively unpopular Tory culture war bill and implemented it as if it was his own idea (in addition to a number of other unforced baffling choices over the last year).…

Yes, exactly.

You do in fact understand Starmer. You just hope you're wrong.

The UK's aristos have decided that Farage should be the next PM, which is why he's been all over the media.

Starmer is wholly owned by business interests which exist for the benefit of said aristos, and his job is to pander to those interests. He is absolutely indifferent to what the public wants, and he is willing to force through incredibly unpopular pointless abusive policies to make that point.

The end game is similar to the one in the US - the end of democratic accountability and public service government, an AI-administered online surveillance state run for oligarchs and corporations, all marketed with rhetoric that combines fake patriotism, violent hysteria against outsiders and noncomformists, the illusion of personal responsibility, and religious grift.

Re: Online Safety Act: What went wrong?

#90

Post by Nasrudith »

arp242 wrote: post #47

> I mean, there are already a raft of tools available to stop children accessing harmful content online. There are filters and protections and safeguards on almost every device on the market today. If children are constantly accessing harmful content, it’s because these settings haven’t been enabled by parents or guardians. These parental controls rather suck though; see e.g. [1]. This basically matches my own experi…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN