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

831–840 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#831

Post by Chris2048 »

foldr wrote: post #830
Chris2048 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the UK had the very best seat at the table. > The UK had so many carve-outs and exemptions The EU had many things that didn't benefit the UK, which happens when you don't share a mainland with the rest of Europe. e.g. Schengen area didn't make as much sense for UK, The UK got to not adopt the euro, but then it's currency was particularly strong in the first place. The Rebate is usually what is spin as the great adv…

The Schengen area is only loosely connected to the EU. Not all EU member states are in the Schengen area, and not all Schengen area member states are in the EU.

25 of the 27 EU members are also in the SA, I disagree that it has nothing to do with it.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#832

Post by foldr »

mathiaspoint wrote: post #765
tzs wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We don't yet know how OFCOM will categorize Wikipedia. This was a preemptive legal action.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#833

Post by AnthonyMouse »

yupyupyups wrote: post #523
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents have plenty of capacity to exercise control over their children. For example, how about a law that says websites have to restrict access to pornographic content if the client's user agent sets an HTTP header indicating they don't want to see it? Now you don't have any privacy problems because the header contains no personally identifying information -- you don't even have to be under 18 to opt into it. But th…

Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young). However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children. We also know from recorded interviews with these predetors that they don't seem to actually mind exposing kids to porn. https://x.…

> Porn peddlers would probably pinky-promise not to disobey the user-agent and expose the kids to the content (and get them while they're young).

We're talking about a law. If you distribute pornography to someone who sent the header in that request, it would be a violation of the law. But that law doesn't have any ID requirements or privacy problems, unlike the proposed one.

> However, as we have already seen, asking nicely in the HTTP headers doesn't actually work, it may even help porn peddlers better target children.

To begin with, "targeting children" is preposterous. It assumes that they would not only not care but prefer to have children as users than adults, even though children are less likely to have access to money to pay for content/subscriptions and purposely targeting children would get them into trouble even under longstanding existing laws.

On top of that, the header isn't specifying that the user is under 18, it's specifying that the user agent is requesting not to be shown pornography. It's as likely to be set when the user is a 45 year old woman as a 14 year old boy, so using it to distinguish between them wouldn't work anyway.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#834

Post by foldr »

Chris2048 wrote: post #831
foldr wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Schengen area is only loosely connected to the EU. Not all EU member states are in the Schengen area, and not all Schengen area member states are in the EU.

25 of the 27 EU members are also in the SA, I disagree that it has nothing to do with it.

Mostly just for geographical reasons, no? If you have a free travel area covering a large swathe of continental Europe then it's inevitably going to include mostly EU member states. AFAIK there has never been any substantial objection to Ireland and (formerly) the UK opting out of Schengen, which obviously wouldn't make sense for those countries given where they're located.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#835

Post by galangalalgol »

gnfargbl wrote: post #757
galangalalgol wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a regulatory body is determining all this instead of the independent judiciary. Ofcom now has the power to granularly decide who gets categorized as what, and to what degree small organizations are given less stringent rules. They have the power to become a ministry of truth. That is hyperbole today, but only because they haven't been wielded by a suitably minded leader yet. If this seems paranoid…

> The problem is that a regulatory body is determining all this instead of the independent judiciary. What we have is the regulatory body (which, as a non-ministerial government department is effectively part of the government) making the specific regulations, and the comparability of those regulations with other laws being determined by the independent judiciary. That's exactly as it should be, no? I don't think I w…

My understanding was that ofcom itself decided on a case by case basis categorization and waivers. If they just set out some rules and appeals go to the judiciary instead of ofcom, then that is certainly better. But that was not what I understood.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#836

Post by danlitt »

gargan wrote: post #626
danlitt wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that the UK having an unwritten constitution means that revolution cannot happen? Of course putting aside the fact we did have a revolution in the 1600s, and the almost constant revolution happening in Ireland until the 1930s. A fluid constitution is no use when the government is intransigent, and very little can protect a democracy from half the voters voting for a coup. A written constitution only…

The revolution in the 1600s was reversed - as far as I know the UK is the only country in the world to have reversed a revolution. If you want more healthcare security you're more likely to get that in an uncodified system like the UK. Yes your healthcare rights can be reversed but better that, than never happening at all like in the US. A codified system also hands vast power to lawyers. The US is a lawyer's paradis…

> Yes your healthcare rights can be reversed but better that, than never happening at all like in the US.

Do you really think that the thing standing in the way of universal healthcare in the US is its codified constitution? When I look at the constitutional cases that result in lawsuits in the US, they are almost universally cases that move the dial in favour of people's freedoms. Liberally interpreted, the US has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century in many respects. The undermining of civil liberties we see in the US right now are in spite of the constitution, not because of it (and you can tell, because everyone opposing it is appealing to the constitution, and everyone supporting the coup is ignoring it).

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#837

Post by gnfargbl »

galangalalgol wrote: post #835
gnfargbl wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that a regulatory body is determining all this instead of the independent judiciary. What we have is the regulatory body (which, as a non-ministerial government department is effectively part of the government) making the specific regulations, and the comparability of those regulations with other laws being determined by the independent judiciary. That's exactly as it should be, no? I don't think I w…

My understanding was that ofcom itself decided on a case by case basis categorization and waivers. If they just set out some rules and appeals go to the judiciary instead of ofcom, then that is certainly better. But that was not what I understood.

Most public bodies in the UK, including Ofcom, are subject to judicial reviews. https://www.judiciary.uk/how-the-law-works/judicial-review/ However Ofcom eventually reaches its final decisions, it will need to do so consistently.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#838

Post by gambiting »

qcnguy wrote: post #815
gambiting wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The UK didn't want unlimited immigration from the EU, It was never unlimited and it's yet another lie peddled by Farage and the Brexit campaign. UK could have always at the very least enforced the basic of the EU free movement principles in terms of limitations - namely that anyone without a job or means to provide for themselves for over 3 months can be kicked out. That would have solved most of the discontent aro…

The concerns of voters were absolutely not respected, you are completely right about that. The political class is completely bought into mass migration being a moral good, which is why getting it under control requires a complete replacement of that political class. There were lots of things the UK could have done in theory which wouldn't have had any impact in reality. You can interview people and ask, do you have f…

>>You can interview people and ask, do you have funds? Do you have a job? They say yes and go in, that's the end of it.

How do you think this works now then? Or how it worked with non-EU people before Brexit? You asked them and they had to provide proof. If they couldn't they were turned around. It's not rocket science.

>>There isn't a way under EU law to just say no there are too many people already, you can't come.

And again, the existing legal ways of removing EU immigrants would have helped with that, but it was easier to take the entire country of the EU than just use them.

>>The political class is completely bought into mass migration being a moral good

Which political class? Tories which have been in power for forever? the same Tories who ran the "hostile environment" company against immigrants? Or Labour, which is now making it much harder and more expensive to both get in and stay in this country legally?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#839

Post by jalapenos »

bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

People will use VPNs, but no the next government won't remove it - the power hungry don't give up powers, and there's already a constitution.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#840

Post by jalapenos »

Ntrails wrote: post #270
bArray wrote: post #194

> The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone". Demonstrably false. It creates a safer online world for some . > In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its c…

> 3. The likelihood of a British constitution is increasing, which would somewhat bind future parliaments. It would be an extraordinary amount of work for a government that can barely keep up with the fires of its own making let alone the many the world is imposing upon them. Along with that, watching the horse trading going on over every change they make - I don't see how they ever get a meaningful final text over t…

It's quite farcical to witness a whole thread of debate about whether there will be a British constitution when it already exists.

People are so quick to start typing their opinions to pretend how smart they are that they forget they have to know things first.

Post reply on HN