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

841–850 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#841

Post by kelipso »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #833
yupyupyups wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, askin…

They would benefit from targeting children because porn is addictive and it is a stronger addiction the younger you start. Building future customers, basic business tactics really.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#842

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kelipso wrote: post #841
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, askin…

They would benefit from targeting children because porn is addictive and it is a stronger addiction the younger you start. Building future customers, basic business tactics really.

This is the kind of "business tactic" they used to teach about in DARE rather than business school.

Porn companies don't have any kind of monopoly or brand loyalty and the ones shady enough to do something like that are exactly the ones that won't still be in business by the time today's kids are adults, so anyone doing it wouldn't be the one deriving a benefit from it.

Even normal companies don't care about customers decades from now because the thing they do teach in business school is discount rates. A dollar in 10 years is worth less than half that today. Likewise, managers get bonuses and promotions on the basis of present-day profits rather than something that happens a generation from now when they're likely to be at a different company anyway.

The premise that they're expected to do that on a widespread basis is ridiculous. Instead it will be one fool who writes something along those lines in an email which is then published because media companies love publishing anything which is bad PR for someone they don't like, regardless of whether it was ever widely implemented or implemented at all. It isn't an actual business strategy for real businesses.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#843

Post by bravesoul2 »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #412
bravesoul2 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but I want to know if I should submit, protest or revolt. I need more codes :)

The 451 response's body will contain further instructions.

I guess. But I'd like to grep my access logs to get some high level metrics for the uprising.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#844

Post by kelipso »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #842
kelipso wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would benefit from targeting children because porn is addictive and it is a stronger addiction the younger you start. Building future customers, basic business tactics really.

This is the kind of "business tactic" they used to teach about in DARE rather than business school. Porn companies don't have any kind of monopoly or brand loyalty and the ones shady enough to do something like that are exactly the ones that won't still be in business by the time today's kids are adults, so anyone doing it wouldn't be the one deriving a benefit from it. Even normal companies don't care about customer…

Decades? Generation? Make a good argument if you are going to make one. We are talking a few years here, say 12, 14, 16 to 18, and they get a steady customer.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#845

Post by idorosen »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #507
idorosen wrote: post #373

To all of the commenters recommending that Wikipedia block UK visitors: This is incredibly short-sighted in the age of LLMs, where Wikipedia does not need to exist in a country in order for the benefit of its existence to be felt. Such a move would likely just drive people to obtain dubious regurgitations of Wikipedia’s (freely available) content via their favorite LLM chatbot, in my opinion.

Option 1: enabling "dubious regurgitations of information" Option 2: enabling draconian abuse of power, violation of privacy, and mass surveillance

The point was that Wikipedia blocking the UK today would not have the same effect as blocking it a decade ago during previous similar censorship attempts. It would likely be less effective.

However, those aren’t not the only two options. Wikipedia could block editing from the UK, or it could simply not comply and wait for an enforcement action.

What recourse would the UK have in any case of such an enforcement action if the law or regulation Wikipedia faces does not exist in the US, where Wikipedia is ostensibly based if it removed all financial or physical presence from the UK?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#846

Post by _Algernon_ »

codedokode wrote: post #826
_Algernon_ wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Proprietary closed-sourced OS, the same thing that prevents you from installing Debian on your phone (unless it is Google Pixel).

Removing the ability to install a custom OS is just as big of an erosion of rights if not bigger.

The war on general purpose computing is still going strong, if this is suddenly considered the lesser evil.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#847

Post by LAC-Tech »

bathtub365 wrote: post #464
LAC-Tech wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK isn't a world power.

They have nuclear weapons, are in the G7, are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, 6th highest GDP in the world. What are your criteria?

Having a significant influence over global events.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#848

Post by account42 »

eru wrote: post #697
account42 wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the essence of any representative democracy - you'd need as many parties as there are citizens for everyone to be able to vote for one that truly represents their views on all relevant topics.

That might be true in some theory, in practice you can find reasonably good alignment for most people at five or six viable parties.

No, in practice I don't find that. In practice I find people actively voting against their interests because no matter who they vote fore the party is going to push for something they don't want.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#849

Post by _Algernon_ »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #813
_Algernon_ wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's easy to demonstrate (3) for an age verification system - practical experience will amply demonstrate it to everyone. No. Absence of evidence that I am not anonymous does not constitute evidence that I am anonymous. Verifiable unlinkability is also difficult to prove. It may be possible to create a system like this technically, but all social and economic incentives that exist are directed against it: - An anony…

Any well designed privacy system does not rely on the server components doing the right thing. Servers and providers and governments are the main threat actors to be defended against. There should be no way for third parties to compromise that, by design. Almost certainly involving advanced cryptography. Unlinkabilty and anonymity is not that hard to demonstrate in the design. At it's core it just means each proof or…

All your arguments are technical. It's the social layer that is the problem.

>Any well designed privacy system does not rely on the server components doing the right thing.

This is more expensive than just throwing everything into a centralized database. The extra costs needs to be justified when explaining the price to the voters.

>Servers and providers and governments are the main threat actors to be defended against.

Agreed. And they are the ones implementing the system. Clear conflict of interest.

>As for "the purpose can change" well - so? That is also true or anything else, it does not seem like a reason to avoid having good protection now. Any change that could compromise that would not be undetectable - the fundamental crypto should not allow it.

Introducing an age-verification system requires a lot of political capital (as seen by the repeated failures of introducing it so far). Nudging an existing age verification system to cover new purposes requires far less political capital.

>We would know if it happened.

Only if every technical decision goes the right way, despite all incentives and conflicts of interests pointing the other way. I wouldn't bet on it.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#850

Post by umbra07 »

philipallstar wrote: post #641
globular-toast wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're all using it to virtue signal their hatred of child porn. It's basically religious at this point. You stray from the line and someone just shouts infidel and you get stoned to death. Unfortunately the atheism movement of a about ten years ago didn't go far enough in making people aware that religion isn't just about big men in the sky who are the same colour as you. What it actually is is a deficiency in huma…

> Some of them, like Hitchens, definitely understood this He seemed pretty fixated on "monotheism" being a particular problem, as though two gods were fine.

Was that not just his way of referring to the Abrahamic faiths?
Post reply on HN