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

Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

webdevlaw.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 480 posts

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#91

Post by di4na »

dane-pgp wrote: post #3

> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors This is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230. It takes politics back to the simpler age where there were just a few entities d…

To be fair re Section 230, the interpretation the court have of it is... wildly on the side of the platform. In particular, it allows a company to wiggle out of its TOS if it seems the TOS could be construed at being more stringent than Section 230.

There is definitely some change to do to section 230. I do not think it needs a repeal, but i do think it needs some rethinking and probably some more regulation on privacy and safety.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#92

Post by com2kid »

kergonath wrote: post #63
com2kid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ended up making social media accounts require annual payments So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts? Looks like quarterly ARPU is about $12 per US user per month. So a $5 a month subscription would destroy their business model. However go back 6 yea…

> So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts? We pay for TVs (the physical objects), and most of them are still riddled with ads. They will double dip if they can. The reasoning won’t be “if we charge them this much we can drop ads and not lose money”, it…

That is because the price of TVs has been dropping while the # of features (and sizes of the TVs) have been increasing.

Modern smart TVs are subsidized to heck and back.

You can actually get smart TVs w/o lots of ads, Sony's Android TVs give you a slew of opt-out options when you first turn them on.

Roku is the worst about this, they show ads to customers and try to collect $ from the streaming platforms.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#93

Post by ok123456 »

Nextgrid wrote: post #85
ok123456 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> passing legislation that people want that addresses their material concerns Is it though? The same problem that gave us the Capitol's storming also skews those people's concerns, so the legislation they'd demand would be anything but reasonable.

The mid-west and south were on-board when democratic party still stood behind the New Deal and before NAFTA.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#94

Post by Beltalowda »

groffee wrote: post #2

> Or it would have, if the nine MPs across three parties who were scheduled to attend actually showed up. Only one did. Everything else aside, if MPs don't show up for a scheduled meeting they should just be sacked. How many of us can just blow off meetings like that with no consequence?

It should be noted this meeting was in the middle of a political crisis where half the government had resigned. I don't know who those MPs were or what they were doing, but I'm betting they suddenly found themselves overloaded with this crisis and this meeting fell through. It's not that uncommon for something like this to happen. I'm not saying it's great this happened, but it happens – MPs are humans too.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge in this case. I think the extremely high expectations and little room for error ("they should just be sacked") is part of the problem. If you bollock a child every time they do something slightly wrong they will learn to lie and hide things very quickly.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#95

Post by fithisux »

HeckFeck wrote: post #59

I dread to think what this will mean for the free and open Internet - the source of much mirth, yes, and much dread. But that's just a reflection of the human condition. It should be just left be. Another case of myopic, joyless stodges ruining what they don't understand. I've paid enough taxes to this worthless, bloated institution that claims to 'protect my liberties' - is it too late to get a refund? Don't they ow…

Well said. Breach of social contract. The problem is that others think it is advantageous to close their mouth. Of course this is not possible by the laws of Nature.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#97

Post by jfk13 »

antonymy wrote: post #76
namlem wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will probably just lead to a rise in VPNs to access services that block British users.

My immediate thought as well. As this law will apply to ANY service available to UK users the only feasible solution for smaller websites and app developers will be exclusion to avoid liability. So UK users will simply start using VPNs to by pass region blocks.

Ah, the familiar HN bubble, where people instinctively think of "simply start using VPNs" as the solution.

No; some tiny minority of UK users may do that, but the overwhelming majority will just use whatever services are "approved" (follow whatever rules they have to, to stay in the market) and remain available by default.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#98

Post by Nasrudith »

cowtools wrote: post #75
HeckFeck wrote: post #59

I dread to think what this will mean for the free and open Internet - the source of much mirth, yes, and much dread. But that's just a reflection of the human condition. It should be just left be. Another case of myopic, joyless stodges ruining what they don't understand. I've paid enough taxes to this worthless, bloated institution that claims to 'protect my liberties' - is it too late to get a refund? Don't they ow…

Brits don't have freedom of speech AFIK. it was never in their social contract.

There is a noisy contingent extremely proud of that fact for some bizzare reason. I can only hope they are an extreme minority.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#99

Post by root_axis »

ok123456 wrote: post #36
noduerme wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

> You watched a few confused people mill around the rotunda and take selfies.

This characterization is dishonest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w

Please don't bother with equivocations.

Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill

#100

Post by shadowgovt »

Aeolun wrote: post #5

It seems to me that the solution to all the woes of this bill is to just not allow any content to be shared . That basically eliminates this being a problem for 95% of all companies.

Correct, taking down all of one's websites is the easiest way to comply with this bill.
Post reply on HN