3 ms·

The article says: "Is it possible for your site, service, or app, which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other, to be accesse

by rlpb 4y ago

The article says: "Is it possible for your site, service, or app, which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other, to be accessed by any adult or any child within the UK? Then you’re in scope. NB “accessed” doesn’t necessarily mean that a user can set up an active account on your service. If a British adult can merely download your app on the app store, the app is in scope." However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safety-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link it, which seems odd). The bill says: "In this Act “user-to-user service” means an internet service by means of which content that is generated by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service. That seems reasonable to me. There are more details, but as far as I can see, the ability to merely download an app does not put it in scope contrary to the claim in TFA. I now find myself doubting the the other claims made by this author.

M2Ys4U 4y ago
>However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link it, which seems odd). You're linking to the draft bill. Burns has linked to the actual bill as amended in the Commons: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121/220121.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121... (it's linked under the heading of "How to read this post")
- rlpb 4y ago
  Ah, thanks. Looks like there's not an actual bill yet, but there is a second draft bill. However, I looked at the definitions in there and they remain essentially the same. My concerns still stand.
  - M2Ys4U 4y ago
    > Ah, thanks. Looks like there's not an actual bill yet, but there is a second draft bill. No, there's definitely a bill. It's had its first and second readings and it's in committee stage in the Commons: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
Brybry 4y ago
The "has links with the UK" portion of the "regulated service" definition says if UK users are a "target market", or if the "service is capable of being used in the United Kingdom" and there's user generated content with a "material risk of significant harm" then it "has links". If an app is available in an app store are the users who can access it not a target market? I'm not really sure what "material risk of significant harm" means for the second qualifier but if it means "users can potentially post bad things" then that seems very broad too. I feel it's telling that they had a need to make exceptions explicitly for email/voip/sms texting.
- rlpb 4y ago
  If it's not a "user-to-user service", then it's not a "regulated user-to-user service" either and therefore not a "regulated service". Whether or not it "has links" or is a "service is capable of being used in the United Kingdom" is therefore moot.
zugi 4y ago
Perhaps you missed the "which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other" phrase? That seems to be the author's phrasing of the bill's wording "content that is generated by a user of the service... may be encountered by another user." A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. But just add a comment section and suddenly you have this world of regulatory requirements with mandates to age-verify all users, which bars anonymity. In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance.
- rlpb 4y ago
  > A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. I agree, but the article's author's phrasing, IMHO, claims the opposite. > In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance. My possibly contrarian (for HN) opinion is that the Internet's "wild west" approach of disclaiming liability when republishing and algorithmically editorializing content on a platform isn't acceptable, so I'm actually in favour of this. Otherwise we have people being harmed with nobody to hold to account. If when tracking down an offender the offender cannot be found, then they're effectively being shielded by the platform, and the platform should be held liable. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. I don't think this would necessarily exclude all discussion or comment sections because I'm only talking about (my definition) a "platform". I would exclude "mere conduit" direct communication apps. This bill probably doesn't achieve the distinction and exception I want though.

by rlpb 4y ago

M2Ys4U 4y ago

>However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link it, which seems odd). You're linking to the draft bill. Burns has linked to the actual bill as amended in the Commons: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121/220121.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121... (it's linked under the heading of "How to read this post")

rlpb 4y ago
Ah, thanks. Looks like there's not an actual bill yet, but there is a second draft bill. However, I looked at the definitions in there and they remain essentially the same. My concerns still stand.
- M2Ys4U 4y ago
  > Ah, thanks. Looks like there's not an actual bill yet, but there is a second draft bill. No, there's definitely a bill. It's had its first and second readings and it's in committee stage in the Commons: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

Brybry 4y ago

The "has links with the UK" portion of the "regulated service" definition says if UK users are a "target market", or if the "service is capable of being used in the United Kingdom" and there's user generated content with a "material risk of significant harm" then it "has links". If an app is available in an app store are the users who can access it not a target market? I'm not really sure what "material risk of significant harm" means for the second qualifier but if it means "users can potentially post bad things" then that seems very broad too. I feel it's telling that they had a need to make exceptions explicitly for email/voip/sms texting.

rlpb 4y ago
If it's not a "user-to-user service", then it's not a "regulated user-to-user service" either and therefore not a "regulated service". Whether or not it "has links" or is a "service is capable of being used in the United Kingdom" is therefore moot.

zugi 4y ago

Perhaps you missed the "which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other" phrase? That seems to be the author's phrasing of the bill's wording "content that is generated by a user of the service... may be encountered by another user." A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. But just add a comment section and suddenly you have this world of regulatory requirements with mandates to age-verify all users, which bars anonymity. In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance.

rlpb 4y ago
> A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. I agree, but the article's author's phrasing, IMHO, claims the opposite. > In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance. My possibly contrarian (for HN) opinion is that the Internet's "wild west" approach of disclaiming liability when republishing and algorithmically editorializing content on a platform isn't acceptable, so I'm actually in favour of this. Otherwise we have people being harmed with nobody to hold to account. If when tracking down an offender the offender cannot be found, then they're effectively being shielded by the platform, and the platform should be held liable. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. I don't think this would necessarily exclude all discussion or comment sections because I'm only talking about (my definition) a "platform". I would exclude "mere conduit" direct communication apps. This bill probably doesn't achieve the distinction and exception I want though.