4 ms·

While I support some more measured analysis to counter the hyperbole, you're making some strong assertions about what this bill will and won't mean, and I don't

by tailspin2019 3y ago

While I support some more measured analysis to counter the hyperbole, you're making some strong assertions about what this bill will and won't mean, and I don't think you can have any more certainty about these than those people who are assuming a far worse outcome. Context matters, and given the context of where we are as a country at the moment, how trustworthy our current government has (not) turned out to be, and even where they are in the election cycle - currently heading for being out of office for a decade - not to mention them pushing to leave the European convention on human rights, I'm a lot more concerned about the potential dangers of this bill than I might have been in a different context. Even if you're right and I'm wrong, this statement seems a bit naive! (with respect): > the bill will only have the effects that the government has said it will in its press releases. Edit: I tend to put a lot of stock into analysis put out by the EFF [0]. I think they said it well here: > If it passes, the Online Safety Bill will be a huge step backwards for global privacy, and democracy itself. Requiring government-approved software in peoples’ messaging services is an awful precedent. If the Online Safety Bill becomes British law, the damage it causes won’t stop at the borders of the U.K. [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/uk-government-very-close-eroding-encryption-worldwide https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/uk-government-very-clo...

cjs_ac 3y ago
Perhaps I am being naive, and I will confess that I'm not entirely sure that the future will be as I predicted (but I'm not going to edit my initial comment, out of respect for those disagreeing with me). But I will think this quote from one of the bill's most dogged critics is illustrative[0]: > ... this Bill, whatever DCMS and its ministers may claim, is not a “fixing” Bill, one which has been designed to be constructive and positive in order to fix problems. It is a “getting” Bill, once which has been designed to be vindictive and negative in order to get specific companies. OnlyFans in this particular example, the usual suspects in others. > The second is that this Bill has been designed by people who are so out of touch that OnlyFans is their idea of the average small digital business. > And the third is that this Bill has been designed by people who are so out of touch that they think the harms issues raised by OnlyFans are the harms issues in the average small digital business. As for your distrust of the government, my opinion on this comes from that same position. My complacency rests not on their goodwill (because I don't think they have any) but on their disinterest in actually understanding anything. [0] https://webdevlaw.uk/2022/07/13/heres-why-your-project-is-in-scope-of-the-online-safety-bill/ https://webdevlaw.uk/2022/07/13/heres-why-your-project-is-in...
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  > As for your distrust of the government, my opinion on this comes from that same position. My complacency rests not on their goodwill (because I don't think they have any) but on their disinterest in actually understanding anything. Ok we definitely share common ground on this point then :) I think it's worth remembering the equal amounts of - what could have been described as - "hyperbole" by remainers about what Brexit would really mean for the country, leading up to that vote. Much of the concern expressed was dismissed or downplayed, and though I voted to remain, I too actually thought the case against Brexit may have been made too strongly at the time. Well I was wrong about that - and many leave voters would also agree now that a lot of those forewarnings turned out to be correct, and in some cases, worse than predicted. Brexit has had the negative impact on the UK that it has, due to two things. One of those is debatable; whether it was actually a bad idea from the beginning - (I personally think it was) and the second reason is not debatable at all: its very poor implementation by the Government. The Online Safety Bill also may turn out to be a terrible decision for one or both of these same reasons: a) it was a poor concept b) it was implemented badly by the government. We only need one of those to be true for things to go badly. I worry that both will turn out to be true.

cjs_ac 3y ago

Perhaps I am being naive, and I will confess that I'm not entirely sure that the future will be as I predicted (but I'm not going to edit my initial comment, out of respect for those disagreeing with me). But I will think this quote from one of the bill's most dogged critics is illustrative[0]: > ... this Bill, whatever DCMS and its ministers may claim, is not a “fixing” Bill, one which has been designed to be constructive and positive in order to fix problems. It is a “getting” Bill, once which has been designed to be vindictive and negative in order to get specific companies. OnlyFans in this particular example, the usual suspects in others. > The second is that this Bill has been designed by people who are so out of touch that OnlyFans is their idea of the average small digital business. > And the third is that this Bill has been designed by people who are so out of touch that they think the harms issues raised by OnlyFans are the harms issues in the average small digital business. As for your distrust of the government, my opinion on this comes from that same position. My complacency rests not on their goodwill (because I don't think they have any) but on their disinterest in actually understanding anything. [0] https://webdevlaw.uk/2022/07/13/heres-why-your-project-is-in-scope-of-the-online-safety-bill/ https://webdevlaw.uk/2022/07/13/heres-why-your-project-is-in...

tailspin2019 3y ago
> As for your distrust of the government, my opinion on this comes from that same position. My complacency rests not on their goodwill (because I don't think they have any) but on their disinterest in actually understanding anything. Ok we definitely share common ground on this point then :) I think it's worth remembering the equal amounts of - what could have been described as - "hyperbole" by remainers about what Brexit would really mean for the country, leading up to that vote. Much of the concern expressed was dismissed or downplayed, and though I voted to remain, I too actually thought the case against Brexit may have been made too strongly at the time. Well I was wrong about that - and many leave voters would also agree now that a lot of those forewarnings turned out to be correct, and in some cases, worse than predicted. Brexit has had the negative impact on the UK that it has, due to two things. One of those is debatable; whether it was actually a bad idea from the beginning - (I personally think it was) and the second reason is not debatable at all: its very poor implementation by the Government. The Online Safety Bill also may turn out to be a terrible decision for one or both of these same reasons: a) it was a poor concept b) it was implemented badly by the government. We only need one of those to be true for things to go badly. I worry that both will turn out to be true.