6 ms·
Online Safety Bill – Some futures
- AndrewVos 3y agoIt is quite scary being a software engineer and living in the UK right now. This is going to really damage the (already bad) job market.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoI'm writing this in reply to you as somewhat of a pre-apology, but could the UK's implementation of this legislation have enough of a negative effect on their technology sector that it could serve as cautionary example for the rest of the (Western?) world. If this comes to pass, I thank you for taking one for the team. I would also welcome you to Australia, but with the disclaimer that you may need to move from here before too long as well.
- AndrewVos 3y agoIs your username meant to sound extremely racist?
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoNo, damn, you're now the third person to read it that way. It's a (lame? and possibly outdated) contraction of Black And Silver. I just thought it sounded cool once, and it stuck for 10 years and counting. Like MSTRKRFT I'd like to think that my ability to communicate via the written word would imply a healthy functioning ability to think critically, which I further hope would imply that I'm able to think past base, lizard brain reactions that are so irrationally toxic in a global society context.
- AndrewVos 3y agoFair enough I guess but you might want to put an ampersand between those words, I know I certainly would.
- detourdog 3y agoPeople will see what they want to see. I think it is fine if he wants to keep his username and letting his interactions define who he is.
- detourdog 3y agoI read it as you intended and it took me a long time to see the problem.
- MaKey 3y agoI still don't see it.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoBut once you do see it, its all you'll ever see. Careful what you wish for.
- detourdog 3y agoSo far I have managed but it is not worth looking for. Keep your mind free and pure.
- gottorf 3y agoOne could read it as "black enslaver" (or something similar), but I agree with the user that it is quite a leap to do so.
- kmlx 3y ago> I would also welcome you to Australia https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/12/04/why-australias-new-anti-encryption-law-would-be-both-dangerous-and-useless/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/12/04/why-aus... as i've written in other threads, the direction of travel re. internet policy is pretty clear around the world. and it's not just politicians. it's universities, policy centers, NGOs, you name it.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoI am limited in my options, and I did disclaim at the end ;)
- te_chris 3y agoAs if the UK needs to provide another cautionary tale to the world lmao (I’m talking about Brexit)
- AndrewVos 3y agoWell, there could also be the effect that the Aus government sees this happening and thinks “ay this seems to work”. We know these governments can barely operate a calculator so they’re probably not over here on HN reading about how bad their ideas are. Scary stuff.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mnd999 3y agoNeed to vote these clowns out asap.
- cbeach 3y agoThe opposition party have stated that they think the Online Safety Bill is too weak, and they would make it even stronger (more draconian) https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pledges-toughen-online-safety-bill https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...
- kmlx 3y agoNGO’s are also very much in favor. and so is much of the population. like in continental Europe, they don’t see the internet as we do on HN.
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoPopulations do seem to lack critical thinking overall. But this is probably just because everyone can be an expert (or even just "knowledgeable enough") in maybe one or two things, and have to rely on not-necessarily-trustworthy sources on all other topics. This averages out to "the wind blows in the direction that the majority of the media says it blows". And I don't know if that is a solvable problem. Not without a radically different style of government. I really feel how apt, but also defeatist, this quote is: "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
- kmlx 3y agoi have a much simpler theory: we kind of forgot how to manage both sides of an argument. we take sides because it's much easier than deeply understanding the issue and fixing it at it's core.
- anonzzzies 3y agoEven some HNers I know are in favour. You don’t hate children do you? DO YOU? Strange they don’t see how bad this is… and what an excuse terrorism and ‘the children’ are for blanket surveillance.
- lwhi 3y agoWon't everyone just use a VPN?
- wlkr 3y agoThere have been proposed amendments deliberately targeting the use of VPNs. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vpns-online-safety-bill-labour-champion-b2239810.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vpns-online-s...
- kmlx 3y agoby the opposition none the less.
- andrepd 3y ago"""opposition""" at this point.
- cassianoleal 3y agoIndeed. Keir Starmer's Labour is hardly any opposition at all.
- lwhi 3y agoTo be totally fair, it does look like his Labour party will be the next gov.
- cassianoleal 3y agoI do kind of expect that to be true as well. That said, it won't be much of a change, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- acdha 3y agoVPNs aren’t a solution to this class of problem unless the same government restricting content chooses not to enforce its policies. Their traffic is trivially detectable so you’re basically putting up a sign declaring your intention to violate local laws and as a sovereign state they can pressure businesses to enforce regulations by banning VPN clients which won’t geolocate to the country level. The only solutions for this are political.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoOFCOM is a scam and should be disbanded.
- amriksohata 3y agoMany employees used to work at the BBC too, they're all sleeping in the same bed
- maxehmookau 3y agoThat's absolutely throwing the baby out with the bath water. Ofcom's role is mandated entirely by government and they do plenty of good in terms of reigning in some of the more extreme parts of our news media. If they're mandated with blocking encryption then that's an issue with the government and not Ofcom, surely?
- greybox 3y agoI completely agree with maxehmookau here. Ofcom is not the problem. Ofcom does a lot of good in the UK.
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoOffcom is "Pay us to tell you how we're going to police you so you're forced to pay us" it's a circular scam.
- spacemanspiff01 3y agoSo I've been wondering... Why not just have ISPs block IP addresses? Have IP blocking default to on, but allow the customer (who is over 18) be able to opt out. Then have the services split up under-18 and 18+ IP addresses? Seems much better than having to have websites magically determine age. It puts most of the onus on ISPs, but would be fairly simple on their end, and little to no affect on adults or parents who decide to take responsibility. (I guess this is more in context of Louisiana law, not necessarily UK, which has more of a encryption aspect as well.)
- mihaic 3y agoGoogle keeps asking for my age to "verify that I'm over 18" on an account that at this point is over 19 years old, all just to get more data on me. Maybe we'll all just have everyone login with a few accredited providers and that's it (OAuth with email and date of birth). It's incredibly stupid, but I've stopped believing that intelligence wins in the long-run.
- naillo 3y agoIf I wasn't dependent on using the internet for income I would just try to find other ways of using my free time than the internet at this point if the worst case outcome in the article came to pass.
- kypro 3y agoOn one hand, I do think we need to do something about the content children have access to online, but I don't understand why the government believe this is their problem. What content children get exposed to has always been the responsibility of parents. Assuming this bill has honest intentions (I don't believe it does) the issue here is more that parents are giving their children unrestricted access to the internet. What we need to be doing (if anything) is giving parents more ability to regulate what content their kids have access to rather than simply putting that responsibility on the government and service providers. ISPs should be making it much easier to for parents to add global content filters and device-specific filters. Both could easily be managed from an app and in my opinion this should be what the government should be focused on. That said, what this seems to actually be is an attempt to crack down on content and speech the government (and perhaps the public generally) doesn't like. The UK is an extremely authoritarian place, not because people here are generally authoritarian in nature in that we seek to control the behaviours of others, but because we're excessively conformist and polite. This bill exploits this aspect of our nature because few people in the UK are going to stick their necks out in defence online encryption or adult content. For context for those who live the in US, in the UK if you're doing something impolite you're generally breaking the law... Swearing in public? That's a public order offence. Saying something mean online? That's hate speech. Protesting fossil fuels? That's disruptive. And so on...
- croutonwagon 3y agoIm a parent whos kids are burgeoning internet users. Though quite young on the spectrum, but it has gotten me thinking more and more. I also have a lot of technical ability and experience running things like web content filters etc. That said, even beyond a DNS filter theres a lot of stuff on popular sites (ie: Youtube specifically) that is REALLY bad. Seriously just go search some special characters (ie: . or ## or something like that) and you will get some crazy stuff that looks like kids stuff, but with jump cuts of shots from the exorcist or something. If you look at it from the lens of a grade schooler, its disturbing. Not to mention all the porn and stuff the filters dont find. Im struggling to find a way to filter that. Maybe whitelist only some channels etc and just let the blocks work from there.
- andyjohnson0 3y agoThinking small and acting big. Impractical, badly thought-out measures like this make me dispair for the future of my country and my children and my job. It will not work, but it will hobble our economy and society.
- spants 3y agorailroading through privacy changes "to protect the children" - classic government. "What do you mean you don't want to protect children?" when you argue against it. Similar to ulez cameras to bring down air pollution - in reality it is to bring in pay-per-mile in the near future. "You can bring in your car to kill people by pollutants if you pay the £12.50". I hope people wake up.
- YellOh 3y agoMaybe a dumb question, but to implement pay-per-mile, why not just increase the gas tax? I'd love there to be fewer (unnecessary) cars around, but dislike the idea of ULEZ CCTV expansion.
- daveoc64 3y agoThe encryption aspects of the proposed law have drawn a lot of attention, but the law covers a lot more than that. Many of those parts of the law are popular across the political spectrum of MPs and with the general public. There's stuff to deal with things like cyber bullying, hate speech and fraud on social networks - these have come about because of demands from parents and victims.
- cbeach 3y agoTackling bullying and “hate” sounds laudable in principle but in practice require a high degree of surveillance and totalitarianism. All regimes in history that tried to build utopia failed