4 ms·

> What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impa

> What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated). As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, with two MPs murdered in the last decade. You and I have the luxury that we can just not be on Twitter - but when you're an MP, unless you're in a very safe seat you've got to meet voters where they are, not where you'd like them to be. So from an MP's perspective? In one hand they've got a report about revenge porn, cyber-bullying, 4chan /pol/ and pro-anorexia facebook groups. In the other hand they've got their phone where someone's just told them to kill themselves. They believe in these "illegal harms" because they've got a front row seat, and experience them on a daily basis.

kybernetyk 2y ago
Poor MPs. Being power hungry must really suck in the age of social media :(
- benj111 2y ago
  Really? You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online. What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable? Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.
  - bilvar 2y ago
    Threatening people online was already illegal.
    - benj111 2y ago
      Ok, lets replace this with murder. MPs are getting murdered, so they introduce a new law to prevent murder. Is the parents comment acceptable?
      - bilvar 2y ago
        Murder is already illegal, and threatening to murder someone is already illegal. Any further legislation, the burden of proof is on them not on me or the parent poster. Otherwise one day they might claim that me taking a shit will lead to their murder and have my toilets removed.
        benj111 2y ago
        Im not saying the burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying murder is legal. I'm saying that making sarcastic comments suggesting that MPs deserve to be murdered or threatened isn't acceptable. Its a completely separate issue from the law theyve introduced, which as I said, I'm not in favour of, and I agree they need to make the case before they remove your toilets, I've already made such a comment elsewhere in this thread.
  - opwieurposiu 2y ago
    Every law that the MPs create is itself a threat against the people. A prescriptive law can only be described as "Do what I say, or I will hurt you." Agents of the state create laws, and then take your money and pay that money to men with guns to come after you if you fail to comply. Law === Threat
    - benj111 2y ago
      "If you don't do X, I won't do Y" That is a threat in the broadest sense. the more useful comparisons are law != violence || threat of violence threat != violence unless youre just equivocating the 2 meanings of threat to construct an argument? So as law isn't equivalent to violence, why is it acceptable to bring violence into it?
EpicQuest_246 2y ago
> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, I am sure threats of violence are already illegal. If those people are in the UK, they should be prosecuted. If they are not in the UK they is not threat. I don't believe any if these online threats BTW are credible. What these MPs do is frequently make outlandish statements, which then gets them a bunch of hate (Jess Phillips has done this her entire political career) and useful idiots will shout their mouth off online. These MPs then point to all the "hate" they are getting. There is even a meme demonstrating this very effect: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/960/143/d7a.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/960/143/d7a... > with two MPs murdered in the last decade. The murder of David Amess had nothing to do with Social Media. The killer said it was to do with religion when asked by Police. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Amess#Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Amess#Investig... I believe the individual was deemed at risk of radicalisation. > You and I have the luxury that we can just not be on Twitter - but when you're an MP, unless you're in a very safe seat you've got to meet voters where they are, not where you'd like them to be. They don't need to be on Twitter. Twitter isn't their local constituents. They have surgeries for this very reason. Very few people on Twitter are relevant to what happens on election day in their constituency. > So from an MP's perspective? In one hand they've got a report about revenge porn, cyber-bullying, 4chan /pol/ and pro-anorexia facebook groups. In the other hand they've got their phone where someone's just told them to kill themselves. Even if that is true that doesn't mean we restrict everyone's rights because a minority are engaging in illegal/immoral acts. > They believe in these "illegal harms" because they've got a front row seat, and experience them on a daily basis. That is what they say to sell the narrative that they need to censor social media. If you look over the last 20 years. It is as if nobody has learned anything from the early 2000s and the war on terror. They will exploit (or create) any crisis.
monooso 2y ago
> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, with two MPs murdered in the last decade. 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? 2. They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this.
- scott_w 2y ago
  > 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? The Online Safety Act isn't about making these things illegal. It's about making it more difficult to do the illegal things in the first place. To take an analogy: money laundering legislation exists to make it harder to use the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate life. Being a drug dealer is already illegal, yet we don't use that as an argument against such laws and regulations.
  - opwieurposiu 2y ago
    "The purpose of the system is what it does." 99% of people are not drug dealers, yet we still experience the deadweight loss of KYC and AML. Therefore AML exists because agents of the state like to screw with us, waste our time, and steal our cash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
    - michaelt 2y ago
      What a confusing quote. My bicycle recently got a puncture. Is the purpose of my bicycle to get punctures?
      - skeaker 2y ago
        If that was defacto the only thing your bicycle ever did, then yes I guess.
    - scott_w 2y ago

kybernetyk 2y ago

Poor MPs. Being power hungry must really suck in the age of social media :(

benj111 2y ago
Really? You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online. What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable? Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.
- bilvar 2y ago
  Threatening people online was already illegal.
  - benj111 2y ago
    Ok, lets replace this with murder. MPs are getting murdered, so they introduce a new law to prevent murder. Is the parents comment acceptable?
    - bilvar 2y ago
      Murder is already illegal, and threatening to murder someone is already illegal. Any further legislation, the burden of proof is on them not on me or the parent poster. Otherwise one day they might claim that me taking a shit will lead to their murder and have my toilets removed.
      - benj111 2y ago
        Im not saying the burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying murder is legal. I'm saying that making sarcastic comments suggesting that MPs deserve to be murdered or threatened isn't acceptable. Its a completely separate issue from the law theyve introduced, which as I said, I'm not in favour of, and I agree they need to make the case before they remove your toilets, I've already made such a comment elsewhere in this thread.
- opwieurposiu 2y ago
  Every law that the MPs create is itself a threat against the people. A prescriptive law can only be described as "Do what I say, or I will hurt you." Agents of the state create laws, and then take your money and pay that money to men with guns to come after you if you fail to comply. Law === Threat
  - benj111 2y ago
    "If you don't do X, I won't do Y" That is a threat in the broadest sense. the more useful comparisons are law != violence || threat of violence threat != violence unless youre just equivocating the 2 meanings of threat to construct an argument? So as law isn't equivalent to violence, why is it acceptable to bring violence into it?

EpicQuest_246 2y ago

> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, I am sure threats of violence are already illegal. If those people are in the UK, they should be prosecuted. If they are not in the UK they is not threat. I don't believe any if these online threats BTW are credible. What these MPs do is frequently make outlandish statements, which then gets them a bunch of hate (Jess Phillips has done this her entire political career) and useful idiots will shout their mouth off online. These MPs then point to all the "hate" they are getting. There is even a meme demonstrating this very effect: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/960/143/d7a.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/960/143/d7a... > with two MPs murdered in the last decade. The murder of David Amess had nothing to do with Social Media. The killer said it was to do with religion when asked by Police. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Amess#Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Amess#Investig... I believe the individual was deemed at risk of radicalisation. > You and I have the luxury that we can just not be on Twitter - but when you're an MP, unless you're in a very safe seat you've got to meet voters where they are, not where you'd like them to be. They don't need to be on Twitter. Twitter isn't their local constituents. They have surgeries for this very reason. Very few people on Twitter are relevant to what happens on election day in their constituency. > So from an MP's perspective? In one hand they've got a report about revenge porn, cyber-bullying, 4chan /pol/ and pro-anorexia facebook groups. In the other hand they've got their phone where someone's just told them to kill themselves. Even if that is true that doesn't mean we restrict everyone's rights because a minority are engaging in illegal/immoral acts. > They believe in these "illegal harms" because they've got a front row seat, and experience them on a daily basis. That is what they say to sell the narrative that they need to censor social media. If you look over the last 20 years. It is as if nobody has learned anything from the early 2000s and the war on terror. They will exploit (or create) any crisis.

monooso 2y ago

> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, with two MPs murdered in the last decade. 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? 2. They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this.

scott_w 2y ago
> 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws? The Online Safety Act isn't about making these things illegal. It's about making it more difficult to do the illegal things in the first place. To take an analogy: money laundering legislation exists to make it harder to use the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate life. Being a drug dealer is already illegal, yet we don't use that as an argument against such laws and regulations.
- opwieurposiu 2y ago
  "The purpose of the system is what it does." 99% of people are not drug dealers, yet we still experience the deadweight loss of KYC and AML. Therefore AML exists because agents of the state like to screw with us, waste our time, and steal our cash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
  - michaelt 2y ago
    What a confusing quote. My bicycle recently got a puncture. Is the purpose of my bicycle to get punctures?
    - skeaker 2y ago
      If that was defacto the only thing your bicycle ever did, then yes I guess.
  - scott_w 2y ago