9 ms·
UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoIt is interesting. I care and I don't at the same time. There is a part of me that watches it all from a distance. We have all seen some of those dances before including government grasping at whatever explanation sounds plausible enough to let it go through. I don't know if it is the morning or what, but maybe UKsians need a morning kick with their coffee. Who knows. Maybe they even want to be protected from unsanctioned discourse.
- wizzwizz4 1y agoDirect link: https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-safety-act-botched-2xk8xwlps https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/online-s...
- A_D_E_P_T 1y ago+ Readable version: https://archive.ph/3pave https://archive.ph/3pave
- icarouse 1y agoThis sounds like a misinterpretation. The OSA is primarily about making online service providers responsible for age verification, if they supply adult content. No different in principle from having to prove one's age to buy cigarettes, alcohol, knives, etc. No-one says "cigarettes are censored!", because, obviously, they're not. Same for adult content online. It can still be accessed, as long as proof of age is provided.
- IanCal 1y agoThat’s not what it’s primarily about, but is the more visible aspect. Lots of the rest is ensuring moderation and the like is supported, scanning for csam, etc. where the risks are higher.
- icarouse 1y agoI see much of the rest of it as being similar to alcohol licensing laws. Pubs and bars have restrictions on how they operate, for the good of the community and society.
- mdp2021 1y agoNow picture the profiles of those who would present a document to enter a pub, and picture the profiles of those who would present a document to access a forum.
- IanCal 1y agoThis isn’t about presenting a document to enter a forum.
- mdp2021 1y agoIn fact I miswrote: I understand it is about presenting a document to access webpages. In the equivalent proposal in Australia, they spoke about presenting a document to access search engines. Surely my mention of "forums" was rushed on the spot and reductive. So, what did you mean? Have I fell into some confusion in legislations?
- IanCal 1y agoThe problem here is there is a big bit of legislation and people are focussed on one outcome of it, which is what you will have heard. It’s a bill about safety online. The onus is moved to the provider to mitigate harms or decide they don’t apply/are low risk. For porn providers the outcome is fairly clear, to check your users are of age. This was kind of always the case but “are you over 18 yes or no” is not enough. For other sites it’s making sure there are reporting mechanisms for child abuse content. It’s making sure there’s moderation to manage grooming, self harm stuff etc. People can fairly argue about the bill but it’s not about age or user verification. That’s one outcome for one set of sites.
- khalic 1y agoFalse equivalence, the local pub doesn’t keep track of your identity.
- mdp2021 1y agoIt's not about accessing pubs. It's about deciding what is a pub.
- khalic 1y agoBetter still: it has nothing to do with pubs at all
- jddj 1y agoNot to take away from your general point (which I agree with), but that depends where local is. > Identity technology used at a county's pubs and nightclubs since 2023 is to be extended for a further three years. > Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC) Danielle Stone has agreed to provide funding to keep the scheme at 25 venues that open beyond 01:00. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm28lmk474o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm28lmk474o
- khalic 1y agoThanks for the context, jeez that’s concerning
- icarouse 1y agoYour local pub will have CCTV and some have names and photos of banned patrons behind the bar. Some bars and clubs have digital ID scanners upon entry. Most online service providers who verify age are using third-party suppliers who don't provide any details of one's identity, just whether the user has been age verified or not. And much of that is done by recording a selfie, not handing over identity documents.
- ptero 1y agoOne local pub may have a face scanner, the other may not and I am free to choose which one I go to without fear of reprisals. Refusing to follow a government mandate can land me in jail.
- mdp2021 1y ago> obviously, they're not No, you are just tracked when you access them - «cigarettes» being, of course, all """controversial""" expressions. (Already putting children as an excuse for that...) *** They have censored lobste.rs . The "for adults only site" lobste.rs *** https://www.blocked.org.uk/osa-blocks https://www.blocked.org.uk/osa-blocks
- icarouse 1y agoThe owner of lobste.rs decided to censor lobste.rs. And then changed his mind. It's accessible from the UK as it was before.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mdp2021 1y agoI see. I only came to know it from the list. Now what about the rest of the list.
- tgv 1y agoIs this you? news.ycombinator.com | Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com Reported: 15 August, 2025 at 10:09 Shut down on: 15 August, 2025 Shutting down due to OSA Discussion site for insufferable nerds. Submitted
- mdp2021 1y agoIt is nice of you to do community bond building by being jocular, tgv, but I do not see context nor content. I do not see context because this is the beginning of "present an ID to access the web", and I do believe in slippery slopes, especially in a world where societies have lost the basics. And I do not see content because I am not sure you want to suggest anything relevant with that. For the rest, we can joke whenever we are both here fondly mate, but you have probably picked the worst topic for it. -- Edit: > where societies have lost the basics And that's why I feel your use of "nerd" is so out of current reality (besides its application to the attending). A world of voluntary subjects, and the term for the sieged would be "nerd"?!
- dustincoates 1y agoWithout passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From the article: >First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. From the source (emphasis mine): > On 18 March 2024, the Secretary of State was provided with a Submission which made it clear that Category 1 duties were not primarily aimed at pornographic content or the protection of children _(which were dealt with by other parts of the Act)_. Rather, the aim of Category 1 was to capture services that have a significant influence over public discourse. The submission offered, as a possible option, requesting information from Ofcom as to _how content recommender systems function on different types of service_. The quote leaves out "which were dealt with by other parts of the Act" and the fact that the subject was specifically "Category 1 duties" not the Act in its entirety. It also doesn't mention that the subject was on content recommender systems. _Again_ this is not a judgment on the Act itself, but providing the full context, which does change the message. 0: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Science,_Innovation_and_Technology_(2025,_EWHC) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v_Secret...
- CommanderData 1y agohttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko I strongly suspect it's also meant to curtail growing support among youth for Palestine in the Israel/Gaza conflict. https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 https://www.facebook.com/reel/665564933022223 Essentially creating an internet for children/teens that echos the government narrative.
- spacebanana7 1y agoThe online safety act was drafted long before Oct 2023. But broadly I agree, in the sense that the government are uncomfortable with political movements they lack the ability to shape or control. In hindsight it's incredible just how much influence the British government has historically had over media. The largest TV and radio stations were often directly government owned (BBC, Radio 1, Channel 4) and many newspapers are vulnerable to defamation / contempt of court accusations / injunctions when they sway too far from the official narratives. Especially on any issue adjacent to criminal justice. Of course, they'll say all of the state owned media operated without political direction. And that regulators / prosecutors operated in a politically neutral fashion with due process and impartiality.
- IanCal 1y agoYou can argue the intentions here but this isn’t different from what’s been said by them before - the public line is that it’s about safety, and while children add additional things to do, its not a child safety bill and it’s focussed on larger entities that deal with user to user services.
- khalic 1y agoWhat’s with england and its complete lack of response to this kind of power grabs?
- mdp2021 1y agoThey wait for the next election.
- yungporko 1y agothere's really nothing anybody can do. protests dont work, riots dont work, petitions dont work, and theres nobody else to vote for who isn't also a cunt.
- chii 1y agomass civil disobedience. Not riots.
- andy_ppp 1y agoThis conversation seems like politics not technology. The act (which is awful) has already been done to death on here.
- ap99 1y agoFor the Americans looking at this act, you're maybe putting it in the context of American politics and thinking who cares if the porn sites have my face or id. But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else.
- JFingleton 1y agoHere is more information about the arrests that are currently taking place: https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/ https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for...
- toyg 1y agoBritain has always been very hypocritical about freedom of speech. Take for example "Speaker's Corner", an area of Hyde Park were police will tolerate any sort of speech - except that, if there are complaints and the speech is considered potentially unlawful, they will arrest the speaker right after he's done speaking.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- polshaw 1y agoSo there is not a magical space where the law does not apply? that is what you call hypocritical.
- throwaway_dang 1y agoFrom my perspective, the UK is a failing state and not worth thinking about. Not much can be learned from the UK except what to avoid doing if you don't want to become them.
- nickslaughter02 1y agoList: 1. Don't handcuff 90-year-olds with dementia and put a hood over their heads (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66317636 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66317636) 2. Don't take inspiration from Minority Report / Black Mirror - "AI to help police catch criminals before they strike" (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ai-to-help-police-catch-criminals-before-they-strike https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ai-to-help-police-catch-c...)
- angusturner 1y agoAs an Aussie, I was feeling somewhat consoled about the state of the US by the fact that the EU and UK still seem to have their heads screwed on. OSA and chat control have made me seriously rethink that… Has everyone lost their mind?
- redeyedtreefrog 1y agoBlack Mirror is the new 1984. Right wing people think "this is a parable of what left-of-centre politics gets you, look how clever I am". Left-of-centre people know that the author of 1984 fought for the socialists in the Spanish Civil War and that the author of Black Mirror is a Guardian journalist.
- btdmaster 1y agoThe Times is more or less lying here. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedia-Foundation-and-another-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Science-Innovation-and-Technology.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi... > On 18 March 2024, the Secretary of State was provided with a Submission which made it clear that Category 1 duties were not primarily aimed at pornographic content or the protection of children (which were dealt with by other parts of the Act). Notice this is under Sunak, not Starmer. The Times chooses when to support and opposite the Online Safety Act based on which party is in government, and provides evidence for its view by lying through omission. The Online Safety Act is undeniably terrible legislation, but you won't find good-faith criticism of it from the Times.
- Vektorceraptor 1y ago[dead]
- perihelions 1y agoIn the Oxford philosophy-exam thread from yesterday, I was distracted by question #3: "Should anonymous posting online be forbidden?"[0] Never mind the quality of essay you (or your machine surrogate) could write about that. The striking thing is this is now within firmly within the Overton Window in British academia—this is what they seemingly teach their cultural elites in their elite schools. In place of Enlightenment* values, they're normalizing the inversion of them—normalizing thinking as an autocrat, in viewing the general public as an unsafe factor and as an adversary. [0] https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/c29370c7-76df-4fb9-b231-f754ec1429c9_2572x2016.png https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/c... *(A not-small body of which were famously published anonymously in order to escape ostracization. Were these Oxford philosophers to take their own advice, they would forbid all volumes mentioning Voltaire or Spinoza from their libraries).
- skeezyboy 1y agobritish nanny state has been in parlance the 60's, its not a new idea really
- pama 1y agoWhat was that thread? Oxford philosophy exams never suggest a particular stance on a question so you are free to argue on either direction of this argument and bring about your strongest points based on the current philosophical thinking on the subject. It is not normalizing lack of anonymity (nor horror movies, or the pursuit of happiness), but helps make people hone their argument skills. (And as another user mentioned, the discussion of the british nanny state is not new; it was old when Orwell wrote 1984.)
- perihelions 1y agoIt was in a thread discussing LLM's, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44893522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44893522 ("All Souls exam questions and the limits of machine reasoning (resobscura.substack.com)"—35 comments) https://resobscura.substack.com/p/all-souls-exam-questions-and-the https://resobscura.substack.com/p/all-souls-exam-questions-a...
- exasperaited 1y agoSmall note that this refers to the previous Tory government, not the current Labour government, for whatever that is worth. So the title should at least be "Previous UK administration stated that...".
- cobbzilla 1y agoIt’s like someone got really into “A Clockwork Orange” and then thought: No, this is woefully inefficient, just one person at a time. It’ll be slower but we can do everyone all at once!
- pera 1y agoSince this is in relation to "Category 1 services" of the OSA: > Category 1: should apply to services which meet either of the following conditions: > Condition 1 – uses a content recommender system; and has more than 34 million UK users on the user-to-user part of its service, representing around 50% of the UK population; > Condition 2 – allows users to forward or reshare user-generated content; and uses a content recommender system; and has more than 7 million UK users on the user-to-user part of its service, representing c.10% of the UK population. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/additional-duties-for-categorised-online-services https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...