3 ms·

The UK should make exceptions for its legal firewall for scientific and economic access.

freedomben 1y ago
That would either create a gigantic loophole that makes the safety act toothless, or it would create a giant bureacracy of people who review and approve applications. Either outcome is sub-optimal. The real answer is to repeal this nonsense (IMHO as a non-UK citizen)
- noir_lord 1y ago
  Agreed, as a UK citizen. It as always a stupid idea, see recent discord leak of ID’s.
driverdan 1y ago
The UK shouldn't have stupid ID requirement laws at all.
- tripplyons 1y ago
  I agree, but I sadly believe these requirements will spread to other countries, including the US. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Texas' ID law is somehow constitutional.
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    "Constitutional" doesn't mean it's a good law, just that it is not prohibited for the state to make such a law. I personally don't like the law but I have a hard time seeing how it would be unconstitutional.
    - hnlmorg 1y ago
      I felt the GP was making that same point.
    - sterlind 1y ago
      it should be unconstitutional because it's clearly a content-based restriction of speech, meaning that regulating it entails strict scrutiny. strict scrutiny requires Texas to use the least burdensome means possible to satisfy the state's legitimate interest in preventing minors from accessing obscene content - probably a home network filter appliance parents can opt into. this is what they held in Paxton v. NetChoice (iirc.) instead, the Court contorted themselves into holding that adults have accessing content obscene to minors without furnishing their ID isn't protected speech. porn still is protected speech, but proving your age isn't protected speech. as a result, the law is content-neutral, not content-based.. somehow. it was a low point for the Court - clear activist justices legislating morality from the bench.
    - tripplyons 1y ago
      Previously, these kinds of laws violated the 1st Amendment, but the changes in the composition of Supreme Court justices have led to different rulings.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    What do you mean "spread to"? The USA passed a dozen such bills into state law before this actually came into effect. That states compete to ignore each other's laws doesn't change a thing.
    - tripplyons 1y ago
      For the US, I'm referring to federal laws or more laws in more states. As for other countries, the EU just delayed the vote for "Chat Control" as recently as yesterday!
- ChocolateGod 1y ago
  A lot of the groups pushing these laws actually have good motives (e.g. child abuse charities) but it's clear the current law and implementations are not the solution.
rwmj 1y ago
So I think this law is stupid. But it's also popular, for the reason "something should be done, this is something, so this should be done". I doubt that exceptions are going to be made until the effects are felt strongly by everyone. Geoblocking a .cz site used by a tiny number of developers is not having any effect.
- o11c 1y ago
  And as always, the answer to "something should be done, but not this" is "then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem". The internet is full of dishonest "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
  - debugnik 1y ago
    > then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem As opposed to the original suggestion that doesn't actually address the problem? How is proposing that in the first place more honest than calling it out?
  - chris_wot 1y ago
    “Something should be done, so let’s do something stupid and harmful, and all you critics have nothing to add so our stupid thing that causes harm is what you must accept”. That’s some incredible logic.
    - o11c 1y ago
      I never once said we had to settle for this solution. I absolutely said that there is a real problem, and the people in the best position to make a real solution have absolutely no desire to do anything about it. Remember that previous status quo was "I'd rather make money off of child abuse, because nobody is stopping us". This is the end result of self-regulation, so show me something better.
      - chris_wot 1y ago
        Yes, but implicit in your statement was that the awful solution should be implemented if you don’t have a better solution. I don’t have a better solution. But I don’t need to accept a detrimental “solution” needs to be implemented. Nor am I obligated to find the better solution.

That would either create a gigantic loophole that makes the safety act toothless, or it would create a giant bureacracy of people who review and approve applications. Either outcome is sub-optimal. The real answer is to repeal this nonsense (IMHO as a non-UK citizen)

noir_lord 1y ago
Agreed, as a UK citizen. It as always a stupid idea, see recent discord leak of ID’s.

driverdan 1y ago

The UK shouldn't have stupid ID requirement laws at all.

tripplyons 1y ago
I agree, but I sadly believe these requirements will spread to other countries, including the US. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Texas' ID law is somehow constitutional.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  "Constitutional" doesn't mean it's a good law, just that it is not prohibited for the state to make such a law. I personally don't like the law but I have a hard time seeing how it would be unconstitutional.
  - hnlmorg 1y ago
    I felt the GP was making that same point.
  - sterlind 1y ago
    it should be unconstitutional because it's clearly a content-based restriction of speech, meaning that regulating it entails strict scrutiny. strict scrutiny requires Texas to use the least burdensome means possible to satisfy the state's legitimate interest in preventing minors from accessing obscene content - probably a home network filter appliance parents can opt into. this is what they held in Paxton v. NetChoice (iirc.) instead, the Court contorted themselves into holding that adults have accessing content obscene to minors without furnishing their ID isn't protected speech. porn still is protected speech, but proving your age isn't protected speech. as a result, the law is content-neutral, not content-based.. somehow. it was a low point for the Court - clear activist justices legislating morality from the bench.
  - tripplyons 1y ago
    Previously, these kinds of laws violated the 1st Amendment, but the changes in the composition of Supreme Court justices have led to different rulings.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  What do you mean "spread to"? The USA passed a dozen such bills into state law before this actually came into effect. That states compete to ignore each other's laws doesn't change a thing.
  - tripplyons 1y ago
    For the US, I'm referring to federal laws or more laws in more states. As for other countries, the EU just delayed the vote for "Chat Control" as recently as yesterday!
ChocolateGod 1y ago
A lot of the groups pushing these laws actually have good motives (e.g. child abuse charities) but it's clear the current law and implementations are not the solution.

rwmj 1y ago

So I think this law is stupid. But it's also popular, for the reason "something should be done, this is something, so this should be done". I doubt that exceptions are going to be made until the effects are felt strongly by everyone. Geoblocking a .cz site used by a tiny number of developers is not having any effect.

o11c 1y ago
And as always, the answer to "something should be done, but not this" is "then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem". The internet is full of dishonest "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
- debugnik 1y ago
  > then suggest something else that actually addresses the problem As opposed to the original suggestion that doesn't actually address the problem? How is proposing that in the first place more honest than calling it out?
- chris_wot 1y ago
  “Something should be done, so let’s do something stupid and harmful, and all you critics have nothing to add so our stupid thing that causes harm is what you must accept”. That’s some incredible logic.
  - o11c 1y ago
    I never once said we had to settle for this solution. I absolutely said that there is a real problem, and the people in the best position to make a real solution have absolutely no desire to do anything about it. Remember that previous status quo was "I'd rather make money off of child abuse, because nobody is stopping us". This is the end result of self-regulation, so show me something better.
    - chris_wot 1y ago
      Yes, but implicit in your statement was that the awful solution should be implemented if you don’t have a better solution. I don’t have a better solution. But I don’t need to accept a detrimental “solution” needs to be implemented. Nor am I obligated to find the better solution.