undefined | Better HN

0 pointsexasperaited9mo ago0 comments

If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. Such a challenge would not be prevented by the outcome of this claim.

Seems pretty logical.

Again I think people outside of the UK perceive Ofcom to be a censor with a ban hammer. It's an industry self-regulation authority -- backed by penalties, yes, but it favours self-regulation. And the implementation is a modifiable statutory instrument specifically so that issues like this can be addressed.

In a perfect world would this all be handled with parental oversight and on-device controls? Yeah, maybe. But on-device parental controls are such a total mess, and devices available so readily, that UK PAYG mobile phone companies have already felt compelled (before the law changed) to block adult content by default.

ETA: I am rate-limited so I will just add that I am in the UK too. Not that this is relevant to the discussion. There is no serious UK consensus for overturning this law; the only party that claims that as a position does not even have the support of the majority of its members. I do not observe this law to be censorship, because as an adult I can see what I want to see, I just have to prove I am an adult. Which is how it used to work with top shelf magazines (so I am told! ;-) )

I suppose it's not really the done thing to say this, but if you disagree with me, say something, don't just downvote.

0 comments

vidarh9mo ago

As someone in the UK: Ofcom is a censor, that by leaving these things unclear are further having a massive chilling effect that is absolutely already being felt.

The issue here is not parental oversight. It's the massively overly broad assault on speech.

The UK PAYG block is a good example of a solution that would have had far less severe impact if extended.

piltdownman9mo ago

Pretty sure the PAYG block is circumvented by simply changing the APN in the carrier settings using freely available information online - that's how 3Ireland works and VodafoneIRL IIRC. It also had the annoying consequence of blocking all 'adult' sites - which included sites of historic interest and things like the internet archive.

The problem with 'child safety' in the UK has almost nothing to do with pornographers or 'toxic' influences as viewed through the lense of neo-Victorian morality anyway.

Instead, it is a societal powderkeg of gang indoctrination and social deprivation leading to a culture of drug-dealing, violent robberies, and postcode gang intimidation. This bill is simply a cheap and easily supported deflection from the dereliction of duty of successive governments towards the youth of the country since Blair.

In short, it is nothing but an electoral panacea for the incumbent intolerant conservative voting base; moral-hysteria disguised as a child safety measure.

This is inherently obvious when you assess the new vocabulary of persecution and otherness - detailing 'ASBO Youth', 'Chavs', 'NEETs and NEDs' and their inevitable progression to 'Roadmen'.

The Netflix series 'Top Boy' is the Sopranos equivalent of how this culture operates and how children are indoctrinated into a life of diminished expectations in a way that is often inescapable given their environment and cultural norms around their upbringing.

Even with this plethora of evidence and cultural consciousness, the powers that be are smugly insistent that removing PornHub is more important than introducing Social Hubs and amenities - and those that argue otherwise are derided as 'Saville's in the new parlance.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/technology-uk/article/online-saf...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgery3eeqzxo

nemomarx9mo ago

Normalizing those mosquito devices and trying to drive teenagers out of public life, banning kitchen knives in some attempt to keep kids from getting used to blades...

the UK strategy on kids is very very strange to me. I can't follow the logic at all. Do they expect them to silently sit at home, not using the Internet, not going anywhere with friends, and end up well adjusted adults anyway?

piltdownman9mo ago

Because these trials and tribulations are designed to disenfranchise the lower classes - regardless of age, the protected classes tend to be unimpeded by societal measures in the UK.

If teenagers Felicity or Joshua need to purchase a knife, or access questionable internet content, it'll be an assumed part of their privilege that they'll be able to do so. Similarly they are unimpacted by anti-social behaviour orders or restrictions on their entitlement to exist in public spaces unmolested, as this is the demographic insulated by their memberships to 3rd spaces such as Social and Sporting clubs - a fry cry from their lower-class urban peers resigned to hanging around the Tesco carpark.

gambiting9mo ago

Basically yeah. Where I live virtually all kinds of community centres have closed down due to lack of funding, even a local library had to close because local council has no money to keep it running. As a teenager there is nothing to do around here, a town of 20k people next to a 300k city. And then I see people complaining that "oh there are teenagers around the park at night" - yeah, because they have literally nothing else to do. And they aren't even causing anyone any harm, they just sit there and chat most of the time. But I see local neighbours groups all being like "someone needs to do something about these youths!" - like yeah, no shit, but so far the only solution anyone has is to "silently sit at home, not using the Internet, not going anywhere with friends, and end up well adjusted adults anyway". 6th largest economy in the world and it can't even keep a library open.

stephen_g9mo ago

Seems like It’s just too dangerous for Wikipedia or many others to risk though - the potential penalties in the law are just too huge as far as I’ve seen.

For a lot of sites, the safe response has just been cautious over-blocking as far as I can see (or smaller UK-based services just shutting down) but you can imagine why Wikipedia don’t want to do that.

But you’re right that encouraging much better parental controls would have been better than passing this bad law - I’ll give you that one.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

vidarh9mo ago

As someone in the UK: Ofcom is a censor, that by leaving these things unclear are further having a massive chilling effect that is absolutely already being felt.

The issue here is not parental oversight. It's the massively overly broad assault on speech.

The UK PAYG block is a good example of a solution that would have had far less severe impact if extended.

piltdownman9mo ago

The problem with 'child safety' in the UK has almost nothing to do with pornographers or 'toxic' influences as viewed through the lense of neo-Victorian morality anyway.

In short, it is nothing but an electoral panacea for the incumbent intolerant conservative voting base; moral-hysteria disguised as a child safety measure.

This is inherently obvious when you assess the new vocabulary of persecution and otherness - detailing 'ASBO Youth', 'Chavs', 'NEETs and NEDs' and their inevitable progression to 'Roadmen'.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/technology-uk/article/online-saf...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgery3eeqzxo

nemomarx9mo ago

Normalizing those mosquito devices and trying to drive teenagers out of public life, banning kitchen knives in some attempt to keep kids from getting used to blades...

piltdownman9mo ago

Because these trials and tribulations are designed to disenfranchise the lower classes - regardless of age, the protected classes tend to be unimpeded by societal measures in the UK.

gambiting9mo ago

stephen_g9mo ago

Seems like It’s just too dangerous for Wikipedia or many others to risk though - the potential penalties in the law are just too huge as far as I’ve seen.

But you’re right that encouraging much better parental controls would have been better than passing this bad law - I’ll give you that one.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse