Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthewdgreen | Hacker News Reader

"The United Kingdom wants to become the safest place for children to grow up online" is the first line of this article. Not presented as a quote, or a claim made by a source in the article. Just a fact.

From that point it just gets worse. There's basically no description of what terms like "protecting kids online" actually means.

The actual description of the law is extremely vague and doesn't answer basic questions about how the law would work. Would it only involve social media (published) content, or would it cover private text messages as well? Can providers simply ban children from using their platform, or will the law hold them accountable even for unauthorized users?

These are the details one might expect answers to in a reasonable article, but I'm not sure if this is a journalistic exercise or some sort of PR puff piece.

View on HN

The UK as a whole leans fairly authoritarian and has had successive paternalistic governments for probably as long as anyone alive can remember (some people will call this the 'nanny state'). These fanciful proposals are created and supported by both Conservative (right, centre right) and Labour (left, centre left) parties alike.

As cynical as it sounds, this kind of legislation is rolled out practically every year and you could probably set your watch by it. Sometimes the law is implemented, quite often it's put on the backburner and resurrected the next year when there needs to be a distraction from something else.

You can ask, "how will this work in practice?" and few people will be able to claim they've actually thought as far as that.

you could make the argument that late-stage capitalism and the emergence of neufeudalism has reduced the state from an arbiter and partner in creating a thriving and successful society for its people, to a paul blart mall cop. well thought legislature is the purvey of the private sector, as is trade law and most of the sovereignty of the internet.

but realistically Boris Johnson himself was notorious for using dead-cat legislature to draw attention away from serious problems in his own government and serious issues the nation faces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy

chances are great we're seeing this bit of legislation to help people lose focus on the slow-rolling dumpster fire of brexit.

> you could make the argument that late-stage capitalism and the emergence of neufeudalism

Just because someone made up some words doesn't mean you have to use them. There's nothing late about the capitalism (it's not going anywhere) nor neo about the feudalism (the UK's terrible land use policies are AFAIK all historical).

Although the opposition have now just announced they're going to make everyone poorer, which would be a weird policy and I suppose anti-capitalist, except it's already been happening since 2005-ish.

https://twitter.com/josiahmortimer/status/161536476319783731...

This comment prompted me to actually look up "late stage capitalism".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism

> In modern usage, late capitalism often refers to a new mix of high-tech advances, the concentration of (speculative) financial capital, post-Fordism, and a growing income inequality.

I think that definition is at least meaningful, and seems to align with how I've heard people use the phrase.

The term was invented in 1902 and "late-stage" is meant to imply it's going to die of old age very soon. I'm sure it will, any day now.

Also, income inequality is not growing. Instead real income is falling for everyone, which is worse!

Late stage to me indicates that some sort of optimal state has been reached, not that the thing will be gone soon. Late stage construction is a nearly complete building for instance. Late stage capitalism is certainly used in this manner as it's meant to refer to the end result of poor incentives being applied over a long period of time.

The meanings of words change over time.

> Roberts said that the term’s current usage departs somewhat from its original meaning. “It’s not this sense that things are getting so bad that the revolution is going to come,” he told me, “but rather that we see the ligaments of the international system that socialists will be able to seize and use.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/late-ca...

> income inequality is not growing

Global within-country income inequality rose steeply between 1980 and 2020. See p.57 of https://wir2022.wid.world/www-site/uploads/2021/12/WorldIneq...

The growth of income inequality in the US over that same period is really stark: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/17627134/income-inequality-cha...

?? What about not using GDP as a primary indicator of economic/social health is making everyone poorer. GDP as a measure was invented as a wartime metric, at the time it made sense. However later even it's "inventor" Kuznets warned about it's use as primary metric. Let's not even get into the complexity of calculating it (the UN instructions come to >700 pages).

GDP already isn't used as the only indicator of economic health (don't know about "primary"). But some British people invented a philosophy called degrowth as a way of explaining how their country's falling real incomes are good actually, and calling for it to be the official policy is pretty worrying.

This is different from America, where people briefly got into degrowth after reading The Population Bomb, but mostly got it out of their system after noticing none of it actually came true.

(Economic growth does not actually use more resources like the idea implies. That's not efficient since you have to pay for the resources. It uses the same ones more productively.)

Doesn’t efficiency imply commoditization and therefore economic stagnation or even contraction?

No, productivity is good. For an example of the reverse, as the UK's economy has been shrinking in recent years, carwashes have been de-automating and replacing machines with handwashing.

Luckily, humans are never satisfied and continue demanding new things, so making things cheaper doesn't reduce the total market.

But also, those new things can be services or digital goods or 100% recycled, which is why the US uses less water per year and emits less CO2 per year in 2023 than it did in the 60s. (No, that's not because we outsourced it to China.)

> just announced they're going to make everyone poorer

As opposed to Liz Truss who did it without an announcemnt?

She had time to do something?

> someone made up some words

neufeudalism is just a natural evolution of neoliberalism.

It's where your become a modern equivalent of medieval serf, your bionic eyes become obsolete and unsupported [1], all contracts between you and corporations are extremely one-sided, you own no property and no land.

You may think you own your TV and your car. But fixing 'your' car without paying the Lord is a crime - because of IP law and DMCA.

Actually someone at Samsung wakes up one day and decides that your TV, car, or front door should stop working today. Your have no right and no recourse. Or you have theoretical rights that can only enforced with a 10-year long court battle costing millions of dollars. However any offense against the lord, er, I mean, corporation, is prosecuted by the king, I mean state, for free.

The lord to collects the 30% Apple tax. The Lord himself does not pay any tax. The lord pledges loyalty to the king, and provides the king with access to it's territory and resources - the king may access information held by any serf on OneDrive, ICloud, Buttcloud, etc. the Kings must compete with one another to woo the Lord to their. The Kings of China and US constantly battle for territorial access to different lords.

Recently some plebs petitioned Lord Elon to remove filthy Russian peasants from his kingdom by disabling all Teslas in Russia. [3]

1 - https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete

2 - https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-can-remotely-bri...

3 - https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-users-requ...

And government machinery is decrepit. Governments of yesterday had the brains to plan and implement major projects - interstate highway system, moon landings, etc.

todays governments can't find their way out of a paper bag.

Their only capability is to hand out money to a neofeudal lord and hope for results.

Isn’t that peak “liberal libertarian”? The government staying out of the “market” to avoid any distortion, it’s only legitimate move to be staying out of the ways as much as possible, occasionally cleaning up the mess with generous subsidies and debt fueled capital injections?

Government regulations are capitalism and other funny stories you can tell yourself

In Techno feudalism govt doesnt exist. Its just the techlord buffoon class and the serfs (ie people enslaved by their phones). The govt will keep giving Mario Savio speeches and they will end up just like Mario.

> You can ask, "how will this work in practice?" and few people will be able to claim they've actually thought as far as that.

This seemed to be the central problem of Brexit as well ...

There were many people who thought about that with Brexit but sadly the vote went the way it did. I remember Boris and Gove looking rather horrified when they found they had won.

A consequence of not having a Bill of Rights with a First Amendment, something routinely mocked on the one side of the Atlantic. The point is that intentionally overbroad restrictions on speech or content are a lot more difficult in the US.

I feel like we suffer from intentionally overbroad protections in this vein. Corporations being people and what not.

This is true. We're frequently reminded growing up in Canada that despite what we'd gather from the tv/film we consume, we don't have the same freedom of speech laws that our friends in the south do. People are sent to jail for hate speech in Canada, both online and in-person, something I'm not aware of happening in the states.

Our Charter provides us with a "freedom of expression" for which the government is allowed "reasonable" grounds for censorship and speech restriction. For better or worse, there are many, many websites hosted in the US which would never fly in Canada.

> We're frequently reminded growing up in Canada that despite what we'd gather from the tv/film we consume, we don't have the same freedom of speech laws that our friends in the south do.

Why not simply get those rights? Looking at the brain flow to and from the US, there are a lot of Canadians voting with their feet...

Americans did about 250 years ago.

To me, the Canadian political system has always been a source of amazement and quite an enigma. The constitution of that country simply wasn't signed by a third of the population, and this is considered normal over there. Could anyone here in America imagine that?

> Why not simply get those rights?

Governments rarely relinquish power.

The U.S. Constitution was signed by 0% of living Americans, and only a few dozen people that were alive when it was signed. It only came into effect when ratified by 3/4 of states. What 1/3rd are you talking about?

No need to imagine. The slaves and indigenous people in America had no vote or representation in the drafting of the Constitution or bill of rights, either. The southern states chose to wage war rather than address the hypocrisy of owning slaves in a "free country".

> indigenous people in America had no vote or representation in the drafting of the Constitution or bill of rights, either.

At the time they weren't subject to it either, being considered separate nations by the early republic.

> Why not simply get those rights?

I'm actually living in NYC on a TN visa at the moment, so in a way, I've begun the voting process. If everything goes as planned, I hope to spend the next few decades with ample time in both countries, like my folks do.

I've come to realize there's a lot I love and appreciate about either, despite their flaws. We here in North America are very, very lucky.

>"Our Charter provides us with ..."

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us nothing as at any point federal or provincial government can say fuck you and we will do as we please using that infamous notwithstanding clause. Examples of this already exist. Look at Ford or Legault for example. I think this notwithstanding clause is our disgrace and makes a mockery of our rights.

> Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us nothing as at any point federal or provincial government can say fuck you and we will do as we please using that infamous notwithstanding clause.

Honestly the same paradigm exists in the US. As long as one branch of federal government can get another to agree to a Constitution-violating law or policy, the protections in the Constitution carry as much weight as a travel brochure. Similar shenanigans apply with regard to state and federal law conflicts. For example, for better or for worse, state level legalization of cannabis flies in the face of the Supremacy Clause, but that gets overlooked because the laws are something the federal government tacitly approves of (but can't get its act together to give formal blessing).

>"Honestly the same paradigm exists in the US"

I am in Canada. The fact that it screwed up in the US does not make me feel any better. For what it worth I still think that basic freedoms protections are still better in the US.

Why not simply get a constitution, by the people for the people, unanimously signed by every Province/State?

Why don't we all sing kumbaya and be friends.

In fact I am not aware of any restriction on what the house of commons can vote with a simple majority. On one hand it's the longuest continuously functioning democracy, so it deserves some credit. On the other hand it's a terribly dangerous system.

Sometimes you'll see British news discuss "constitutional" issues in politics. Since they don't have a written constitution, this is clearly cope, like when they pretend the food comes in colors other than brown.

Although some of it is written down; specifically it's written in an anonymous letter to the Times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

> The point is that intentionally overbroad restrictions on speech or content are a lot more difficult in the US.

This depends entirely on the current mood of 5 justices on the Supreme Court, and on which side of the political spectrum an issue lands.

But with a functioning majority, governments in Europe would be able to amend any such bill or constitution.

It only works how it does in the USA because of political stalemate and gridlock.

"Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/17/donelan-c...

It's state censorship for anything the government finds uncomfortable.

Also “terrorist material”… I bet Extinction Rebellion will quickly make its way in that list

I can guarantee no tech exec will ever end up in prison under this law. At most, they will get a fine and happily file this under operational costs.

Very few MPs seem to understand how the internet works, and there is virtually no opposition against some of this madness. There are only demands to make it even stricter to "protect the kiddies". Most of these "kiddies" know how to use a VPN or are at least smart enough to borrow their father's phone to watch juicy content.

very few MPs seem to understand how the internet works

Perhaps, or then again maybe there are very few technologists that understand how politics works (in reality, not as a beautiful ideal where everyone is honest and dedicated to the public good).

The UK is particularly bad at this. All recent PMs have studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Oxford. At least Germany had a chancellor who studies physics (Angela Merkel).

I suspect the original article is about UK's "Online Safety Bill" which was discussed at length on HN[1] with some very good discussion about why it's a bad idea. (Which is something a few commenters on this thread are failing to grasp.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32055756

The politician responsible for this bill was replaced since that discussion, and the content of the bill has been changed significantly - some of the discussion of 6 months ago is still valid, but you can't rely on what was said then to form your opinion of the bill as is going through Parliament.

The original minister has not held back in her criticism of the changes. https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/nadine-dorries-mic...

The bias starts before the first sentence, with the headline.

I'd like to think any journalism student in their first week would know not to do this. And one with some awareness of tech would know that general-purpose surveillance and censorship are ongoing battles, and at least acknowledge that angle.

This looks like a press release.

Maybe Ars Technica should stick to product advertorials, and we on HN should find real reporting around which to consider important societal issues.

This looks like an excuse to be able to beat into submission foreign "evil" tech companies thanks to an intentionally vague and arbitrary law.

Every time I read something about the UK these days it feels like I need to fact check it because it always sounds like something conspiracy theorists here in America would say. And it's almost always real.

I'm still surprised how almost 250 years of separate history shaped radically different nations. And I'm not sure which one is best; but maybe the huge number of Britons here in America should be an indicator of that.

> Every time I read something about the UK these days it feels like I need to fact check it because it always sounds like something conspiracy theorists here in America would say

Quite a lot of it is indeed directly imported from conspiracy theorists in America. Via the rightwing "media" pipeline straight to government.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137 Reading through 260 pages of legislation is tl;dr for journalists.

I thought Ars was better that that. Srug, oh well, time to write them off too.

No one should grow up online. There is no "safe" way to "grow up" online.

I saw all kinds of crazy stuff on the early web as a teen. I grew [up?] both tolerant and thick-skinned.

This isn't about content! There is a real world, and a virtual one. The virtual one is a mere imitation of the real one. We weren't born to live inside a machine.

Even if you are right it’s survivor bias, but to the parent commenters point being raised on the internet is sad because of the lost opportunity.

The internet has replaced growing up on tv, rock and roll and video games. Before then, the wrong books.

> "The United Kingdom wants to become the safest place for children to grow up online" is the first line of this article. Not presented as a quote, or a claim made by a source in the article. Just a fact.

> From that point it just gets worse. There's basically no description of what terms like "protecting kids online" actually means.

Based on what I seen in British media, it's keeping children from talking to or knowing that trans people exist. Otherwise children might learn that trans people are humans to or even catch(they are for reals) transness...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com