Hacker News Reader

Comment by loongloong | Hacker News Reader

Appreciate recommendations on any neutral analysis about this topic, the links I managed to find are all strongly for or against it, too much spinning in both directions till my head hurts.

Why did it successfully pass in UK (and other countries) and what are the differences in the version passed in UK in actual requirements (to businesses) and protections (to children) compared to this one?

Actual legislation at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...

View on HN

>Appreciate recommendations on any neutral analysis about this topic

Same here. This article can't pause its criticism of the law for even one sentence to describe what the proponents of the law hope to accomplish or how.

ADDED. Some other site says that the law prohibits collecting certain kinds of personal info on children and "A business may not use dark patterns to lead or encourage children to provide personal information beyond what is reasonably expected to provide its Online Service or to take any action that it knows, or has reason to know, is materially detrimental to the child’s physical health, mental health, or well-being" -- and a few other things.

ADDED. The text of the bill used the phrase "dark patterns", but doesn't try to define it, so I'm tentatively glad the law was struck down because laws should draw sharp lines whereas "no dark patterns" is a very fuzzy and ambiguous line. (I know that is not why the Court struck down the law.)

Perhaps it is worthwhile to read the article to understand their criticism of the law? They extensively cite the court’s decision, which explains the reasoning for declaring the law unconstitutional.

I'm not that interested.

  > Why did it successfully pass in UK

Among many other legal differences, the UK has no free speech guarantee.

That's hardly the full story. The UK prescribes a limited right to free expression just like other similar countries, although it is weirdly limited in several ways. Notably it's relatively easy to use the courts to prevent the dissemination of information harmful to a person or business, or even more vaguely harmful, like "incitement to hatred".

For example, take Article 10 here, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Libel laws in the UK are way more problematic / idiosyncratic than law about "incitement to hatred", which are common (at least in Europe) and made to repress dog whistles.

edit: SLAPP suits are basically legal there, and often used to suppress speech or journalism which would be legitimate and even encouraged elsewhere.

see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

If you can be put in jail for hurting somebodies feelings, there is no functional right free expression.

In general? If you're looking for a jurisdiction where you'll be able to get away with saying things that upset others without limit then maybe a libertarian paradise like Somalia will suffice.

Bad take. There’s a huge difference between government and individual “upset”. One has a monopoly on force, the other has cancel culture.

When you can't get a neutral response, the best alternative is reading both arguments and forming a consensus internally. Here's Google's supportive argument:

https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/googl...

I won't pretend to be neutral. As long as the US populace rejects binding a proper national ID (a PROPER one, not the beyond fragile, wholly abused Social Security Number) to their internet activity, this policy is simply a landmine waiting to be stepped on, dozens of time over in quick succession. This can and does work in Asia, but because many accounts require your government ID.

To speculate on your UK laws, that ID difference may be another piece of the puzzle that made this easier to draft a law for over there.

When it comes to getting a neutral response, the advice risks falling into the middle ground fallacy, where people might mistakenly believe that the truth always lies between two opposing arguments. Most people, myself included, don’t have the expertise to fully grasp complex issues, and there's no shame in that—we can’t expect everyone to be well-versed in every subject. This can make it tough to determine which side is more credible, leading to confusion or a false sense that both sides are equally valid, even when they’re not.

Well, it really falls on the individual. If you read both sides and realize "yeah, it's fine to protect the children by any means necessary", I wouldn't consider that radicalization so much as that person's own pre-existing philosophies.

But yes, I highly doubt you won't at least gain some sympathy for both sides of you read both spins. I'm not an expert on law and don't have the money to consult a writer versed in law to "explain to me in detail that I can understand". The next best is simply consuming a variety of content and understanding yourself at the end of the day. Someone looking for nuance to begin with like the GP probably is less prone to radicalization to begin with.

The UK also massively rejects the idea of a national ID. Makes it harder to implement and interact with government services, but, you know:

> Hacker: How will the other countries feel about identity papers? Won't they resist too?

> Sir Humphrey: The Germans will love it, the French will ignore it, and the Italians and the Irish will be too chaotic to enforce it. Only the British will resent it.

The UK has no national ID - it is still a disaster waiting to happen, but it is worth noting that most of the worst effects are still under consultation by the regulator and not being enforced. It is still possible it fails under judicial review at some point (given how atrociously drafted it is).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com