UK Politics

4121 readers

92 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Everything the right - and the left – are getting wrong about the Online Safety Act (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 days ago by Olap@lemmy.world to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Dubbed the UK censorship act these days, will it survive the political backlash we are witnessing? Will big tech work to get it right rather than cut off the UK? Can the UK put a stopper back in the bottle? Is this really about social media when it is pornhub doing the blocking? No mention of the fediverse in this article either sadly, but a good read nevertheless. And he has got something right: the US megas have been extreme amplifiers. But Pornhub is Canadian

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

User to user communication is considered a risk - so any forum falls under this law.

Small sites are not exempted (see reply for petition to remove this legislation).

No leg to stand on there - it's a solid unworkable overreach.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

And yet, if you read act: there is a reasonable argument within the legislation. And the article posted mentions it too, from the architect. So you are correct in the fact the size of the site matters not. But if you are reasonably not about questionable matetial, you are likely exempt. Which is essentially what wikipedia are testing. So call it an overreach all you want; but this is yet to be proven

[–] Luckaneer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago

Round about way, the size of the site does matter because only the big sites can implement these checks. The little guy is forced out of the game. Bleak future where only the already big can prosper.

[–] scrchngwsl@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

I've read the act and it's not clear at all. There is a legal risk if you run a small site about a legal subject with a comment section or forum now that didn't exist before, which was not the stated intent of the law, and which results from the legislation being poorly drafted.