Will Basschat survive the Online Safety Act?

[TimR]

10 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Nowhere near as complicated as using excel (and a lot cheaper obviously), go to your internet router, select VPN, select on, put a username and password in and press apply. Hey presto, a 'Real' vpn!

 

 

 

I can't do that on my home router. So would have to actively and deliberately go out and buy a new router and set it up.

 

You're being very obtuse, your average home PC user will not be doing this. 

 

Your ISP will still be doing the routing. 

Edited yesterday at 08:30 by TimR

[prowla]

9 hours ago, Wolfram said:

Ok... clearly very few people here (and not singling the Basschat community out - by extension, the general public) have the faintest idea what a VPN is.

 

Well - it depends upon your definition of "very few".

 

50 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

I can't do that on my home router. So would have to actively and deliberately go out and buy a new router and set it up.

 

You're being very obtuse, your average home PC user will not be doing this. 

 

Your ISP will still be doing the routing. 

(But then again...)

 

Edited yesterday at 09:21 by prowla

[tauzero]

11 hours ago, Wolfram said:

A Virtual Private Network is what just about every single mediium- to large-sized company in the world uses to allow employees to connect to their 'internal' networks from their laptops or phones when they are not physically in the office. That's it, nothing more sinister. A VPN is something you connect to from 'external' so that you appear 'internal'.

 

Anyone, anywhere in the world can set up a VPN. It's not something that can be made illegal, any more than setting up your own Internet server; it is a networking tool used by millions of companies.

 

And given that VPN traffic is encrypted, stopping the use of VPNs would prevent anyone working for firms that want any security working from home.

 

Should anyone with a router that doesn't have a VPN option want one, there's some reasonably easy instructions for installing a VPN server on a Raspberry Pi. Not as simple as pressing a button on a router though.

[TimR]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-computer-misuse-act-1990/review-of-the-computer-misuse-act-1990-consultation-and-response-to-call-for-information-accessible

 

 

[SpondonBassed]

TLDR

 

Basschat has seen me and many others through times of crisis both nationwide and personal.  Sure it is a Bass oriented forum but it has become so much more over the years to so many people.  There is no shortage of knowledge about our favoured instrument in its many forms and at all levels of expertise here.  Off Topic annoys some folk but no-one is asking them to look at it.  It is their choice.

 

The site has been very well run throughout the time I have been here.  I don't even visit any of the other big fora, much less pay a sub.

 

...

 

Hell no!  I won't go.

 

I will join any reasonable campaign to prevent this proposal from killing what we've got.  Too much regulation is tying the good guys' hands behind their backs while the bad guys just work around the regs and carry on with impunity.

 

Is there any link that I may have missed in earlier posts for people to express their dissatisfaction to Dotty the Gov?  Please point me at it if there is.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 13:00 by SpondonBassed

[jazzmanb]

i use a local football forum with a 14000 plus active members and its a big concern for the mods on there and all its users 

Hope a solution is found 

half the forum is any topic you wish from favourite sandwich to depression and suicide and its been a lifeline for a lot of local folk 

 

 i get you need Policing of groups but this is far too clumsy 

[jazzmanb]

i use a local football forum with a 14000 plus active members and its a big concern for the mods on there and all its users 

Hope a solution is found 

half the forum is any topic you wish from favourite sandwich to depression and suicide and its been a lifeline for a lot of local folk 

 

 i get you need Policing of groups but this is far too clumsy 

[steve-bbb]

have you got hurty feels from something somebody said online?

 

you might be entitled to compensation 

[Stub Mandrel]

How many of the doom-sayers gave actually read this:

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/risk-assessment-guidance-and-risk-profiles.pdf?v=388034

 

It doesn't seem threatening to Basschat, unless there's a whole lot of illegal stuff going on I hadn't noticed.

 

The only significant risk is low-level fraud in the selling pages IMHO, and the steps taken to mitigate that seem more robust than on most sites.

[tauzero]

54 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

How many of the doom-sayers gave actually read this:

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/risk-assessment-guidance-and-risk-profiles.pdf?v=388034

 

It doesn't seem threatening to Basschat, unless there's a whole lot of illegal stuff going on I hadn't noticed.

 

The only significant risk is low-level fraud in the selling pages IMHO, and the steps taken to mitigate that seem more robust than on most sites.

 

Of the 17 priorities, several seem to apply:

• Hate - at various points hatred has been expressed towards Fenders, headstocks, headless basses, assorted retailers, assorted couriers, etc
• Proceeds of crime - many of us have admitted to receiving money from offences against music
• Drugs and psychoactive substances - least said, soonest mended
• Animal cruelty - we've all seen those pictures of the cat dressed up as Santa

 

[SpondonBassed]

Yeah, come to think of it, the DoI might be responsible for the end of the Internet as we know it.

 

Ah well...  anyone for pocket billiards?

[upside downer]

15 minutes ago, SpondonBassed said:

Yeah, come to think of it, the DoI might be responsible for the end of the Internet as we know it.

 

And all it took was one, full Tesco bag.

[lotte]

On 20/12/2024 at 11:06, rwillett said:

The main targets of the legislation are:

...

 

3. A big stick to go after the large social media companies who to be honest do sod all when they could do an awful lot more. Twitter comes to mind here, Facebook is almost as bad, YouTube probably behind them. The govt has given itself a very big stick to beat these companies with. The companies will bleat and shout and whinge but they want the revenue that all of their social media brings to them, so they'll roll over and complain loudly about their first amendment rights and they'll be reminded that they have zero first amendment rights in this country, so no, you can't put out articles or crap falsely saying that a trans-left wing-immigrant-soros-supporter stabbed 97 people to death in a church in Stafford and then claim it was just opinion or somebody else reported it or "I was just asking the question" when other people turn up and start rioting. Words as well as actions now have consequences...
 

 

It seems to me that this is the real purpose here. Don't like one of the biggest shit-stirrers on the planet calling you Two-Tier-Kier then bring in this legislation (although I'm sure its inception predates that particular spat.) 

Hate - that's what they want included because then everything can be worked into that catch-all and, at the very least, the process can be the punishment.

 

The quote above is an interseting one and Rob (if I may) seems almost proud of the fact that we don't have an equivalent guarantee of free speech in this country. The example of a 'trans left-wing... stabbing... in Stafford... when other people turn up and start rioting' being used to highlight that as a positive. I can't imagine any one of us on this forum, not that I know it that well, would post such a thing and would consider it a pretty vile thing to post. I'm not sure it should have consequences though. To me it smacks of 'Our children, and our sins, lay on the King'. 'Let him have it' also springs to mind and peoples fates are then thrown into the hands of an establishment that I wouldn't trust to run a bath. And, more crucially, an establishment that doesn't want you to know it can't run that bath.

We've also had a foreshadowing of this for a few years now with the police (apparently having solved all the crime in their authorities) going after people who dead-name a trans person or say that men don't become women just because they say so. I think it was this year when a man was arrested for silently praying near an abortion clinic. Thought crime is an actuality in this country. This legislation just strengthens their grip.

[tauzero]

30 minutes ago, lotte said:

The quote above is an interseting one and Rob (if I may) seems almost proud of the fact that we don't have an equivalent guarantee of free speech in this country. The example of a 'trans left-wing... stabbing... in Stafford... when other people turn up and start rioting' being used to highlight that as a positive. I can't imagine any one of us on this forum, not that I know it that well, would post such a thing and would consider it a pretty vile thing to post. I'm not sure it should have consequences though. To me it smacks of 'Our children, and our sins, lay on the King'. 'Let him have it' also springs to mind and peoples fates are then thrown into the hands of an establishment that I wouldn't trust to run a bath. And, more crucially, an establishment that doesn't want you to know it can't run that bath.

 

The example probably wouldn't fall under first amendment protection - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

[Woodinblack]

43 minutes ago, lotte said:

I think it was this year when a man was arrested for silently praying near an abortion clinic.

 

Indeed, after having an order knowingly breaching a safe space order and then refusing to move on after being requested to do so. So we let people break the law because we agree with it or because it furthers our agenda? In the same vain that some just stop oil people were jailed for silently protesting.

[lotte]

5 minutes ago, tauzero said:

 

The example probably wouldn't fall under first amendment protection - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

I'm not sure it's quite the same and the original quote references the 'I was just reporting/joking/asking a question'. The shouting of 'fire' in a theatre of course being a famous exception to the first ammendment; I remember seeing Christopher Hitchens demolish this particular judgement and explaining it's very purpose to be the same as what is happening here. The goverment wants to draft you into the military to fight in its war and you don't get to voice opposition to it. A reasonable sounding 'example' offered to the public for imposing censorship.

[lotte]

2 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Indeed, after having an order knowingly breaching a safe space order and then refusing to move on after being requested to do so. So we let people break the law because we agree with it or because it furthers our agenda? In the same vain that some just stop oil people were jailed for silently protesting.

 

Is that the law? It was a man standing in silence. If I'm in power and I make all sorts of silly laws, the public can then respond however it needs to (elect somone to reverse/strenghten them) but we need to be able to talk about it. If I'm making silly laws and censor and punish any opposition to it I've become a dictator.

[Stub Mandrel]

15 minutes ago, lotte said:

 

Is that the law? It was a man standing in silence. If I'm in power and I make all sorts of silly laws, the public can then respond however it needs to (elect somone to reverse/strenghten them) but we need to be able to talk about it. If I'm making silly laws and censor and punish any opposition to it I've become a dictator.

 

It's not making silent prayer illegal; iit's preventing sing silent prayer (or anything else) as a form of protest in an area where protest is banned to protect vulnerable women ftom intimidation.

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, lotte said:

Is that the law? It was a man standing in silence.

 

The law is that he was restricted from being there because people go there to harass people who have to go there. He was asked to move, he didn't. He was told to move, he didn't. He refused to move against a police order to move from a restricted place and he didn't. He got arrested and fined. I don't see anything unreasonable in that.

 

If he wanted to do 'silent prayer' he could do that anywhere, he didn't, he wanted to harass people, luckily people have protection from that now.

[Downunderwonder]

He was probably praying to get arrested for the publicity.

[TimR]

7 hours ago, lotte said:

 

Is that the law? It was a man standing in silence. If I'm in power and I make all sorts of silly laws, the public can then respond however it needs to (elect somone to reverse/strenghten them) but we need to be able to talk about it. If I'm making silly laws and censor and punish any opposition to it I've become a dictator.

 

Sounds like he was breaching a court order and that's what he got arrested for, not breaking a 'silly law'. 

[tauzero]

9 hours ago, lotte said:

I'm not sure it's quite the same and the original quote references the 'I was just reporting/joking/asking a question'. The shouting of 'fire' in a theatre of course being a famous exception to the first ammendment; I remember seeing Christopher Hitchens demolish this particular judgement and explaining it's very purpose to be the same as what is happening here. The goverment wants to draft you into the military to fight in its war and you don't get to voice opposition to it. A reasonable sounding 'example' offered to the public for imposing censorship.

 

There is the example of the guy who tweeted "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!". Fined by the magistrates' court, went on to appeal which was rejected by the crown court but the High Court upheld the appeal on the grounds that it was fairly obvious it was a joke, albeit in bad taste, and wasn't in a terrorist context. If someone with a history of racist posts posted the example given then that would be a whole different context and the reporting/joking/asking a question wouldn't apply.

[rwillett]

10 hours ago, lotte said:

The quote above is an interseting one and Rob (if I may) seems almost proud of the fact that we don't have an equivalent guarantee of free speech in this country. The example of a 'trans left-wing... stabbing... in Stafford... when other people turn up and start rioting' being used to highlight that as a positive.

Nope, i am not proud that we don’t have a absolute right of free speech. Please do NOT tag me with that. I am a great believer in the right to say most of the time most of what I want to say.

 

i was pointing out that the right of free speech is not and should not be an absolute right regardless of what was said.

Words can have serious consequences and that people deliberately use words in certain ways to deliberately create chaos and disorder (disorder here is not legal disorder). We see this with people retweeting things that are made up lies to further their own agenda. I chose an extreme example to illustrate how this happens. 

Americans have their first amendment which gives people a lot more protection than people in this country, as to what they can say, however even that has limits on what people can say, you defame somebody and it can have serious consequences as Rudy Gilliarno has found out. Fox News settled a legal case for libel for circa $700M for stating that voting machines were fixing the election. 

 

Where should free speech sit on the censorship continuum of you can say anything without any consequences whatsoever up to the other end where you can say nothing unless it's govt prescribed?

 

I personally am a long way down the say as much as you can end of the spectrum. I have actively supported free speech by speaking at meetings about it, by demonstrating against laws that try to limit it, Section 28 anyone? I donate to free speech campaigns as well. 

 

However we are now finding that people are abusing that privilege. It is not a right in this country as its not enshrined simply in a law or constitution. We have a patchwork of laws governing what can be said and what cannot be said. Sophisticated actors take advantage of that to promote hate through various arguments, such as "I was just asking the question that everybody wants to know" when really they are knowingly lying through their teeth to further their own agenda. 

 

Free speech is very difficult, people are constantly pushing the boundaries as to what is legal and what isn't. I find a lot of what some people say about immigrants very, very hard to take, I have a lot of close friends from many countries around the world, but I recognise that the law doesn't make it illegal. I also realise that other people have different views to mine and that for me to have my views, other people will have views contrary to mine. That's what a more or less free society encourages. We are not all the same. 

 

Laws on free speech have evolved in this country over the last four hundred or so years. I have no doubt they will continue to evolve as our society evolves and that the free speech pendulum will swing back and forwards. (Note I deliberately did not say left and right)

 

America has the first, second and other amendments guarantjng certain rights such as free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to vote and so on. In.this country we do not have those amendments as our civil and criminal laws have changed over time. I do not know which system is better as I can often find contradictory comparisons. 
 

However as I have said before, even in the USA, the first amendment right to free speech is not absolute as defamation is against the law. You can say a lot of things that are brutal and hateful and not be prosecuted in the USA which if you said in this country would lead to a prosecution. 

 

I worry that we criminalise things that we shouldn't but I also worry that we allow unfettered hate speak that creates violent riots. We can't have it both ways but I don't know the answer. 

 

However I am not against free speech, quite the opposite, but I do not know the answer, if there even is one, of how we address the lies that some people clearly make up to stir hatred and violence. I want people to say what they think, I do not want those thoughts and words to create the violence that ensued last time. 

 

I really don't want anybody to think I'm against free speech as I'm not. 

 

We have now gone way off topic.  Possibly more than any other thread. I am happy to have this discussion elsewhere but 

 

 

[lotte]

9 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

It's not making silent prayer illegal; iit's preventing sing silent prayer (or anything else) as a form of protest...

 

8 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

The law is that he was restricted from being there because people go there to harass people ...

 

2 hours ago, TimR said:

 

Sounds like he was breaching a court order and that's what he got arrested for, not breaking a 'silly law'. 

 

He was standing silently in public.

 

Again: Thought Crime is an actuality in this country.

 

Not 'it's getting like 1984' or 'one day we won't even be able to...'. Now. Right now we have thought crime. If I stood in the exact same position and asked you for directions it would be fine. If he'd lied and said that he was trying to remember the lyrics to the Mr Blobby song, he'd be fine. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

He was probably praying to get arrested for the publicity.

 

He said he was there to pray for his aborted son. But, what if he did want the publicity? That's the crux of this thread isn't it? The goverment gets to make this stuff go away much more easily. There is only one allowed narrative on abortion (either/or depending on the whim of whoever's got the biggest clipboard at the time). 

 

38 minutes ago, tauzero said:

 

There is the example of the guy who tweeted "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!". Fined by the magistrates' court, went on to appeal which was rejected by the crown court but the High Court upheld the appeal on the grounds that it was fairly obvious it was a joke, albeit in bad taste, and wasn't in a terrorist context. If someone with a history of racist posts posted the example given then that would be a whole different context and the reporting/joking/asking a question wouldn't apply.

 

Apologies if I'm misreading your intention here but isn't that a good thing? Judges applying context. The problem with it boils down to the risk of judges applying context for their own ideology.

 

In my opinion censorship can never be a good thing even if well intentioned.

[lotte]

3 minutes ago, rwillett said:

<see above>

 

It actually sounds like we're pretty closely alligned on the subject.

Anyway, I'm off for a Christmas walk and doubt I'll be checking back in for a few days at least so I hope you all have a very merry Christmas!