←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
s3p ◴[] No.45009626[source]
>a stand-off has been engineered between UK censorship measures nobody asked for, and the constitutional rights of all Americans.

This is probably my favorite line in the entire piece. Some heads up in the UK Bureaucracy created this regulation out of the desire to protect children, and now they are being pitted against the constitutional rights of United States citizens.

Truly incredible work from the UK government. I imagine the United States will not be happy..

replies(2): >>45010204 #>>45010294 #
jhallenworld ◴[] No.45010294[source]
>Some heads up in the UK Bureaucracy created this regulation out of the desire to protect children

More likely: Ofcom is seeing traditional media dying, so the bureaucrats needed to come up with something to remain relevant and employed.

Ofcom is supposed to be funded by fees charged to the companies that it regulates. There are no hints of social media having to pay them yet, but in the future?

Think of all the work that OSA is creating: age verification companies, regulation compliance consultants, certifications, etc.

Once private companies in the US figure out how much profit they can make off this, they surely will follow..

replies(2): >>45010684 #>>45011220 #
1. ascorbic ◴[] No.45011220[source]
These laws weren't created by Ofcom. They were passed as primary legislation by the previous government (and enthusiatically implemented by the current one).
replies(1): >>45033535 #
2. rglynn ◴[] No.45033535[source]
While you are correct in the literal sense, I think the point is still valid. The powers that be decided they need to expand Ofcom's scope. For them this is one of the many ways they exert control and thus are interested in maintaining or expanding Ofcom.