Block UK access now just in case.
The fault is obviously an incompetent and authoritarian UK government, but that's what the UK overlords have agreed.
If I have a website I'm pretty sure I'm bound to break some random country's law without knowing
Answering my own question, I guess it's exceptionalism of the powerful countries where they can just bully you into following their law
> {"data":{"error":"Content not available in your region."},"success":false,"status":400}
They're clearly working up to this; it's what happened with Pirate Bay, etc.
They did at least put a thanks to Ray Bradbury.
The opinion polls are clear: the normies want this.
It'd be interesting to see how fast the policy would get reversed then.
This was always a stupid policy and so protesting it by pulling services is one way to draw attention to that.
Giving normies the vote was a mistake.
the first clue is that its the ICO that is running this. the ICO has nothing to do with the online safety act.
Secondly asking a commercial company to conform to basic data protection isn't that onerous.
Honestly its almost like HN has tumbler level reading comprehension.
Microsoft + Google + Amazon + Nvidia + Meta + Apple = $630 billion in annual operating income.
They'll react to a change in capital investment faster than anything else.
Wow I didn't know big tech invested so much in the UK!
That's the funny or hypocritical thing: Both laws have the same reach but people here tend to praise the GDPR for it while being furious about the Online Safety Act.
They aren't making $630 billion per year in money off of those companies, but the operating income means they're getting taxes on that $630 billion (income tax from company and employees, VAT for purchases, etc.) and the personnel working in the UK are probably spending most of that money in the UK (velocity of money theory comes into play here).
The resulting economic benefit for the UK government is enough that they'd notice the drop if all that started to transition away.
(no, its not the cookie law either.)
Didn't something like that happen about 15 years ago maybe due to net neutrality? Or maybe it was wikipedia's black outs over SOPA.
You can get any result you want by asking leading questions on polling. This was of course satirised by Yes Minister.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
I can counter any of the iffy polls by simple point to the official online petitions service. There were a huge number of signatures to revoke OSA and two million signatures to abolish the plans for the Digital ID. While the Digital ID is technically a separate issue, many of the same privacy concerns are present.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903?pubDate=2025...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
The number of people that signed these petitions is far more representative than any polling.
On top of that, recently I've seen reportrs of both the Liberal Democrats and Reform (the two largest parties after the main two) recongising the OSA as unpopular and are likely to suggest reforming/removing it.
On top of that. The labour government and the conservative government that proceeded it which created the OSA were/are both deeply unpopular.
So any notion that there is a popular mandate for this is nonsense.
That's the dichotomy. You're either an elitist snobs or a normies. No nuance, no qualification.
Damage to stock value would be the bigger blocker (from both sides of the pond).
Might kickstart some actual competition though, as that happening would create a large hole to fill.
Opinion polls are bullshit and just an indicator of propaganda effectiveness.
(My residential IP is blacklisted for some reason and I always get a JSON error message from them)
The often cited YouGov polling, I think sampled a few thousand people. There are almost 2.5 million signatures on petitions between the OSA and Digital ID.
Anything else is just an observation and isn't neccesarily true at all.
I wouldn't trust them in young LibDems in Bristol either. Doesn't matter if they seem nice or not. Lots of young politicians have nice ideas and over time they either end up as bad as the ones they are replacing, they are forced out or leave of their own accord and then complain about it on a podcast.
But I'm curious about how far you feel that assertion goes. Ignoring what the GPDR says exactly, how do you feel about the various examples?
I have http request logs from requests that you've made. Do I have to delete them when you ask?
You sent me an email, do I have to delete my copy?
I host an email service for me and a friend exclusively, you request that I delete your data, do I have to delete emails you sent to him as well?
You answered a long thread about an esoteric computing question, hypothetically under the name denvercoder9, do I have to delete that comment? What about the replies to it which quote you?
I have evidence that you committed a crime of some sort, do I have to delete that?
Someone else posted true information about you to my site intended to categorize comments to HN posts. It's someone else data about you, do I have to delete that when you ask?
What if the information is actually false?
Where should the line be drawn, and why?
Oh what's that, you actually just want to control other people's data?
They are a quango, rather than policy makers
Again they are not OFCOM, and they didn't make OSA, thats very much down to the previous tory government
Common law has the concept of reasonableness.
If you're a single person hosting a simple website, having logs is perfectly reasonable thing to have to check for fraud and other nefarious things.
> You sent me an email, do I have to delete my copy?
Depends who hosts the email server, and is it commercial. Buisnesses need a purpose for holding onto emails, its not reasonable for a non business single person to have one.
> You answered a long thread about an esoteric computing question, hypothetically under the name denvercoder9, do I have to delete that comment? What about the replies to it which quote you?
Thats actually interesting, the only thing that PII is the name, so if the name is deleted thats complying.
> I have evidence that you committed a crime of some sort, do I have to delete that?
There is a specific carve out for criminality.
> The only real information about me is data I produced myself.
Thats copyright law, which is whole 'nother kettle of fish. Its also one I don't know that well
One, the thing you "generate" ie typed out by hand, rather than got a machine to make, is copyright.
Data about you is GDPR
> Oh what's that, you actually just want to control other people's data?
sounds like a projection...