‘No section 230’ might be the reason why there’s no social media tech scene. I’d like to think that HN cares about things other than social media too - maybe Brits could do something that actually adds some value.
But in any case, original point also brings up the question: why is the UK allowing foreign companies to violate laws that it would prosecute British businesses for violating?
If you allow a foreign domiciled business to break laws in your country, then how the heck do you expect to ever have domestic industry? It’s strictly less risky to always be foreign domiciled.
This bill aims to stop that regulatory arbitrage and as such is hopefully a leveling of the playing field for the UK tech scene.
I don't really understand how many people on here (I've been lurking for a while), essentially pretend everything is backwards. You don't level the playing field by making it more difficult to do business, you make it easier.
BTW, I get btw a threat letter from another UK quango (I forget the name), which basically says "if you have any user data you need to pay us £60 a year". Yes you need to pay a levy for a database in the UK. It is basically a TV license for a database. I did work as a freelancer in the UK (made impossible now because of IR-35 regulation) and have a dormant company because freelance/contract is dead, so I have to inform them I don't have user data. It is just another thing to worry about when creating an online app.
> But in any case, original point also brings up the question: why is the UK allowing foreign companies to violate laws that it would prosecute British businesses for violating?
Because then we don't have any alternatives and people already use it. I also don't think the laws should exist in the first place, so I don't care if a US company is violating them.
I would love the UK to actually require IP blocks of twitter/Facebook etc, because it might actually force people to think about the issues.
> If you allow a foreign domiciled business to break laws in your country, then how the heck do you expect to ever have domestic industry? It’s strictly less risky to always be foreign domiciled.
You don't make it more difficult to do business. Many of the US tech successes were people starting up in a garage. The UK micro business did extremely well (until PC/Macs came on the scene) and that had almost no regulation or gov interference (other than standard stuff for electronics).
> This bill aims to stop that regulatory arbitrage and as such is hopefully a leveling of the playing field for the UK tech scene.
No. It is to try to censor the internet. It been going in this direction for ages. I am quite honestly fed up of people telling me that it is nothing to worry about. The UK politicians complained about replies to their tweets, after one of their colleagues had been stabbed to death. I found it honestly sickening. There is no crisis they won't use as an opportunity.
>I get btw a threat letter from another UK quango (I forget the name), which basically says "if you have any user data you need to pay us £60 a year".
The Information Commissioners Office. Just tell them you are not storing any data and they will go away.
> I did work as a freelancer in the UK (made impossible now because of IR-35 regulation)
Freelancers were never covered by IR35. IR35 covers employees masquerading as contractors. If you work for multiple companies on specific projects that won't cover you
My comment around IR-35 is that it has caused a lot of confusion and thus made contracting a lot more difficult as a result. A lot of freelancers and contractors have been affected by this.
Contracting made a bit more difficult, freelancing totally unaffected. It was always pretty easy to check at below. Every contractor I have ever met seems to know about umbrella companies...
It was not a great regulation, and seemed to affect government contractors the most, which was a bit of an own goal. But it never affected Freelancers
> Contracting made a bit more difficult, freelancing totally unaffected.
That isn't true. It has made contracting a lot more difficult. I am in a number of freelancer groups and it has affected them. I have heard the same from recruiters, from freelancers, from people that run job boards.
> Every contractor I have ever met seems to know about umbrella companies
Most contractors run their own private LTD (like I did). They don't use umbrella companies because you are put on PAYE and you end up paying through the nose in tax.
Typically you get a third party to check a contract for you to see whether it falls under IR-35. I could do it myself, but I would rather pay someone to check it for me.
Many contracts will require you to have IR-35 "insurance" which feels like a scam, but it is required a lot of the time by the contract. This is in addition to PL and PI insurances.
Where do you want to go, I’m curious?! I wonder what panacea you see out there that’s less authoritarian and where you could keep your “high earner” social status.
It’s a shame that Britain gave one of its “high earner” jobs to someone who’d enjoy seeing it collapse.
> I wonder what panacea you see out there that’s less authoritarian and where you could keep your “high earner” social status.
Throw a dart on a world map and chances are you'll land somewhere suitable. Any other first world country would be better for example.
> It’s a shame that Britain gave one of its “high earner” jobs to someone who’d enjoy seeing it collapse.
Britain didn't give me anything. They were unable to supply qualified individuals for a role that requires them, so they had to import a skilled worker on a visa that makes me ineligible to any public money, forces me to leave the country within 2 months should I lose my job, yet forces me to give the equivalent of 5 minimum wages of salary to taxes all the while having no benefits compared to said minimum wage workers and "enjoying" the same public services, such as a one year waiting list for a procedure that I got done for free in a day in the country where I used to live.
I also didn't say I would enjoy to see it collapse, I said that the solution to push back against those authoritarian measures, and other anti-middle-class policies is to vote with the only vote we are given: our wallet.
Agree with you. I’m not sure why people believe that only the physical world and not the virtual one should have some amount of regulation. I think a good portion of HN has drunk the kool aid of their employers/industry and is almost religiously unwilling to consider an alternative viewpoint without resorting to shouting ‘fascist’ and ‘1984’. Maybe someone needs to write a book called 2024 about the hellscape we currently live in and folks could circle jerk around this new shibboleth.
Why would it be the "kool aid of their employers"? My employers would surely love to track every single click I make on the work and even personal PC. If the government tracks it that's also fine. Still less risk for them if I'm a nutter and the checks get outsourced to the government. Once the data leaks they can check what I was doing anyway.
Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs.
>Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs.
Disagree here. If it is legally onerous for me to start a forum, I am more inclined to use a large social media site like Facebook, since they will handle the legal part for me. They are fine with that, they already have legal teams.
But I guess the tax avoidance lawyers that he keeps hiring keep on tricking him. Gotta feel bad for the guy, but take everything he says, like “there should be more regulation” seriously and ignore the blatantly self serving nature of his statements.
Sure, I don't take him at his word as to WHY he would support this legislation. And I think there's likely a reason why he might suggest legislation at all: something more "broadly accepted" like paying more taxes suggests "we are a good company," while supporting legislation normalizes the idea of legislation that doesn't yet broadly exist.
Regardless, I think that it's likely that any legislation will be influenced by big players who act as "experts" so that the resulting laws are more easily followed by them than their (presumably smaller) competitors. And the evidence is in the results. If I were starting an online community in the UK, I'd feel much safer legally using Facebook (or Reddit or Discord) than I would starting my own forum.
The online communities don't exist within the borders of a nation state. They have their own social norms and rules. You can see this on forums, message boards, online games etc. Therefore a nation state trying to enforce its will on those communities is completely asinine.
I don't like that it that American companies enforces it language policing on UK residents, I also don't like that fact that the UK wants to force it language policing world wide (the UK state acts as if it has an empire).
The reason people are unwilling to consider an alternative viewpoint, is that in the past they have been more moderate and what has happened has been a complete erosion of civil liberties under the guise of "stopping the terrorists". I was arguing the same thing I am arguing essentially over 20 years ago.
Ironically many of those groups that we went to war to stop (Al-queda/ISIS) are now being presented as moderate because foreign policy has shifted again.
I don’t think anybody cares what Nobel’s family member’s protests were about. Does anyone even bother to learn their names or know a single thing about their lives? It’s also not “fake” and the university didn’t invent it.
The point is there is a prize that many/most people agree is one of the top recognitions of achievement for the field. Whether you call it Nobel or something else, doesn’t change a thing for anyone, as long as the prize is well known and well regarded.
But still, the bank that created the prize went to an awful lot of effort to make it seem like it was a Nobel. There are awards in every field. Advertising executives even have an award of their own called the Clio. Imagine if they had been so bold as to name it "The Clio Award in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Would it make sense to call it "The Nobel Prize in Advertising"?
"Whether you co-opt a famous prize to give legitimacy to yours, or use some other prize, doesn't change a thing for anyone, as long as the prize is equally famous" is a bit of a tautology.
But in any case, original point also brings up the question: why is the UK allowing foreign companies to violate laws that it would prosecute British businesses for violating?
If you allow a foreign domiciled business to break laws in your country, then how the heck do you expect to ever have domestic industry? It’s strictly less risky to always be foreign domiciled.
This bill aims to stop that regulatory arbitrage and as such is hopefully a leveling of the playing field for the UK tech scene.
reply