Skavau @ Skavau @piefed.social

Posts

553

Comments

244

Joined

4 mo. ago

Moderating

---

Absolutely fine. Nearly at the subscription numbers that television@lemm.ee had. Weekend was slow, but that's common in TV as most news breaks across the weekdays and I personally refuse to post low-effort clips of Saturday night show comedians lol

What do you mean "centralise"? Into larger websites?

I highly doubt the US government would look fondly on a US-based service taking down a US-based social media site because Ofcom complained to them about them not adhering to local laws. Especially under this administration. It would be seen as foreign interference. And for that reason, I very much doubt Ofcom would ever do that. They'd just block the site violating OSA.

As a sidenote, I remember that UK has an odd and ancient "law" stating something in the lines "" (i.e. being anti-monarchy and advocating for the end of monarchy, even without any violent language/means but a pacific defense of anti-monarchy). I couldn't find it, nor I can remember the exact phrasing, but such a "law" threatens prison time for those who "dare" to "offend" the crowniness of UK Crown. Also, I'm not sure to what extent this law is applied in practice.

Given there's an active pro-republican campaign site I'd wager not at all.

If countries are capable of passing draconian laws against their own citizens, don't expect that those same countries couldn't go further to impose these laws beyond their own lawns, especially in times of interconnectedness.

UK against the USA? I think the UK isn't winning that.

"platforms must not host, share or permit content encouraging use of VPNs to get around age checks."

I'll also note that this doesn't seem to even be in the official documentation.

No, I mean I chose lemmy.world as the instance to show the announcement on.

Not when it comes to tech. You think the USA would let Saudi Arabia force the total shut-down of a USA-based site because they allowed people to make fun of Islam? Come on. Saudi Arabia just quiety blocks sites.

UK doesn’t have enough pull to start extraditing thousands of people for not complying with their weirdo laws.

I agree with you there too. The forum owners here fear Ofcom pressuring their hosts to force compliance, not extradition. I think its misguided and unlikely (especially for small arms of the fediverse) but it is what it is.

I think in practice Ofcom would just geoblock your site specifically.

Reddit is super-screwed then because its full of users doing exactly that anywhere this topic comes up.

Saudi Arabia has no soft power here. UK does.

Not saying that UK will here (I think they won't), but the relationship dynamics are a bit different.

I really, really doubt that a website owner based in USA would be extradited to the UK for not complying with UK local law with how they run their website. That's absurd.

They believe that Ofcom could pressure their hosts to cut their services off if they don't comply with the act, or believe they could be fined.

I doubt that the USA would recognise and take down websites for not following Ofcoms requirements. And Ofcom would 100% be too cowardly to even threaten that. They'd just geoblock.

To be clear, the specifics in the act go beyond not specifically hosting pornographic content.

Currently Twitter is doing the bare minimum by simply allowing UK users to bypass the age-checks by setting their location to another country.

You think Netanyahu, who managed to string Trump along to attack Iran, wouldn't have managed the same with a much more Hawkish Clinton?

More hawkish? Debateable in the context of Israel. In any case, this is an argument for them being the same, not different. And "attacking Iran" is not the same as occupying it as you initially claimed.

Also we saw that Trump, after the bombing immediately wanted the whole thing to be done, claimed huge success and got a ceasefire between Israel and Iran going.

And how do you know Clinton wouldn't do this as well? What has Clinton said about Iran post-2016?

WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted Iranians to know what she was prepared to do as president in hopes of deterring an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

Nice omission of context there, pal. Clinton has always had liberal hawk credentials, but I don't see a realistic circumstance where she would have ever launched a ground invasion of Iran.

In addition, you're going back to the 2008 primary there.

When exactly did Clinton commit to an invasion of Iran?

Tbf so are lots of Brits in the passive sense.

Mr. Robot and Severance both are highly acclaimed by critics and audiences. They are both firmly prestige TV regardless of who funded them.