News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by mattlondon on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:50PM (#37576356)
I wonder if this sort of thing would lead to more people self-hosting again since it seems to be targeted at "big tech".

So because Facebook, tiktok, YouTube et al start over-censoring, people just think fuck it and start hosting their own content again?

Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by laluneodyssee on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:53PM (#37576417)
For most, I dont think anything will change. Convenience is king.
Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by boppo1 on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @05:18PM (#37576853)
Can self hosting deliver content at the scale we're used to now?
Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by nine_k on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @05:43PM (#37577218)
Yes, because most people have like 30 contacts in their IM roster. Your phone, your home router, maybe even your smart fridge would be able to tackle this scale.

Something like Twitter cannot be as easily replicated, but it's never been about privacy ad encryption.

Another thing that's hard to replicate is a global namespace. Federated namespaces (see email. mastodon. matrix) work acceptably well though.

Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by Nickersf on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @05:30PM (#37577040)
Doubtful. People either don't care or are too lazy to shift. Also, I think it's safe to assume ISP's are going to be wrapped in on this too.
Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by TeaDude on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @06:05PM (#37577557)
Facebook, Twitter et al have entire office floors to deal with legal threats.

The UK police love to go after "soft" targets and there's no-one softer than someone who's life can immediately be ruined by arresting them and thus getting them fired due to missing work.

Edit: I now see you mean "host their own personal content" but the point still stands.

Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by psd1 on Wednesday September 20, 2023 @05:32AM (#37582209)
Although you do have a point, the freighted language isn't fair.

Big white-collar crime is a different, and much more resource-intensive, set of challenges to investigate and prosecute. As such, it is not a constabulary remit - it needs bodies such as the SFO, which depend on extensive budgets to be effective. Blame the government for not prosecuting the big white-collar fish.

I'm sure it grinds every copper's gears that the bastards get away with it.

Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by john_the_writer on Wednesday September 20, 2023 @08:45AM (#37583449)
Last year some small single dev company got sued and dude lost his house, because he used google fonts, and didn't realise it was against GDPR. This is my worry really. What I want, is a way to tell my website that the user is sitting in these places. I want to be able to know the user is there, so I can geo-fence them off.
Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by matthewfelgate on Wednesday September 20, 2023 @04:17AM (#37581745)
What do you mean again?

Very few people outside a small clique want or care about self-hosting anything.

Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by john_the_writer on Wednesday September 20, 2023 @08:47AM (#37583475)
Most ISP won't even let you do it anyway. I know the players in Canada don't and I think Australia too. So even if you had the inclination to do it, not going to happen in our current world.
Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by matthewfelgate on Wednesday September 20, 2023 @08:57AM (#37583553)
I'm not sure you need ISP approval to self host?
Re:UK Online Safety Bill: [ ] Agreed by autoexec on Wednesday September 20, 2023 @03:06PM (#37588582)
You may be forced to pay a lot more for a static IP address. Running servers on a residential dynamic IP address can go against the ToS/AUP for some ISPs