[docflabby]

The new rules cover any kind of illegal content that can appear online, but the Act includes a list of specific offences that you should consider. These are:

    terrorism
    child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) offences, including
        grooming
        image-based child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
        CSAM URLs
    hate
    harassment, stalking, threats and abuse
    controlling or coercive behaviour
    intimate image abuse
    extreme pornography
    sexual exploitation of adults
    human trafficking
    unlawful immigration
    fraud and financial offences
    proceeds of crime
    drugs and psychoactive substances
    firearms, knives and other weapons
    encouraging or assisting suicide
    foreign interference
    animal cruelty

[sepositus]

> hate

Is it really just listed as one word? What's the legal definition of hate?

[tene80i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...

[sepositus]

Thanks.

> Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

This probably worries platforms that need to moderate content. Sure, perhaps 80% of the cases are clear cut, but it’s the 20% that get missed and turn into criminal liability that would be the most concerning. Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.

Further, prejudices in terms of language do change often. As bad actors get censored based on certain language, they will evolve to use other words/phrases to mean the same thing. The government is far more likely to be aware of these (and be able to prosecute them) than some random forum owner.

[IanCal]

It's important to understand that the act we're talking about does not make owners simply liable for stuff that happens on their sites, nor does it require them to stop everything. It's about what the risks are of these things happening, and what you do about that.

In fact, if you have had a place that people can report abuse and it's just not really happening much then you can say you're low risk for that. That's in some of the examples.

> Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.

That would impact the poster, not the site.

[sapphicsnail]

Just want to add that I couldn't find any references to gender identity in the linked Wikipedia article as well as the article on hate incidents in the UK.

[CamperBob2]

Whatever the current government says it means. What did you think it meant?

[bdzr]

I don't see what the big deal is - Governments don't change hands or selectively prosecute.

[throwaway48476]

Hate is whatever I don't like.

[ekianjo]

> hate

which is an umbrella term for everything that the government does not like right now, and does not mind jailing you for. In other words, it's their way to kill the freedom of expression.

[Winblows11]

From that list I don't see HN being affected, although I read somewhere that a report button on user generated content was required to comply for smaller sites.

[IanCal]

I think it's hard to make the case for anything other than a pretty tiny group or organisation that that you can get away without having some reporting and moderation process.

I don't think you need a report button but a known way of reporting things by your users is likely going to be required if you have a load of user generated stuff that's not moderated by default.