UK Now Proposes Ridiculous Plan To Fine Internet Companies For Vaguely Defined 'Harmful Content'
from the what-the-what? dept
Last week Australia rushed through a ridiculous bill to fine internet companies if they happen to host any "abhorrent content." It appears the UK took one look at that nonsense and decided it wanted some too. On Monday it released a white paper calling for massive fines for internet companies for allowing any sort of "online harms." To call the plan nonsense is being way too harsh to nonsense.
Theresa May herself announced the plan in a video that she posted to the very same social media she insists is harmful to children, because consistency is not a strong point of people looking to shackle the internet:
Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology.
We are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe.#OnlineSafety pic.twitter.com/6EDsaY3Ofr
— Theresa May (@theresa_may) April 8, 2019
If you watch that video, she literally pulls out a "but think of the children" argument, insisting that social media must be tamed into stopping "harmful" content. Of course, what she leaves out is that most of the "harmful" content she's upset about is perfectly legal. And, much of it is available not just via social media. But, don't worry about that: this is all about a moral panic around social media.
The plan would result in massive, widespread, totally unnecessary censorship solely for the sake of pretending to do something about the fact that some people sometimes do not so nice things online. And it will place all of the blame on the internet companies for the (vaguely defined) not so nice things that those companies' users might do online.
The basic plan is the kind of nonsense people come up with when they don't have the slightest clue how the internet (or human beings) actually work. It would establish a new regulator who would come up with a "code of practice" for internet companies (broadly defined) requiring them to have a "duty of care" to magically stop basically any (ill-defined) bad behavior online. The regulator could then massively fine any internet company that breaks its nonsense rules. The rules appear to be totally vague and would require blocking "harmful content" even if it's perfectly legal just because someone says its bad. Failure by companies (after being fined) to wave a magic wand and stop bad stuff online could lead to full site blocking by ISPs to access such sites.
There are so many bad ideas packed into this white paper, it's legitimately difficult to know where to start. But, let's start with this. Among the content that will not be allowed is trolling. Really.
Cyberbullying, including trolling, is unacceptable. Being bullied online can be a deeply upsetting experience, particularly for children or other vulnerable users.
How will internet companies be forced to deal with trolling (which is not at all defined in the paper). Well, apparently the new regulator will "set out steps that should be taken" to "tackle cyberbullying." What does that actually mean? Who the hell knows.
There's also a special section about preventing people from saying mean things to public figures. Seriously.
As set out in Box 14, those involved in public life in the UK experience regular and sustained abuse online, which goes beyond free speech and impedes individuals’ rights to participate. As well as being upsetting and frightening for the individual involved, this abuse corrodes our democratic values and dissuades good people from entering public life
Basically, if you're famous, the UK wants to force internet companies to stop anyone from ever being mean to you. Poor famous people.
And, of course, there's a whole "fake news" section, which ignores how basically every anti-fake news law is actually being used to censor government critics.
Companies will need to take proportionate and proactive measures to help users understand the nature and reliability of the information they are receiving, to minimise the spread of misleading and harmful disinformation and to increase the accessibility of trustworthy and varied news content.
At the same time, the very same section says that companies also have to have some sort of bogus "fairness doctrine" to promote diverse viewpoints:
Promoting diverse news content, countering the ‘echo chamber’ in which people are only exposed to information which reinforces their existing views.
What if the information countering the echo chamber is bogus propaganda and disinformation? Well, then this part of the law would seem to contradict itself. Good luck sorting it out everyone!
Also no longer allowed: any depiction of violence or glamorization of weapons.
Violent content ranges from content which directly depicts or incites acts of violence, through to content which is violent with additional contextual understanding or which is harmful to users through the glamorisation of weapons and gang life.
As far as I can tell, war films would no longer be allowed under this rule. Or boxing matches. Or, really, something like this:
Of course, that's not all. The report includes a table of "online harms" which is broad and without much in the way of definition:
If that seems vague, it's by design. And, they make it clear that anything else can be added at any time:
This list is, by design, neither exhaustive nor fixed. A static list could prevent swift regulatory action to address new forms of online harm, new technologies, content and new online activities.
Yeah, that's an open invitation to censorship.
And, no this is not just targeting large sites. As UK lawyer Graham Smith points out, under the terms of the proposal, any internet blog with comments is subject to the law. It literally says this in section of 4.2:
There are two main types of online activity that can give rise to the online harms in scope or compound their effects:
- Hosting, sharing and discovery of user-generated content (e.g. a post on a public forum or the sharing of a video).
- Facilitation of public and private online interaction between service users (e.g. instant messaging or comments on posts).
And, of course, as Thomas Baekdal points out, blaming the internet companies is completely ridiculous in this situation. The law doesn't apply to other sources of similar content, such as UK news companies (so long as they don't have comments on their stories), even if they post the exact same content. As Baekdal notes, more people saw video clips of the Christchurch massacre when various UK tabloids published those clips than those who watched it on Facebook. But the law applies to Facebook, not the UK tabloids.
I assume the UK, with their new social media laws, will also block tabloid newspapers from publishing the same content? I mean, more people probably saw the terror videos clips on The Daily Mail than on Facebook.
No? ... oh, so it’s just political populism then?— Thomas Baekdal (@baekdal) April 8, 2019
Again, that's because this is a moral panic and an attack on internet companies, not anything resembling sensible thoughtful policy.
Not surprisingly, the report also uses dodgy "facts" to support the need for such a ridiculous law. In the "foreward" to the report, written by MPs Jeremy Wright and Sajid Javid (a guy who's been spewing nonsense about the internet for years), the following claim is made:
Two thirds of adults in the UK are concerned about content online, and close to half say they have seen hateful content in the past year
The first part is nonsense driven by fear mongering by the media and the likes of Javid. It's meaningless to say people are concerned if the facts don't actually support any reason for them to be concerned. But that second part is even more head-scratching. Graham Smith has asked the government for a source for that stat, but appears to suspect that it comes from a ridiculously misleading Ofcom study where the "harmful" content includes "spam emails," "targeted advertising," "bad language" and "offensive language."
"An Ofcom survey last year found that 45% of adult internet users had experienced some form of online harm." Such as, umm, bad language. pic.twitter.com/AfVysKQrQq
— Graham Smith (@cyberleagle) April 4, 2019
This is pure moral panic. And it will do a few horrible things. First, it will destroy the internet industry in the UK. London had built itself up as a digital hub, but should this law go into effect, that will almost certainly limit any growth potential for the firms there. Second, it will lock in the dominance of Google and Facebook, because who else can deal with this kind of crap. Finally, it will lead to massive censorship. And, basically everyone knows this.
...critics from across the political spectrum have warned the legislation could also threaten freedom of speech. Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: “The government’s proposals would create state regulation of the speech of millions of British citizens. We have to expect that the duty of care will end up widely drawn, with serious implications for legal content that is deemed potentially risky, whether it really is nor not.”
Privacy International noted that this plan will "introduce, rather than reduce, "online harms." Index on Censorship seems similarly concerned:
“The implications for ordinary internet users have not been considered. If you introduce a duty of care, especially in combination with the risk of fines, it creates a very strong incentive for online platforms to remove and restrict content, and this is really going to impact on free speech rights and the right to information for millions of ordinary internet users in the UK, and it’s also going to set an example internationally.”
And, of course, as Reason points out, reporters who love to hate the big internet companies seem to be cheering on this censorship plan because they like anything that looks like it "harms" the big internet companies.
This is the same mess we keep seeing over and over again. Lots of people are mad about stuff on the big internet sites... and are responding by attacking those companies (not the cause of the bad stuff on those platforms), and doing so in ways that will lead to massive censorship, less freedom, and which will only serve to lock in the big internet companies, as no one else will be able to deal with any of the proposed regulations.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, duty of care, harmful content, intermediary liability, internet, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Ridiculous" in headline means written by The Maz.
It's his trademark. I'm surprised that his preening hasn't overcome his abhorrence of trademark to register: "It's Ridiculous!"
Anyhoo, this is one of the many pieces in which Masnick appears to be startled that gov'ts will increasingly censor teh internets, even though all of us whom he deems "conspiracy kooks" have known it for decades.
Problem for anyone reasonable is that good cause for setting some limit is obvious, and the masses who think that name-calling is worthwhile use of precious Free Speech will continue to help. -- You see that every day here at Techdirt: no reasoned discourse, just the fanboys attacking / censoring anyone who disagrees with Mr Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other than some obvious limits (e.g., child pornography, terrorist propaganda), what specific limits would you propose that could be considered both reasonable and narrow enough to avoid infringing upon legal speech?
No matter how much you dislike it, Blue, name-calling is legal speech. I get called all sorts of names by Hamilton whenever he gets angry enough to obsess over me, but you don’t see me crying to the government (or Mike) about it. If’n you want to limit speech on social media and blog comments in that way, you best be prepared to offer the best possible justification for silencing legal speech — because if it becomes illegal for me to insult you, it becomes illegal for you to insult Mike, and I doubt you want to abandon that hobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Problem for anyone reasonable is that good cause for setting some limit is obvious, and the masses who think that name-calling is worthwhile use of precious Free Speech will continue to help.
When Hamilton made up lies and accused me of all sorts I didn't go running to the government. Heck, when that troll tried to get me fired from my job I didn't scream for regulation. Give it a rest, Blue.
-- You see that every day here at Techdirt: no reasoned discourse, just the fanboys attacking / censoring anyone who disagrees with Mr Ridiculous
No reasoned discourse? Projecting much, Blue? We're not obliged to read your rantings, now run along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by The Maz.
Let's see which of these categories you fit:
Cyberbullying and trolling, check
Extremest content and activity, check
Coercive behavior, check
Intimidation, check
Disinformation, check
Now, if Techdirt were in the UK, what would Mike have to do about you? Well, if I read the article correctly, he would have to do more than just hide your comments, he would have to remove them. And since you have little self control, let law enforcement know about you and give them whatever information he could to enable their enforcement action.
How does that feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by The
Someone high up needs to tell the EU to sit down and Stop Fucking with the internet. Enough is enough. These are reasons governments go to war with one another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means wri
Polital correctness crap has choked the life out of America and they're pushing this crap around the world. That's 28,000 miles in ALL directions from wherever they are standing.That is fuckking sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Ridiculous" in headli
The term political correctness at its inception had a rather well accepted definition, but that has changed over the years into just more of the same bullshit.
Rather than using a tired out cliché, perhaps well chosen words would better serve your intent and thus allow others to better understand your point. Some refer to this as communication ... it is not the same thing as talking at others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by The Maz.
And using "anyhoo" is your trademark. That and spouting nonsense, fact-less, bigoted attacks against TD and Mike, as well as lying and making false and easily disproved claims.
It's so much a part of your MO that you are easily identified by it.
No, not startled. He's disappointed because of all the collateral damage it's going to cause.
Do you have any evidence you aren't a kook? Conspiracy or otherwise? Nothing in your comment demonstrates to the contrary, that's for sure.
The First Amendment says hi and you're wrong. But we all know you hate that part of the Constitution and would like to see it die.
See? You hate the First Amendment. Man I can call it. Free speech is what keeps a country free and its government accountable. If the government can dictate what you can and can't say you have a dictatorship.
There have been plenty of reasoned and reasonable discussions involving people disagreeing with Mike. YOU aren't one of them. The reason for this is because you refuse to actually have a legitimate debate and just lead with lies and insults. Therefore, what reason do we have to take anything you say seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by The
Because if a government can dictate what you can and can't say, you have draconian rule, not necessarily a dictatorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by
Um, you just proved yourself wrong with that one statement. That's literally a dictatorship when they can "dictate" what you do.
Draconian rule is just heavy punishments for minor offenses, but that's not the government not giving you a choice, "dictating" something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means wri
Wow ... a self contradictory comment all in one sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Careful bro you’re about to get banned in th UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Ridiculous" in headline means written by The Maz.
"You see that every day here at Techdirt: no reasoned discourse, just the fanboys attacking / censoring anyone who disagrees with Mr Ridiculous."
By "disagreeing" you mean where you on multiple times threatened to rape all the "aspies" around here?
And by "attacking" you apparently mean that anyone calling you out on the bullshit you keep spewing is being mean.
Yeah, you know, Baghdad Bob, I hate to break it to you...but you need to put the bong down before you start poking the comment threads with your hate-boner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“We must be seen doing something…even if that something is unnecessary and open to abuse, and even if it will most certainly make us look like fools in the near future.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean, this is a woman whose main political issue is Brexit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
She's got more, but Brexit is sucking up all the resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about placing daisies in the gun barrels pointing at us. Hearing how fucked up the governments around the world are 24/7 is pushing people to the brink of what is humanly possible to be tolerated. Maybe after they blow half the populations' skulls of our shoulders, they will figure out they are fucked up and stop threatening us like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What seems to be your boggle?
my god
We're in Demolition Man. It's really happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What seems to be your boggle?
Maybe someone will finally explain how to use the three seashells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't everyone know? ; ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't everyone know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What seems to be your boggle?
You mean when you say something that you shouldn't in this utopia, a machine nearby will spit out a ticket for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What seems to be your boggle?
Is Taco Bell winning the fast food wars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's just cut the undersea cable connecting us to Europe and be done with it. I'd really rather not but something needs to be done to pound some sense into those asshole politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I was running Twitter or Facebook, I'd be seriously thinking about shuttering my offices in the UK, shutting down my servers, and migrating everything back to the U.S. where there's a 1st Amendment to stop this sort of shit from getting started in the first place. The sites-- facebook.com and twitter.com-- would still be accessible to users in the UK but with no physical presence there, the companies would be free to ignore these ridiculous laws. If the UK government doesn't like it, they can always block those sites, but if they do block sites and services that millions of their citizens like, use, and in many cases depend on for their livelihood, then the UK politicians can reap the political whirlwind that results.
Since full site blocking is on the list of penalties for failing to sanitize the entire internet anyway, it's not like they'd be losing anything, while still insulating themselves from liability for the massive fines the government wants to impose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public companies
Increasing shareholder value. That means you wouldn't shutter your offices, and you'd be trying to think your way out of the well British politicans had thrown you down.
Public companies, unlike us normal people, are obligated to increase shareholder value. Typically for media companies with an advertiser-supported presence that means eyeballs, page-views, and more and more people looking and interacting every day.
The US is a wonderful place, and we do have the First Amendment, but we also have lots of laws regulating content on the Internet. We're not perfect (and I'm not going to start with Whataboutism) but so far Internet content regulation exists in the US, UK, China, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Iran -- just to name a few.
Solving "the problem" means getting people to allow others to express themselves even when it horts their widdle feewings. That train has sailed.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-$500 today to avoid -$10,000 next week.
Increasing shareholder value. That means you wouldn't shutter your offices, and you'd be trying to think your way out of the well British politicans had thrown you down.
You do if keeping the offices open also keeps you open to huge penalties from the large numbers of people you're trying to get to use your service. Removing all physical presence from a country still allows people in the country to use it, but it drastically reduces the ability of the government there to use any but the nuclear option of a full block, and for something like Facebook the blowback from that would be huge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public companies
"Solving "the problem" means getting people to allow others to express themselves even when it horts their widdle feewings. That train has sailed."
That explains why the train sunk.
Free speech was never about allowing the speech the majority would like to hear. It was always about allowing generally uncomfortable views to be heard.
When a white supremacist or nazi rants society as a whole can listen, reflect, and react. When said asshat is forced to silence society forgets he exists.
A few years later he surfaces wearing a suit and shoehorns some more political terms like "multiculturalism" into the political debate without anyone realizing that what he really would like to say and do is "Kill all the <insert random minority here>!!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public companies
"Public companies, unlike us normal people, are obligated to increase shareholder value."
"That train has sailed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those companies will sink before they come back to US of A where taxman is waiting for them. Those ceos will take the money and run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Those companies will sink before they come back to US of A where taxman is waiting for them. Those ceos will take the money and run."
Run .. to where?
The companies to which you refer ... are they perhaps multi-national corporations? Why would a multinational corp come back to a place they left? Has the government changed hands? Where will they go if all nations tell them they need to start acting better?
Oh - and fyi, embezzlement is a crime in most countries so I doubt the ceo will be taking the money and running anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah man! I cut my cable and it felt Gooooood!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Let's just cut the undersea cable connecting us to Europe and be done with it. I'd really rather not but something needs to be done to pound some sense into those asshole politicians."
No real need. The idiots going along with this nonsense won't have an internet any longer and thus won't bug the rest of us - who may have to use encrypted tunnels to join the online society but will still be around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cut the cable - see who screams
Really anyone who says "cut the cable" is preaching isolationsim by vandalism. You'll note they don't say "I'll go cut the cable" but rather imply "You all should go do the cable-cutting thing."
Because there's one cable and if we cut it we fix the problem, right? Except none of that is true. There are multiple cables, owned by many companies, countries, etc., the majority of which are US ones -- with shareholders -- and neither I nor YOU nor THEY nor THEM nor ANYONE can "jest go kut them." Unless we're terrorists.
Isolationsism vandalism is good if you're a moron or an idiot, but in the practical world since th 1960s we try to connect to everyone but manage what data is sent through. We should isolate the morons and idiots... not engage in either isolationism or terrorism.
E
P.S. Don't take any of the above as an insult to Trump. He doesn't merit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cut the cable - see who screams
You do understand sarcasm and hyperbole, right? I really doubt the OP was being 100% literally serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The big Internet companies can be found and fined with little effort, so this is typical politicians attacking the tools, rather than fixing the real problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We already have laws, old ones even, that make some speech illegal. But apparently it's too hard to go after those individuals so they're trying to deputize the platforms the police everything posted by the public. Of course by "deputize" I mean "do it or be fined into bankruptcy". Insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not so sure about the illegal speech claim.
Isn't it the verbalized intent that is illegal rather than the words themselves? For example, look at he charges filed - are the words listed as being illegal or is it the intended action(s) that are listed as the offense committed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship under the guise of protection
People need to understand that all the harm that internet censorship laws are a feature, not a bug. They know they are lying to us, claiming to be protecting us from "harmful" content, when in reality they are really cracking down on opposition and dissent. Yet they don't care that they are lying because there is nothing we can realistically do about it.
We are witnessing the death of the internet as we know, being murdered in cold blood by authoritarian Governments that are supposed to be democracies, but have begun to aspire to be like China and North Korea, all to entrench it's own power and to enrich the traditional media companies. This is nothing but a power grab and heist of wealth and rights, and I don't think we have the power to realistically stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consistency doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for any legislation of any sort, anywhere. Expecting consistency in legislation regarding something the legislators understand even less than everyday life 100 years ago, would really be expecting way too much. Legislators ought to be forced to write legislation with crayons until they demonstrate an ability to think faster than they can write with crayons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expect Much More of this from Govs
Facebook, Google (youtube), et. have all had plenty of time to come up with solutions...
They said they cared, said they were working on solutions and yet the problems of content moderation of their systems remain.
It's time for governments to start kicking corporate unaccountably to the curb and arrest execs, fine companies based on gross % of profits and slow the refuse that happens on their systems.
If they can't manage the content, then they are too big and must be broken into little regional entities that can.
The 1st amendment doesn't apply anywhere outside of the U.S. and it's been used against the republic for years..
I'm all for other countries getting heavy handed against Facebook, Youtube, et to the point that U.S. corporations have no choice but to accept the limitations imposed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
You can thank the cyberbullies and Section 230 for this.
Pick on people long enough and they WILL fight back. Hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
“Pick on people long enough and they WILL fight back. Hard.”
Like make vague threats and threaten to call the police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
"You can thank the cyberbullies and Section 230 for this."
Ah, so you threatening to sexually assault people was what, a polite and tactful discourse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psst. Content moderation does not scale well. A service that is one-quarter the size of YouTube would have issues doing it. Government mandates will not change that fact.
And until the First Amendment stops applying to corporations inside the United States, it cannot and should not be used against them. Any attempt by the government to mandate what legal speech can and cannot show up on a social interaction network, no matter how big it is or what form it takes, is an attempt to silence forms of speech that are legal but that the government — or rather, the people currently in the government — find distasteful enough to want censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
The problem with moderation is not the size of the companies, but rather the number of comments and posting being made by people. The Number of moderators requires to moderate the Internet, is determined by the rate of submissions of comments and contents across the Internet, and not the size of companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
It's time for governments to start kicking corporate unaccountably to the curb and arrest execs, fine companies based on gross % of profits and slow the refuse that happens on their systems.
This statement from a refuse-spouting AC?
What moral or legal reasons does Facebook have to "Manage" it's content as you see fit?
Obviously the AC does not intend individual posts to be held to the same standards as FB, considering the stream of insults, bullying and fake news they proudly repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
And then we just have to find a court that says you are wrong and it won’t matter lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
Facebook, Google (youtube), et. have all had plenty of time to come up with solutions...
Kinda funny, huh, that Facebook and Google were unable to solve the fact that there are some bad people in the world, huh? So now we're going to blame Facebook and Google for failing to make all the people in the world good and kind, and then we're going to fine Google and Facebook. Boy, that'll sure stop people from being bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect Much More of this from Govs
"Facebook, Google (youtube), et. have all had plenty of time to come up with solutions..."
They have, but morons like you didn't accept the fact that they don't have a magic wand.
But, hey, since YouTube and their $100 million filters couldn't stop these things, it's sure that their potential competition will not be able to either, and so you have yet again supported handing them everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Saying mean things" is called BULLYING. Cyberbullies (several of whom are quite friendly with Masnick) won't like this law, but that's too bad for them. At some point, my entire archive of just how many of these bullies there are, their ties to Masnick, and what they have said will be dropped in an article, but let's just say the juvenile blogger's whining is not surprising.
None of these folks could take what they dish out, instead relying on the good nature of their targets, which they mistake for weakness, a very large mistake, especially given how much to lose these folks have, professionally speaking.
Some of the "mean things" said to me by someone with ties to Masnick included inciting someone to threaten to come to my home and kill me, which is what triggered the ongoing police involvement. These folks know how anyone else would respond to that type of "mean thing" being said, but seemed to think it did not apply to me.
Time will tell, motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your right to free speech is your right to be offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the mean things you have said about Mike, you might want to think twice about throwing a rock through the window of your glass house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No worries, that window, the wall around it, and the rest of the house have long been smashed to pieces with all the hypocritical rocks they've lobbed.
You almost have to wonder at times, are they so delusional that they can't see their own hypocrisy, is it arrogant stupidity in thinking that others won't see their hypocrisy, or(as I believe to be the case at this point) intentional so they can scratch the persecution complex/fetish I suspect they have by having people call their hypocrisy and/or bogus claims/arguments out?
If they were actually worth more than a passing musing it would be an interesting question, but as-is motives matter less than putting that good old report button through it's paces on their comments whenever they show, with the added entertainment that it's merely applying the rules they want applied to others to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you are a bully, because you say mean things like motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow. That was mean. The government should shut you up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You BULLIES keep taking "advantage" of my Good Nature! I am so "good-Natured", you bullis end "knobs" and Sycophants and Motherfuckers just can't "stand" it!
I'll "show" you All! My "good Nature" is not Weakeness! My Mom says I'm tough and "brave"! That's why I "spend" all my "free" Time anomynololsy ranting on Tech "dirt" and also eating Delicious, "delcious" paint Chips.
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: officer smith
👮♀️:john you call us again I’m putting your ass in a cell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Saying mean things is called bullying”
That’s right John And in the spirit of anti bullying.
I plant a flag of justice lol
“Clicks flag button”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crybaby Jhon at it again
“Time will tell, motherfucker.”
Is that a threat? I’d call the cops but we all know that like your dick, your threats are completely impotent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TDCF 4 Life
By the way bro have a funny vote because you actually made me laugh in an out loud fashion when I thought about you dropping your entire archive of screenshots off at the police station and demanding that they arrest the ring leader of the Techdirt Crime Family; Mike Masnick, his Capos Dark Helmet and Hot Karl Bode. In addition, 714 Anonymous Cowards, A Thad, One Stephen T. Stone, Some Dude Named Gary, and a Paint Chip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some of the "mean things" said to me by someone with ties to Masnick included inciting someone to threaten to come to my home and kill me, which is what triggered the ongoing police involvement. These folks know how anyone else would respond to that type of "mean thing" being said, but seemed to think it did not apply to me.
Please stop with the lies, you dumb motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They can't, if they stopped lying they'd have nothing left to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've never seen anything like that in the comments, ergo liar is lying.
Meanwhile, I've had some creep try to get me fired from my job by directly contacting my employers, telling lies about me. I had to get an email from the local police to show them I wasn't under investigation for extortion, or anything.
And I'm still not demanding that the government "Do something" about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Meanwhile, I've had some creep try to get me fired from my job by directly contacting my employers, telling lies about me. I had to get an email from the local police to show them I wasn't under investigation for extortion, or anything."
Wouldn't be surprised to find old Bobmail behind something like that.
Although he might be very surprised to find that if the police can henceforth ever identify him he's the one going down for libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that you are being, in this very post of yours, mean and a bully and that if these laws come to pass, you would be gone after for exactly what you accuse this site for, right?
Yawn. You going to get off the schoolyard playground any time soon?
You've yet to approach anything remotely resembling the level that we dish out. Indeed, it would appear that most of it flies over your head by a good couple of miles.
We haven't mistaken the fact that you are an idiot, moron, spineless and will never follow through on any of your threats. Which, by the way, would not be allowed under the proposed laws.
Such as?
Proof or it didn't happen. Mike sure hasn't mentioned anything about being investigated by the police, and I'm pretty sure that's something he would mention.
The police don't investigate calls of "Some random person on the internet called me a mean name! Waaaaah!".
And you complain about TD and other people being mean. Hypocrite much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Some of the "mean things" said to me by someone with ties to Masnick included inciting someone to threaten to come to my home and kill me, which is what triggered the ongoing police involvement. "
Would that be the mean thing were someone threatened to rape all the "aspies" in this forum?
Oh, wait. That was you.
I'm sure the police, if involved in any other way than asking you to please stop wasting their time, would love to have a look at your "proof" - alongside your own commentary.
Almost sad their involvement is a figment of your personal revenge porn fantasy rather than part of factual reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the list of violations is vague...
...It's NOT censorship, an attack on free speech, protections for The Chiiiildren, or any other such.
LOOK at it.
Do just about anything on the internet and you're in violation.
What happens to violators?
THEY GIVE MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT.
It's a TAX - cost of doing business. But to CALL it that won't fly, so it's to "Fight Terrorism!" - by giving the government money....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May is so full of shit, you can smell her a mile off! this is just punishment for her failure to actually do anything for the people in the fuck up she and her 'comrades' have made over Brexit! because she cant get 'her deal' through, others have got to be to blame and therefore punished! and she's in charge of a country! what a moron!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there anything they won't try to distract from the fact the screwed up with Brexit??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Is there anything they won't try to distract from the fact the screwed up with Brexit??"
To be fair there are three reasons Brexit was screwed up.
1) The EU putting the UK's balls in as tight a vice as possible for daring to leave, as a warning unto others.
2) The UK parliament which basically demanded "everything we get from the EU today, but without paying any dues" and flatlined the negotiations she actually managed to come home with.
3) Theresa May.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about stifling dissent and creating a more-or-less Federal Network like in the movie Starship Troopers.
"Would you like to know more?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Run the servers in international waters
The microstate Sealand did it a while ago. Their status is disputed though, because the English oppressors extented their sea borders. Another (fictional) example is The Boat That Rocked. So that's what Facebook gotta do: build giant server farms on the sea ground, thus foiling these petty attempts at censorship. Regarding the costs, a moon server farm might be even more worth it, at least in the long term. Just think of the huge ad space, with perfect illumination from the sun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Run the servers in international waters
The ping time of aproximately 2.8s might be a slight problem for human interactions with the servers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Run the servers in international waters
Nothing so dramatic. All they have to do is leave the UK. Run it all from the U.S. and these laws won't apply. Let the UK politicians block them and endure the howls of protests from millions of their enraged constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harmful Brexit
"How Brexit is affecting our mental health"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/04/anger-and-frustration-how-brexit-is-af fecting-our-mental-health
Given the most harmful content for millions of citizens and their sanity is the Brexit debate, maybe this proposal hopes to shut down all broadcasting of Brexit news so that the people can finally stick their head under the sand and rest their tiny precious heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullet trains
It used to take six hours to drive from Los Angeles CA/US to San Francisco. So we built a bullet train and it shortened the trip to only one hour. Because we didn't have a lot of money or government support we used private rights of way and private cars, and well, you had to stand for that hour. That was still great because, hey one hour!
Then some newspaper people and some politicians wanted to come on our train and we said "Hey why not" and they rode. They said it was unsafe and passed laws. Now we had to put doors on... and seats... and seat belts... and nobody was allowed to stand. Still one hour!!
Then someone talked the train attendants into joining a club where they could collectively bargain to work less and earn more. Our prices went up but the service went down. Still one hour!!
Then Amtrak said it wasn't fair we were competing with them, and essentially taking money away from Amtrak, and they can't make the trip in one hour so we should slow down. They bought enough politicians to pass that law. So now... four hours.
The Internet started as a free-to-all communication media that equalized access to everyone. The various rules and laws from CDA to FOSTA to SESTA to GDPR to the Australia and now UK anti-harm laws... all they've done is gut the "free" "all" and "communication."
Censorship is bad, but people know it's there. This is much much more insidious and worse. You can also bet there will be carve-outs just as there are for spam callers.. allowing the politicians to say whatever they like, while us voters/taxpayers are gagged and robbed.
Six hours in a car never felt so good. Thanks, John Gilmore.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Think of the children"
Tens of thousands of British children living in poverty. Tens of thousands homeless. British public school teachers spending their own money to buy their students food and shoes.
But sure, go ahead and devote yourselves to attacking "harmful content".
How utterly contemptible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Think of the children"
That's what you get with a right wing government in power. It can only get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Think of the children"
"But sure, go ahead and devote yourselves to attacking "harmful content"."
These are the sort of people who care about what is said.
Not about what is being done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Female genital mutilation is bad ...
but male isn't?
WTF?
Oh, this is being proposed by a woman. That explains a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Excessive screen time" is now illegal if you're underage? How would that be monitored(?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll just say what I've been saying for a long time - having grown up under Thatcher, this kind of crap is par for the course under the Tories, and it's a great example of why people are utterly deluded if they think that Brexit will even begin to slow the stuff they complain about the EU doing, let alone stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's worse is that deluded people blame the EU for austerity. It's a Tory policy. The idea is to shut down all public services and make them all for-profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The idea is to shut down all public services and make them all for-profit."
The proponents of this "idea" have not thought it through to its inevitable end. If they had, they would not be promoting it.
There are many things for which private business is ill-equipped to handle and I doubt many of these proponents have any idea what they are asking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You've just described the ERG faction of the Tory party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope they'll tackle hate speech too...
...and extend this to the print media. Tory party out in 3...2..1...
I'm not even joking, the main reason that incompetent wretch May and her ridiculous clown car pile-up of a government is still in power is down to the right wing press, of which the Daily Mail is one.
If they want to make such laws they need to apply to everyone, not just those platforms accepting user uploads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope they'll tackle hate speech too...
"I'm not even joking, the main reason that incompetent wretch May and her ridiculous clown car pile-up of a government is still in power is down to the right wing press, of which the Daily Mail is one."
It could be worse.
Cameron could still be in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I hope they'll tackle hate speech too...
He was the lesser evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope they'll tackle hate speech too...
If they want to make such laws they need to apply to everyone, not just those platforms accepting user uploads.
[ERROR. Assumed honesty not found].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to the survey results 6% of people answer stupid surveys honestly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullying et al
I really don't get this notion of on-line bullying. The immediate answer is NOT to use such trash as Faecesbook, Whatscrap or Twatter. They're just turning people into zombies with scrambled brains and have a lot to answer for. Just don't use "social media", read it, subscribe or get anywhere near it with the proverbial barge-pole. What could be easier? What's the matter with these moaning Minnies - are they some sort of masochists? Do they actually ENJOY reading drivel about themselves, written by some unhinged troll? There has got to some major sociological problem for someone to commit suicide, just because some charmless idiot has thrown a few meaningless insults about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"help restore public trust in this technology"
I trusted the Internet way more when it wasn't run by governments and big data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to advocate for the ugly
I know this is going to sound horrible, but bear with me. We should stop all the calls for platforms to remove content, even child porn and terrorist propaganda. Child porn is horrible and I don't understand what kind of wiring has been crossed in people's brains that makes them seek out such a terrible and abusive thing. But the taboo and dangerous nature can spark dark curiosity; places where child porn was more available had a correlation with lower rates of sexually abused children. There may be ways to help people who are driven to seek out this content if we lesson the stigma from irredeemable piece of shit deserving of torture to mentally ill person in need of treatment. It's heartbreaking that so many children have been exploited, but the ways we deal with it now aren't preventing new crimes.
And similarly, terrorist propaganda can be used to combat terrorism. People can't keep secrets and the more these groups operate in the open, the more likely we can thwart an attack. We can also intervene in radicalization and combat their bad speech with good.
The more underground we push things, like drugs and prostitution, clearly the more violent and dangerous they become. On the other hand, we can acknowledge the dangerous and ugly parts of humanity, and learn how to avoid or get away from them. We can reach out to victims more easily, which we learned with the stupid SESTA law.
And I'm not saying that anyone who exploits a child or commits terrorism shouldn't be accountable to the law, only that we don't criminalize the consumers. And I certainly don't wish to be exposed to many repugnant things on the internet just to keep in touch with friends and family, nor do I think anyone should have to put up with bullying or harassment. Which is why users need more control over content and privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going to advocate for the ugly
But the taboo and dangerous nature can spark dark curiosity; places where child porn was more available had a correlation with lower rates of sexually abused children.
So which children should "take one for the team" in order to reduce rates of abuse against other children? In any case, abusers feed off each other and are emboldened by this stuff to do ever-worse things to kids. I remember when the Paedophile Information Exchange was a thing; they actually tried to make it respectable, the creeps. A fetish like any other, kind of thing. Ugh! Allowing it to proliferate online in any form is therefore the last thing anyone should do. The trouble with thrill-seekers is that sooner or later they get jaded and want a bigger thrill.
There may be ways to help people who are driven to seek out this content if we lesson the stigma from irredeemable piece of shit deserving of torture to mentally ill person in need of treatment.
I concur, but at no point do we ever accommodate such attitudes by giving them a "safe" way of indulging their vile perversion. We don't treat murderers or violent people by showing them war films in the hope of encouraging them to be more gentle.
It's heartbreaking that so many children have been exploited, but the ways we deal with it now aren't preventing new crimes.
That's because the resources required to treat such people before they commit crimes aren't being funded. This is why healthcare ought to be treated as a public good, not as a commodity to be bought and sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm going to advocate for the ugly
I know, I agree that the idea is upsetting. Its not fair to the children who have been victimized. They deserve everything society can do to try to make them as close to whole again as possible. And perpetrators must be brought to justice. But there is correlation between lower rates of sexual abuse and availability of child porn. There is validity to the idea of safe space to view this material preventing potential abusers from acting on the impulse by indulging the desire. And by taking away the criminality of consuming this material, social workers, victims advocates, mental health professionals can reach these people (and victims) more easily before they seek out a victim. And there is a disturbing number of adults who admit to watching abusive material, whether out of curiosity or as some sort of thrill. But the same concern about escalating behavior can be said for rape fantasy porn. I don't understand it, and supposedly women are the main or significant consumers, but it's not driving up sexual assaults. I don't really want to draw the comparison, but violent video games and movies don't cause violence or desensitize people.
People are never going to seek mental health treatment for child porn proclivities even if care was totally free and abundantly available because of the stigma and crushing legal consequences. These are separate social issues for now.
The whole issue is really disturbing and upsetting to me. Since becoming a mom I find myself significantly more bothered by news stories about babies and children being hurt or killed- almost always by the parents. And the government separations of children at the border tore me apart; the Yemeni children pictures make me well up with tears. I don't want to see more kids harmed and I think we need to stop repeating failing ideas. Prohibition never works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how the people who gave their lives for the UK in the Second World War would feel about how their population became a bunch of snivelling pussies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nakliyat
Evden eve nakliyat https://www.colakoglunakliyat.com.tr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]