Britain plans social media regulation to battle harmful content

[webfact]

Britain plans social media regulation to battle harmful content

By Paul Sandle and Elizabeth Piper

 

FILE PHOTO: Facebook logo is reflected in glasses in this picture illustration taken April 1, 2019. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain proposed new online safety laws on Monday that would slap penalties on social media companies and technology firms if they fail to protect their users from harmful content.

 

Easy access to damaging material particularly among young people has caused growing concern worldwide and came into the spotlight in Britain after the death of 14-year-old schoolgirl Molly Russell, which her parents said came after she had viewed online material on depression and suicide.

 

Governments across the world are wrestling over how to better control content on social media platforms, often blamed for encouraging abuse, the spread of online pornography, and for influencing or manipulating voters.

 

Global worries were recently stoked by the live streaming of the mass shooting at a mosque in New Zealand on one of Facebook's platforms, after which Australia said it would fine social media and web hosting companies and imprison executives if violent content is not removed "expeditiously".

 

In a policy paper widely trailed in British media, the government said it would look into possibly using fines, blocking access to websites, and imposing liability on senior tech company management for failing to limit the distribution of harmful content.

 

It would also set up a regulator to police the rules.

 

TechUK, an industry trade group, said the paper was a significant step forward, but one which needed to be firmed up during its 12-week consultation. It said some aspects of the government's approach were too vague.

 

"It is vital that the new framework is effective, proportionate and predictable," techUK said in a statement, adding not all concerns could be addressed through regulation.

 

Facebook said it was looking forward to working with the government to ensure new regulations were effective, repeating its founder Mark Zuckerberg's line that regulations were needed to have a standard approach across platforms.

 

COMPLEX ISSUES

Rebecca Stimson, Facebook's head of UK public policy, said any new rules should strike a balance between protecting society and supporting innovation and free speech.

 

"These are complex issues to get right and we look forward to working with the government and parliament to ensure new regulations are effective," Stimson said in a statement.

 

Prime Minister Theresa May said that while the Internet could be brilliant at connecting people, it had not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people.

 

"That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently," May said in a statement. "We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe."

 

The duty of care would make companies take more responsibility for the safety of users and tackle harm caused by content or activity on their services. The regulator, funded by industry in the medium term, will set clear safety standards.

 

A committee of lawmakers has also demanded more is done to make political advertising and campaigning on social media more transparent.

 

"It is vital that our electoral law is brought up to date as soon as possible, so that social media users know who is contacting them with political messages and why," said Conservative Damian Collins, who chairs the parliamentary committee for digital, culture, media and sport.

 

"Should there be an early election, then emergency legislation should be introduced to achieve this."

 

(Reporting by Elizabeth Piper and Paul Sandle; Editing by David Holmes)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-08

[NCC1701A]

 

[chilli42]

Social media has gotten out of control of both those that use it and those that distribute it.  So on one hand, I understand the sentiment of wanting to reign it back in.  On the other hand I resent giving up the freedom of choice to a government censor ... when has that ever gone well?  

[rocketman777]

UK Government wants to regain control on what you think.

 

They further insult you by suggesting that you are not able to make a judgement on the credibility of what you see an read on the Internet. 

 

That they need to make this judgement for you.

 

That the only source of disinformation should be their disinformation propagated through the mainstream media.

 

 

[Boon Mee]

Orwell was waaay ahead of his time.

[Nyezhov]

Another attempt to bring us thoughtcrime.

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory post has been removed

[Snow Leopard]

2 hours ago, rocketman777 said:

UK Government wants to regain control on what you think.

 

They further insult you by suggesting that you are not able to make a judgement on the credibility of what you see an read on the Internet. 

 

That they need to make this judgement for you.

 

That the only source of disinformation should be their disinformation propagated through the mainstream media.

 

 

Correct. Good Luck with the controls. 

[notmyself]

Nobody has the right to not be offended.

[Chomper Higgot]

A couple of years ago a friend who I am connected to on facebook had her account hacked by the boyfriend she had just broken up with. He loaded dozens of nude photos of her and then changed the password so she could not get into her account to remove the images. 

 

I and a number of other people reported the images to facebook, it took almost two days for facebook to remove the images. 

 

Facebook, and other online media platforms are making huge profits, but doing far too little to tackle abuse on their platforms. 

 

They've had more than enough time to put their house in order, they've failed to do so. 

 

It is well past time to regulate their business where they have failed to do so themselves. 

 

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, rocketman777 said:

They further insult you by suggesting that you are not able to make a judgement on the credibility of what you see an read on the Internet. 

 

Some people, through no fault of their own, are not able to do so.  See: Tide Pods.

 

Antivaxxers and other science-ignorant people are using the internet to spread disease and sow a distrust of science in general.  Foreign governments have successfully used the internet to inject propaganda into countries they consider adversaries.

 

Social media needs better controls for the same reason a car needs brakes.

[Trouble]

6 hours ago, rocketman777 said:

UK Government wants to regain control on what you think.

 

They further insult you by suggesting that you are not able to make a judgement on the credibility of what you see an read on the Internet. 

 

That they need to make this judgement for you.

 

That the only source of disinformation should be their disinformation propagated through the mainstream media.

 

 

I don't think it is that fact that government wants to control your thought as much as those in control of the media and social media want to control it.  The quote in a previous post by Carl Sagan kind of says it all.  The three prominent cable news networks (a complete misnomer) in the USA are nothing more than commentary and have little to do with news. They are completely devoid of reporting news on a non biased basis.  The other networks make an attempt but are also clearly biased on most national issues. The internet has further provided a space where people get their news from sources only based on what they already think and what re-enforces their views.  No debate on the issues just propaganda for the dumb-downed masses.  I finally had to stop looking at facebook due to the fact that so many "friends" were reposting news content from dubious news sources. Unfortunately most people only read publications that support their views. Therefore they never get debate over issues.  Not only have the large news organizations become part of a propaganda machine, the internet has fueled a situation where anything goes. It's as easy as posting false information that can almost instantaneously be seen the world over. 

[Krataiboy]

17 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Some people, through no fault of their own, are not able to do so.  See: Tide Pods.

 

Antivaxxers and other science-ignorant people are using the internet to spread disease and sow a distrust of science in general.  Foreign governments have successfully used the internet to inject propaganda into countries they consider adversaries.

 

Social media needs better controls for the same reason a car needs brakes.

Be careful what you wish for. 

 

Freedom of speech is increasingly under attack by Western governments under the guise of protecting an ever-lengthening list of  "vulnerable" minorities, be they Muslims, members of the LGBTQ community or people of colour.

 

The swingeing censorship laws ushered in by Australia, as well as New Zealand, following the recent Christchurch mosque massacre are just the latest example of this worrying ongoing trend.

 

A new social media clampdown in the UK targets not only media outlets like Facebook and Google, but online messaging services and file-hosting sites.

 

The shadow of Big Brother is lengthening ominously across some of the world's leading democracies and begs the question of how far we want it to stretch.

 

In the desire to defend the vulnerable few, there is a very real danger of disenfranchising the many from the basic human right to speak their minds openly and without fear.

 

Civil public discourse - even if it sometimes becomes un-civil - remains the only way to change the world without violence. Remember, its absence led to the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Krataiboy

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Be careful what you wish for. 

 

Freedom of speech is increasingly under attack by Western governments under the guise of protecting an ever-lengthening list of  "vulnerable" minorities, be they Muslims, members of the LGBTQ community or people of colour.

 

The swingeing censorship laws ushered in by Australia, as well as New Zealand, following the recent Christchurch mosque massacre are just the latest example of this worrying ongoing trend.

 

A new social media clampdown in the UK targets not only media outlets like Facebook and Google, but online messaging services and file-hosting sites.

 

The shadow of Big Brother is lengthening ominously across some of the world's leading democracies and begs the question of how far we want it to stretch.

 

In the desire to defend the vulnerable few, there is a very real danger of disenfranchising the many from the basic human right to speak their minds openly and without fear.

 

Civil public discourse - even if it sometimes becomes un-civil - remains the only way to change the world without violence. Remember, its absence gave us the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao.

Nobody is removing your freedom of speech.

 

You are simply going to be held accountable for what you say. 

[Krataiboy]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nobody is removing your freedom of speech.

 

You are simply going to be held accountable for what you say. 

Well, there's always ONE who missed the point.

[from the home of CC]

19 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A couple of years ago a friend who I am connected to on facebook had her account hacked by the boyfriend she had just broken up with. He loaded dozens of nude photos of her and then changed the password so she could not get into her account to remove the images. 

IMO in this day and age posing nude while someone takes images of you is irresponsible especially if someone else has access. Did she ask for the images returned when they separated? Sorry, I believe she has to share some blame in all that (unless of course she was unconscious or there was a hidden cam)

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, from the home of CC said:

IMO in this day and age posing nude while someone takes images of you is irresponsible especially if someone else has access. Did she ask for the images returned when they separated? Sorry, I believe she has to share some blame in all that (unless of course she was unconscious or there was a hidden cam)

You believe wrongly.

 

Hacking someone’s online account and posting photos of them nude on that account without their consent are two crimes.

 

Back to law school you go.

[from the home of CC]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You believe wrongly.

 

Hacking someone’s online account and posting photos of them nude on that account without their consent are two crimes.

 

Back to law school you go.

never mentioned anything criminal, I spoke of the irresponsibility of having nude photos taken..

Back to comprehension school you go.

Edited April 9, 2019 by from the home of CC
grammar

[timendres]

5 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Well, there's always ONE who missed the point.

Unfortunately, there are millions, if not billions...

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Well, there's always ONE who missed the point.

 

Your point was not a point at all, just a slippery slope fallacy.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

[Krataiboy]

4 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Your point was not a point at all, just a slippery slope fallacy.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

Fallacy Mountain is getting awful crowded these days, with some big names lining up for the Save Free Speech Slalom.

 

Here's a couple of useful primers from the pros for learners still stuck on the nursery slopes doing snow-ploughs.

 

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2016/06/04/under-attack

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/the-chilling-evidence-that-jordan-peterson-was-right-transgender-ideology-is-totalitarian

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Krataiboy

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Fallacy Mountain is getting awful crowded these days, with some big names lining up for the Save Free Speech Slalom.

 

Here's a couple of useful primers from the pros for learners still stuck on the nursery slopes doing snow-ploughs.

 

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2016/06/04/under-attack

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/the-chilling-evidence-that-jordan-peterson-was-right-transgender-ideology-is-totalitarian

 

 

 

 

You’ll be telling us next that you never had any free speech before the advent of social media.

 

[Krataiboy]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’ll be telling us next that you never had any free speech before the advent of social media.

 

Don't you ever get tired of trolling?

[from the home of CC]

The UK proposal "is a very bad look for a rights-respecting democracy," said R. David Edelman, a former White House technology adviser who now heads the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's project on technology, the economy and national security.

"It would place the UK toward the far end of the internet censorship spectrum."

 

very sad indeed...

[dick dasterdly]

28 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

The UK proposal "is a very bad look for a rights-respecting democracy," said R. David Edelman, a former White House technology adviser who now heads the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's project on technology, the economy and national security.

"It would place the UK toward the far end of the internet censorship spectrum."

 

very sad indeed...

I've no idea about Edelman - but I'm very concerned as to how this proposed new law will be enacted.

 

It could easily be used to stop free speech against those that disagree with the govt. - rather than the stated intention - to protect children.

[from the home of CC]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

I've no idea about Edelman - but I'm very concerned as to how this proposed new law will be enacted.

 

It could easily be used to stop free speech against those that disagree with the govt. - rather than the stated intention - to protect children.

Yes the timing around this brexit bs is little suspect, perhaps certain folks were tired of their names slammed online 24/7. But hey, it works well for the Chinese..

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

Yes the timing around this brexit bs is little suspect, perhaps certain folks were tired of their names slammed online 24/7. But hey, it works well for the Chinese..

Quite.