UK lawmakers look to enforce blocking tools for legal but harmful content The UK government is putting forward changes to the law which would require social media platforms to give users the option to avoid seeing and engaging with harmful — but legal — content. Presenting the amended Online Safety Bill to Parliament this week, Michelle Donelan, the minister for digital, culture, media and sport …
spot on. Anti-social media is a cancer to society.
It has clearly gotten worse since Emperor Elon the Unmerciful took over Twatter.
One US State has the right idea with a bill that proposes to ban TikTok. Gome on guys... add Twatter, Truth Social and all the other scummy sites and make your state a much saner place.
Doh... what am I thinking... the SCOTUS is so corrupt that they'll block this law in an instant.
People need to grow a brain and learn to make choices instead of having an algorithm,
Algorithm says No!, because algorithm knows best. Case in point is Youtube. If you ever make the mistake of clicking one video on a subject, or even searching for 'nitro racing', the algorithm will know.
So now I know it's as an RC racing thing. That's all I wanted to know. But since then, my YT 'recommended videos' has been full of channels about RC stuff. I'm not interested. I can try to block all those channels by picking 'dont recommend'. I can pick 'not interested'.
What I can't tell YT is I'm just not interested in RC content. It's presumably categorised them. It presumably knows I'm trying to force the algorithm to notice I'm not interested. But all that generally happens is it decides I must be interested related subjects instead.. So now it recommends me videos about model kits.
Crazy idea. Just show me the tags used to recommend me those videos, and let me indicate the tags/subjects I just reall don't give a stuff about and don't want it to recommend me. Even better, let me choose subjects I am actually interested in. Surely that can't be that hard?
Even crazier idea: just do your own searching for what you want to see on YT, don't look at some algorithm's "recommendations".
Sadly, they're front and centre on YT's landing page. Plus if you search, that obviously influences the algorithm. It also eats chunks of your screen space with carp like 'YT shorts' or whatever it's promoting. Some you can hide from your 'shelf' for a while, some will reappear ever time you refresh after you close them. One recent one was about people who like sneakers. I don't, so no idea why it thought I'd ever be interested.
Or I like Adam Savage's channel. He does videos on cosplay. I clicked on a vid about a recent cosplay convention to see what the latest fashions were. That lead to YT recommending me 'try on' vids for lingerie, bikinis and people promoting their onlyfans channels. I had been blissfully aware that that was a thing. And YT being politcally correct, it seemed a bit strange that they were linking cosplay and soft porn, when most cosplayers try hard to de-sexualise their hobby.
Or I didn't realise the Met Office had a UK weather forecast channel. That's useful. So I subscribed. Now it's recommending me local forecasts from small US TV stations nowhere near where I am, or am ever likely to be. I get I might confuse AlphaGoo about where I am via a combination of travel and VPNs, but it's algorithm basically has no clue, and gives users no control.
It shouldn't be that difficult for us to express our interests, or things we're disinterested in. These are the tech and 'AI' giants, after all.
While you've hit the nail on the head, as they say, in reality, its worse than you've described. If you find a video that's interesting, and watch it, and then watch every other video on that channel, YouTube's stupid algorith will continue to show you that user's videos, even though you've already seen all of them. This means that, depending on the number of videos, 10-20% of the videos listed on the home page are videos you've already seen...every fucking time.
This line struck me: "As for children the parents should be monitoring and controlling their activities on and off line. That is a parents job, not the school, Government or nanny/babysitter." because whenever I used to get asked about software to monitor kids activities online I always used to say there isn't any that a savvy kid can't find a way to bypass. The best way to do this is be a parent - move the computer into a room where you can see it. Look at what they do on their phones.
Stop expecting software companies and governments to do your job for you.
whenever I used to get asked about software to monitor kids activities online I always used to say there isn't any that a savvy kid can't find a way to bypass.
OpenDNS configured to block content with those settings set on the router and provided by DHCP is quite effective, especially if the child doesn't have a user account that's able to change the IP settings to change the DNS. It also works on every device connected, without needing to install software.
As much as the grow-a-brain argument is true, you have poked your nose outside more than once in the last hundred years? Many people aren't capable of critical thinking; and frankly lap up any old message they want to hear (or not) as the case may be.
There is a very well documented case of Zuck-gorithms pushing suggested posts regarding "how to kill ones self" to people that might have searched for similar terms before. That is utterly undefensible; and it absolutely IS the role of government and media outlets to not let such rubbish run riot.
I'm sure this will cause a conflagration, but the other really obvious one is the anti-vaxx grifters who can fuck right off with their sensationalist, populist rubbish that has lead to un-necessary hospitalisations and deaths.
Blocking websites is one thing, blocking the suggested post feed on Faecesbook is rather more awkward to do. (Short of quitting it).
"It is quite simple, don't want to see certain content block it (social media) or scroll/click away from it."
Well, yes, but why are companies like Facebook* making their users scroll through tons of unwanted content before getting to what interests them? Let's be clear about this, FB knows *exactly* what it is feeding and to whom, and they are *NOT* doing it to supply the users' interests, they are doing it to maximise engagement, clicks etc using well-known addiction mechanisms in the brain.
It's all very well to say "People need to grow a brain and learn to make choices", but very few people have any idea about how their own brain works, because education systems don't teach anything about psychology, critical thinking etc preferring instead far more important stuff like knowing all about past monarchs and battles and other such BS, and with the target of producing obedient cookie-cutter worker drones.
It's like legislating against highly addictive and dangerous drugs - people *should* be knowledgeable enough to steer clear, but society still makes it illegal to profit from the weakness of others.
*I'm using FB as an example, can be extended to every other platform
Isn't this law only adding one layer of a "sheild", because the other two layers already exist? So, basically, it's saying that anything doubleplusungood should be blocked by a moderator, but the definition of ungood is going to be nebulous for every category of "stuff" on the internet until a journalist points out some individual awful thing.
Or in other words, the law is saying that stuff that is legal is illegal, without actually making it illegal, oh, and we're not going to give you a formal definition of what the illegal stuff is.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think kids should be seeing questionable content, but how can this approach really work?
One thing is true - every single totalitarian regime became crazier and crazier with their laws just before it has fallen.
Seems like government has figured it out that as long as people don't suddenly disappear, they may not be as resistant to become enslaved as one may think.
Once they introduce programmable pound (CBDC) you will realise that you own nothing and making a fuss about it will be deemed legal but harmful.
Then they'll cut you out of your assets and you'll starve.
"Our new triple-shield mechanism ..."
the mechanism, to be built by platform providers ...
So it's the govt's, but someone else has to make it actually work. Does this sound rather familiar? And can one guess the extent to which the technical feasibility of the proposed "shield" has been investigated?
While I hate to agree with her Shadowiness, on this occasion she's spot on - kids will continue to use unverified accounts and continue to be exposed to the full range of online content, good and bad - so no change. The only way that risk gets significantly reduced is with full (and probably paid for) verification on all the major platforms globally, and there's not the remotest chance of that in the near future... Even if it's mandated for users in the UK, it would be trivial to circumvent - but still I'm sure we'll soon hear random politicians espousing the virtues of a "Great British Firewall" for all the good that would do...
We, as a society, CAN'T allow verification on major platforms because we *all* know where it can lead to: tracking of your actions and, if / when the winds of politics change in the 'wrong' direction, harassment and eventual chastisement of those participating in "unwelcome" traits.
To believe otherwise is simple naïveté.
You can't be "free" and "overseen" at the same time. In the history of the human condition, they are both exclusive. Add in any level of oversight into how free peoples spend their time, you inevitably will get attempts to restrict, direct, castigate and eventually punish those who do not toe the line of 'acceptability'. Ideally it does not have to be that way, but humans will constantly push for control of their surroundings, up to and including the living creatures, sentient or otherwise, within their dominion. History has never proven otherwise.
> we *all* know where it can lead to: tracking of your actions and, if / when the winds of politics change in the 'wrong' direction, harassment and eventual chastisement of those participating in "unwelcome" traits.
I have some experience of my own with that, hence why I always post AC and don't have social media accounts.
I also don't use names in public. My generation were raised that way.
You wanted something you werent old enough or allowed when you were a kid, you got a fake id or you got an older friend to get it for you.... Point is, if you try to ban / stop something then there will be ways around said ban.
Yeah TOR is a thing, and it aint as difficult as it used to be, I for one would much rather my kids found "quesitonable" content on the clear net than the "quesitonable" content on the drak web, theres quite a big difference on how "questionable" it is.
If you try to stop kids using the clear web in the ways they want they will move to the dark web. then you are in for some REAL trouble.
Yes children shouldnt be viewing nasty stuff online but this aint the way to stop it (dont ask me what the way is... I dont know)
Maybe some education and context of what is being viewed online would be a better way to reduce harm? Talk to your kids, have open dialogue about sex, drugs, rock and roll etc. so they can speak to you when they encounter nasty shit online and can be given context.
Legislate as if the internet was only run by giants, and you'll get the internet run by giants.
That's the whole purpose of this - for communication to be happening only on a handful of platforms easy to control by the government, while setting up barriers to entry for new players or independent platforms.
If they start blocking "legal, but harmful" content, does it mean the Online Safety Bill will disappear from the interwebs?
A block list relying on categories is only as good as the categorisation of online resources.
So who does the categorisation? The author or owner of the resource or maybe a third party such as Tic Tok or FaceBork, perhaps a government agency.
Can the categorisation be questioned?
Would there be any sanction for intentional miscategorisation?
So many questions, so few answers.
But now in order to access 0898 on your phone you will simply have to register as an official pervert viewer of adult material with your local Office of Unseemly Behaviour.
The registers will only be available to the police, army, security services, local council, parish council, dog wardens, pta, etc - just like RIPA.
I usually have solutions to most issues but in this case having experienced a forum on a very popular site in which I suspect only a fraction of people were genuine as opposed to a wide range of bad players quite able to cause real-world trouble by using technical tricks to isolate your actual address to within 100 metres or so, the challenge is not to isolate bad people because there are too many of them but instead, and I'm thinking let's start with something for children, introduce a digital identity scheme so that those of a certain age can only talk to someone of equal age which I think is the best of a bad situation. Adults will have to accept that there are a wide variety of damaged souls out there and my personal solution for that is to not engage with trouble and sleep better but young people bored with not being able to grow-up quick enough, find fun stuff to do and often get into places not intended for them, we should try and fix that by keeping them in isolated groups based on equal age as a starting point which might also involve starting to use biometrics to verify someone is who they say they are.
Simple solution: social media will only allow you to message someone older than you (*)
This prevents all forms of child exploitation, while ensuring that the young can learn from their older and wiser betters.
* Presumably the oldest person alive will be a bit lonely, but if you reach 115 you are probably glad of being banned from el'reg anyway.
while ensuring that the young can learn...
Well, they won't be able to learn through the same channel, as the older person won't be able to message back ("only allow you to message someone older..."). Unless you mean "initiate" a messaging conversation.
Assuming I can't message back to the hoody-scrote at the local skate park that's found my deets and is making a sad attempt at harassment, I'd be limited to educating him by adjusting his social outlook manually.
[Just being the Devil's advocate, don't call the fuzz!]
Haha! Thanks for the links - nicely underlines my point.
I support policing by consent, a lovely notion. It's a shame that it doesn't exist any more.
A constable threatening arrest for a possible future crime, to a fucking barrister none-the-less...!
Clownslaughter. It happens more often than you’d think.
PC Pickles: If you write "Not My King" you're nicked.
Me: What if I give someone a nasty paper cut, and squeeze this Jif lemon into the wound? Aggravated assault?
I understand the problem of harmful contact which isn't illegal. I'm sure we've all seen those messages that warn images might contain disturbing content. Some social media platforms have them, but of course the problem isn't limited to harmful content.
I actually quite like the idea of such a filter being optional, however the problem is in defining what constitutes "harmful but legal" content. If you're going to make provision of such a filter legally mandatory then you need a legal definition of what constitutes "harmful but legal content" without that how do you enforce this legal mandate? How does it work when somebody complains that something harmful has slipped past the filter? Does it need to go to the courts every time to decide whether the content was harmful?
In other words this is typical of a lot of proposed legislation over the last few years. It looks good in a tabloid headline - won't somebody please think of the children - but it appears that no consideration has been given to how it will be implemented.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
