Re: Why not fuck off and sort out Brexit instead
First rule of Politician Club: It's never your fault.
Just for the sake of argument, in this particular case, I wonder why anyone would think that the parlous and dreadful state of a lot of ghastly content on websites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc is the fault of the politicians?
Do you think they're the one's uploading it? Or do you think that it's merely a product of that small fuckwit section of in every society who are ill-bred enough to exploit the feeble and near useless sanitisation systems employed by the likes of Facebook, YouTube for their own perverted gratification?
Hint: it's the latter. I agree that those two sets aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But you know what I mean.
First rule of Politician Club: do not get caught short on Law and Order.
The poor response to the Madrid train bombings cost the sitting Spanish government the general election that followed soon after. They're not exactly doing well in the public eye after the recent outrage in Barcelona. We vote politicians in. We sure as hell vote them out at the first opportunity if the Law and Order system breaks down badly. That a politician's first rule; weakness = lost job, especially soon after a high profile incident.
Turn it round the other way. Imagine if Theresa May said there was no problem with paedophilia, hate videos, extremist materials, bomb building instructions, etc being plastered all over YouTube/Twitter/Facebook/etc? Just how long do you think the government would last? Two weeks? If that? So of course she's going to say the opposite. Every politician worth their salt would do exactly the same.
Arguably one might sustain the argument that the politicians should have seen this situation coming and never let companies like YouTube and Facebook be immune to prosecution. Bill Clinton in particular was stunningly naive.
Had that law never been passed, the companies would have grown up insisting on stronger proof of user ID from the very beginning, so that blame for garbage content could be laid against the true perpetrator (the user) to protect the company. With that in place the user could be effectively barred (no more infinite short lived accounts), and if necessary prosecuted and jailed.
Inevitability: However the genie is out of the bottle, and what we're seeing here is an attempt to put the genie back in its bottle.
It's going to be difficult, but it has to happen; there's a high likelihood that the US presidential election was thrown thanks to crap on social media, and there's little to stop paedophilia being shared on Facebook groups (apparently) or similar. This shit really is not healthy for a settled society. Or at least we vote for and pay politicians to come to these decisions on our behalf. We can't really blame them if that's what they then go and do.
If there's laws to be passed, that's the policians job to decide what they should be. Remember we voted for them specifically to do things like that on our behalf? However, it's not their job to solve how the companies should comply with any new law. That's the companies' problem.
The Future? As it happens I think that we're inexorably moving towards a point where companies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. can operate only under license (like normal telecoms providers have to), and the terms of that license will require the companies to know the true identity of their users to a standard suitable for use in a court. None of that means that our real names will be plastered all over the Twitter sphere; we'll still have stupid nicknames. Simply that the companies will have to be able to provide the real name of the user upon a request in the shape of a properly issued Warrant.
This is effectively what China has done.
I say this because it's pretty clear that today's technology is utterly incapable of filtering out the shit automatically. This is basically what the GCHQ chappie was saying. The change I feel coming on is the only answer we have to stopping the shit being uploaded in the first place; make it painful / expensive / jail-time for anyone uploading it in the first place. The technology isn't working; change the operating conditions instead.
It'll probably mean an end to the freetard Internet (a financial transaction would probably be required as sufficient proof of ID). Again, not the governments problem, but it would involve a massive change in the business model of vast swathes of the Internet. For a start none of us would tolerate having to pay to use Facebook and also have them trawl through our identifiable information and sell that on to advertisers...
If overseas companies try to provide a service from off-shore, they'll simply make it illegal to advertise on such a service. That would effectively be a formalisation of the YouTube boycott that sprung up recently.
That's the way the wind is beginning to blow. The Internet companies that bend with that and adapt the quickest will be the ones that will continue to prosper.
Economics: Given that ad funded Internet shit costs each and every tax payer in the UK something like £150 a year via the price of goods in the shops (something has to pay for the ads), a paid for ad free Google or Facebook service would likely save us money. £5 a year? Not a bad deal. And with the companies no longer having to have enormous bit barns to do all that advertising analytics they'd save a ton of cash too.