10 social networks ignored UK government consultations Just four of 14 social networks asked to consult with the UK government on regulation of social media attended the talks, so ministers have revealed plans to require rapid removal of abusive and objectionable material and substantial fines for not doing so. Minister for Digital Margot James and Culture Secretary Matt Hancock …
Why? No matter how you vote, its always the government that gets in.
Well, that's not particularly profound.
And neither really is the disappointing reality that's it's usually the same type of numpties standing for election every time.
It's like having only one local store which only sells a couple of brands of sour milk, and you can't take it or leave it as it's delivered to your door and poured on your cereal anyway.
The Tories may be Rudd-less, but they are definitely not rudderless.
There are in fact 7 different Tory rudders on the good ship Blighty - some people even have their hands on more than one rudder. There are also several engines, mostly operating in opposite directions and pulling the boat apart.
The captain just stands by the wheel murmuring "strong and steady, strong and steady" whilst the damn thing spins like a catherine wheel, and her crew keep tying her shoelaces together.
Rudderless would be a fucking improvement.
No. The number one imperative of a company is to generate a profit. Sometimes the definition of what the profit should look like can sometimes be flexible, it's still the incentive.
On another not, look at how magical thinking around the over-hyped AI, or machine learning for that matter, is roped in to say this is possible with a wave of a politician's hands. Even if you could get them to understand the problems here, you'd never get them to stop invoking Silicon Valley as the great land of Oz.
Magical thinking seems to be the fundamental basis of all Tory policies these days - unicorns, clever cameras that can detect a bottle of whiskey and a Polish plumber in the boot of a car, and now AI.
I wonder what would happen if we asked an AI about whether our politicians are fit for purpose? Smoke coming out of the back?
"I wonder what would happen if we asked an AI about whether our politicians are fit for purpose? Smoke coming out of the back?"
I don't know, let's hand it over to the Allied Mastercomputer and see what it says, shall we?
What smoke coming out of the back? It's just a coincidence that the AI looks just like a crematorium oven. Now if the honourable member for Ham-on-Rye can just lie down, please, we need to put you inside so the machine can scan you.
"On another not, look at how magical thinking around the over-hyped AI, or machine learning for that matter, is roped in to say this is possible with a wave of a politician's hands."
Not that it matters how it's done. Doing it just becomes a cost of doing business irrespective of the AI (that corporations have been hyping) or lots of low-wage workers. It's not just going to be the UK who takes this attitude and by ignoring the issue - and the politicians - the corporations are going to find the cost to be more than it might have been had they taken the matter more seriously, been less encouraging of abuses and more careful about managing politicians' expectations.
> The number one imperative of a company is to generate a profit.
It is not.
The goals of a company will be stated in its founding and/or policy documents, and may or may not involve generating a profit, either as a goal in itself or as a means to achieving something else.
Perhaps you meant "revenue" instead of "profit"?
> The number one imperative of a company is to generate a profit.It is not.
The goals of a company will be stated in its founding and/or policy documents, and may or may not involve generating a profit, either as a goal in itself or as a means to achieving something else.
Perhaps you meant "revenue" instead of "profit"?
Revenue is vanity, Profit is sanity.
The company then might spend most of the profit on worthy causes, but they can only do that as long as the company makes money.
Nope, I meant profit. I did point out that profit can have a different meaning according to company's definition of the term. I could have made that clearer. I will, however, leave with this quote:
"The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit." --- Samuel Gompers
"The goals of a company will be stated in its founding and/or policy documents, and may or may not involve generating a profit, either as a goal in itself or as a means to achieving something else.
Perhaps you meant "revenue" instead of "profit"?"
Oh Bollocks a commercial enterprise that doesn't yield a profit will eventually stop being a commercial enterprise altogether. It doesn't matter what vain, trendy, virtue-signalling bullshit it puts in its policy documents if it fails to make money.
'We are going to ask social media companies to take down abusive content immediately'
I have some serious doubt about the UK government classifying anything as objectionable material.
Based on recent examples quite a few statements by other countries which it claimed to false and/or objectionable material proved to be true in the end. Like it together with Sweden, CZ and USA having Novichok in the 90-es. Now fully confirmed: https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2018-05/geheimdienst-nowitschok-bnd-nervengift-russland
It screamed bloody murder when that was stated 2 months ago. Under this law that would have had to be removed.
In no universe is "false" a synonym for "abusive".
Wait and see and remember my word - this will go together with "fake news counter" censorship into the same legislation making it clear that as far as HMG is concerned false==abusive=="inconvenient truth"
"I have some serious doubt about the UK government classifying anything as objectionable material."
They are unlikely to have much idea, quite a lot of their own statements are objectionable and could even be construed as hateful.
Teresa May:- “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants”.
Just one example that has also gone on to prove flawed and unreasonable to so many people.
I find that quoted tweet exceptionally offensive and demand it be taken down immediately. The author must be fined for quoting a person with no brains; the quoted person must be fined for having no brains; el Reg must be fined for reproducing no brains.
There, AI at its finest.
Who thinks the the UK Government matters and who does not.
And wheather they turned up to the relevant EU Commissioner hearing instead.
60million people versus 490million people in the rest of the EU.
So that's making "Making Britain stronger" means, as one of my British friends put it when they voted Leave.
So that's "Making Britain stronger" as one of my British friends put it when they voted Leave.
Apparently, Europe are going to realise they need the UK and accede to all Brexit wishlist demands
Or so most the Cabinet seem to believe anyway.
May: How are the talks going Boris
Boris: Very well. My sources tell me my plan is working perfectly, although the other side continues to posture for effect.
May: Who exactly are your "Sources" Boris?
Boris: I've been using "The European Research Group." I find them very sound on the important stuff.
How does f*ck right off sound? If for one minute they think that me as a UK taxpayer is going to fund the clean up of social media I don't even use then they can suck my balls. You want a revolution? That there is revolution talk. I will seriously go full revolution on all their asses, no more putting the bins out, I'll stop paying the tv tax and I'll write a strongly worded letter to the newspapers.
Nice.
Nearly thought you were serious there. The "Strongly worded letter to the newspapers" nailed it.
Or in the words of media mogul CA Magnusen "You can do what you like in Britain. They are a nation of herbivores. I try everything in Britain first. If it works there I try it in a real country."
That tells you who the Tories are going to count on to win the next election. Though of course they're all utterly confident they will win because by then everyone will agree that they've made a brilliant job of delivering Brexit to the lasting benefit of everyone in the country.
Yes.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." as Upton Sinclair put it.
Sinclair ran for Governor of California in the late 1940's.
His Campaign Manager was a certain Dr RA Heinlein.
And another "yes" from me.
If "it" wasn't on his PPE course (yes; Hancock studied the Politician's Favorite) then "it" simply doesn't exist.
I wonder whether we should read more into the following in his Wikipedia entry: After university, Hancock briefly worked for his family’s computer software company, such as "he left because he didn't understand it". I wonder just how short a time "briefly" actually means.
>Or as someone else put it "I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you."
I wish that was true. Unfortunately, I'm currently taking a break from trying to understand why these network devices don't want to talk to each other, which I am doing so the people who own said equipment don't have to. Once it starts to work, I can but hope that those people don't find a way to break it again, because they're definitely not going to understand it then either.
I think they understand vaguely about the internet but understand very well that to a majority of voters this looks like they are taking action and sticking it to those pesky social media companies. Given the polarisation of debate and general prevention of discourse they're probably trying to get access to a ban-hammer on platforms they do not control. It is never for the public now is it.
It was only in 1968 that the official role of the Lord Chamberlain in censorship was lifted, leaving the job to unofficial channels. Today's fuss over online contents looks a lot like a call to restore the Lord Chamberlain's role, with the difference being in the sheer numbers of people submitting themselves (albeit not always intentionally) to be censored.
Indeed. If only we had AI, there would be a great many things we could try and apply it to.
What I find interesting is the "social sites should police themselves" attitude. Neatly allows you to wash your hands of the issue, doesn't it ?
You don't ask supermarkets to "police" their customers, do you ? Malls do not have SWAT teams. So why should it be up to social sites to decide what to take down ? Youtube does takedowns based on DCMA requests and that is generally very badly handled because there is very little recourse. You want to see that reproduced on FaceBook and Twitter ? I don't use them and don't really care, but I am convinced that it is a governments' job to force the application of the law.
So someone is not happy about something that has been published, he goes to the cops and files a complaint. The cops check that the illegal nature of the thing is true, then send a takedown request - which is mandatory because The Law - and the site complies, alerting the original poster that a specific piece of his published data has been placed under legal lockdown. If that one is not happy about it, he can file a counter-claim and go to court.
Of course, depending on the level of illegality, he might not even need to go and file a counter-claim ; the police could be knocking at his door to tell him in person that what he posted was not a good idea and could you please follow us, sir ?
However, large shops do generally have security guards, and I would expect that in the case of a non-trivial inter-customer fracas of some kind that that security (or the management) would intervene and try to either calm the situation or move it from the store, and, if necessary, call the police to deal with it.
I would not expect them to pretend it wasn't happening and/or do nothing, claiming it was merely someone else's problem and nothing to do with them [*]
[*] Not the least in their own self interest - that sort of thing is likely to be bad for business.
They do, but said guards have no right to frisk you, they can only detain you until the police arrive.
They generally intimidate you to get you to caugh up whatever they're looking for, but they have no right to touch you.
And supermarkets have no detention cells.
"They do, but said guards have no right to frisk you, they can only detain you until the police arrive."
Statistically you're more likely to be murdered by an armed mall security guard in the USA than by any other type of perpetrator.
On the other hand, statistically you're also more likely to work in the mall concerned, rather than being a customer.
What I find interesting is the "social sites should police themselves" attitude. Neatly allows you to wash your hands of the issue, doesn't it ?
Nonsense. They know perfectly well that's not going to fly.
The object here is to hopefully push it until it becomes a (flawed) reality, then use the failure as an excuse to implement further censorship/blocking/report abusive material - shop in your neighbours, [facebook] friends and family (fabulous prizes to be won) 'for the public good'.
Facebook (also owns Instagram and Whatsapp)
Oath (owns AOL, Tumblr, and Yahoo!)
Bebo
Snap Chat
Blackberry Messenger
Google Plus
Is that list from a couple of years ago?
I wasn't even aware Bebo was still going? And you left out LinkedIn - it's getting more annoying than FB (and if you are of working age, harder to ignore).
@Teiwaz; "I wasn't even aware Bebo was still going?"
Years ago- it must have been before the 2013 bankruptcy- someone I worked with used Bebo and even *then* I was like "are people still using that?!"
But the original Bebo has been dead and gone for several years now. After the company went bankrupt it was sold back to the original founders (#) who shut down the original site and relaunched the company as a designer of social apps that doesn't even call itself a social network any more (##).
Regardless, it's obviously irrelevant nowadays. Involving them in this would be like parliament in 1991 demanding the remnants of Kajagoogoo answer questions about those newfangled illegal acid house raves.
(#) $1m, compared to the $850m (of which $595m was theirs) they apparently sold it for in the first place.
(##) Wikipedia states that "Bebo [..] now describes itself as "a company that dreams up ideas for fun social apps;" Grant Denholm, the man behind the Bebo relaunch, has confirmed that the site will not be returning as a social network but as a company that makes social apps."
" And you left out LinkedIn - it's getting more annoying than FB (and if you are of working age, harder to ignore)."
I thought I had them blocked ouf almost totally - until I found Linkedin preinstalled on my new Samsung phone - and unremovable without rooting as it's in the rom sectiion.
I think one of the strongest anti-sales tactic I can think of is simply to publicise that Samsung has stooped to this level.
I don't know how... They've nailed it with the pr0n verification, this is surely just a bit of scope creep to that project...
They've nailed pron verification?
That's already a serious air crash of Lockerbie proportions (yes, bad taste, hence 'coat'), it's just the airplane's not finished yet, but they're already thinking about boarding while congratulating themselves on another safe flight and lining up exciting new routes, but thousands (possibly tens of thousands) are already hideously burned, it just hasn't happened yet.
>They've nailed it with the pr0n verification
I expected them to wait a while for that to settle in before doing the scope creep to get it covering other websites.
Interestingly, this could set up a big MindGeek vs Facebook battle for who controls all the user profiles on the internet. I know it's like choosing between Trump or Clinton, but it'll be interesting. And if Facebook doesn't get into the porn industry they're leaving the door open for MindGeek to win. Popcorn time.
And if Facebook doesn't get into the porn industry
I thought they already were, It spaffs peoples privates at me constantly, not allowed near it at work and I feel intense shame of even thinking about going near it.
Same thing, whether pink danglies are involved or not
Even if such a magic machine were possible, can you imagine the size of the thing? It'd never be finished being built!
According to a quick bit of Google-Fu, Facebook alone has 300 petabytes of data and adds another 4 petabytes per day, contains 250 billion photographs which grows at a rate of 350 million per day, has nearly 1.5 billion daily active users/2 billion monthly users and growing fast, etc. - which apparently all need scanning and judging automagically to somehow always agree with the government?
Oh look, a flying pig... Haha.
Even if such a magic machine were possible, can you imagine the size of the thing? It'd never be finished being built!
Whether or not it could be built (and whether or not, as a government I.T. project it could be built, which has a much more complex set of probabilities, but generally can be summarised as "no, no, fail, fail, lob another couple of billion tax money on the bonfire then scrap it until after next election"), such practicalities are not of any interest to the current political crop.
If they decide they wants it, it must be made to happen, and they'll keep on harping about it until they either get it or changes in technology/society/nefarious agenda result in a change in tack.
or changes in technology/society/nefarious agenda result in a change in tack.
So, what do you reckon? A 15-20% chance they'll change their minds for any reason short of a nuclear Armageddon?
It would be beautifully ironic if the nuclear Armageddon was initiated by an AI becoming self-aware. At least we'd have that to console ourselves with, as we fight the machines back and forth across the radioactive wasteland between Slough and Windsor.
"which apparently all need scanning and judging automagically to somehow always agree with the government?"
Facebook can always take the same solution as Google did with the media laws in Spain and Germany.
I'd give the government about 2 weeks at most in the face of a Facebook blockade, largely because most of the other big guys would join the boycott.
Citizens deprived of their ability to gossip online start becoming uppity.
Outside of all the same old same old jokes about politicians and Brexit. The government does have a point. There is a problem (or possibly just according to the masses) on social media with abuse and the such like. As the government, they are expected to try to do something about it. Much like the 'gig economy' it was all left to the companies to police/prove benefits/help society/make profit but over time it all just got a little too freewheeling. So now regulation is demanded by society and our elected stale loaves/sour milk lot need to respond.
What the 4/14 turning up does show, is a general arrogance and assumption that tech companies and in particular the larger ones are above the law, an assumption based on the fact that government and society has bowed down to our new overlords.
So it doesn't matter if the sour milk lot bumble around AI and make nonsense statements, it has come to a point where they need to do something and clearly the social media companies concerned will only respond to financial threats rather than a polite invite to chat over tea. So bring out the financial and legal threats.
There are some situations where one should hold both sides equally in comtempt, and that's pretty much the case here.
The social media companies with their pathological, self-serving disregard for privacy and users' interests have only themselves to blame for the results of arrogantly thinking they could get away with riding roughshod over everything and not have to justify themselves.
On the other side, there's the current authoritarian, right-wing government's knee-jerk being-seen-to-be-doing-something response dictating what should be done from a position of complete technical ignorance about how things work or what is possible. But what would you expect from the party that- quite contemptibly- announced "people in this country have had enough of experts" when it conflicted with their own dogma and self interest and bred Amber "Necessary Hashtags" Rudd?
JPs test for "AI" for Google (other epic fails are available)
Does:
"show me all sandals with no mention of velcro"
return what you wanted. Or does it see the word "velcro" in the search terms and return the *exact opposite* of what you asked for ?
Rinse and repeat for anything subtle and nuanced
Until that works, AI ain't gonna do squat to "police da interwebs". And people should stop pretending it will.
I came across in The Atlantic yesterday which is on point. Germany's Attempt to Fix Facebook Is Backfiring - Right-wing politicians are pouncing on an ambitious law seeking to curb hate speech online.
The government invited 14 'social networks' but that term in just a buzz word for a site that lets users upload and share their own content.
Now if we consider that there are 1000s of forums and chat rooms that allow people to do the same as 'social networks' and upload and share content then the problem is no longer the fact that only 4 bother to show up, but that the government are only considering whatever laws they decide to bring in will only effect 14 platforms. Where as in reality it could kill off a lot of smaller sites run by communities for none profit because they can't employ moderators or have the expertise to set up AI.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
