It worked for bikes why not social media?
Complete with a special section for stories from dear old Uncle Vlad..........
UK comms watchdog Ofcom is to be handed new powers to police social media's handling of harmful content. Sanctions for lack of compliance with new duty-of-care laws aren't set in stone, but powers to shut down sites entirely via ISPs remain on the table, as well as the ability to issue fines of up to 4 per cent of a company's …
Yeah, the Internet is such a hotbed of child grooming.
Unlike Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale.. I could go on.. and on.. because the child rapists did, because the police are far more interested in prosecuting someone for misgendering another person online than in pursuing child rapists.
Yeah, I'm pissed off about this.
That's right, concentrate on the brown people. There's certainly not been any rich or influential people involved in fucking kids in this country, why would you think that? Put the idea out of your mind, and go back to concentrating on the brown people like a good little citizen, of course you're not being manipulated...
Baroness Morgan of Cotes PC, if you please.
Her previous intervention on a contentious public statement was to condemn it, refuse to work with the author and vow to fight against him.
The author was Boris Johnson with whom she is now happily working and co-operating.
Admittedly, Facebook can't offer peerages, but Nick Clegg has a knighthood and they still managed to make him an offer he couldn't refuse. So I don't suppose they have to worry.
Canada is looking at something similar. The Internet has become such a horrid shitshow that it seems inevitable.
The likes of Google and Facebook have refused time and again to step up and manage what they publish. It was only a matter of time before public pressure forced governments to step in.
Besides, I still trust government marginally more than Facebook.
They aren't thrilled with the personal prison terms part, but it doesn't worry them for a few reasons:
1. They plan on making a few edits to the law before it goes into effect. They were able to do that in California, why not the U.K., Australia, or anywhere else who tries it?
2. They're pretty sure the people responsible for enforcing that law won't go after someone as high-profile as they are; the regulators might target their businesses but are unlikely to try to penalize the officers personally. Given who has been getting GDPR fines and how big they are, they probably have good reason to think this.
3. These people don't live in the countries which have been instating such restrictions. They'd certainly prefer not to have to avoid some country, but it's not like they'll lose the place where all their expensive stuff is.
4. Such regulations must be scary to the small company that might compete with them, so it has some pretty nice upsides when you come to think of it, doesn't it? If any one of the above points happens, their companies now have extra security on their monopolies.
“ Regulations act as a moat, preventing startup companies from competing with the existing players who can afford to follow the expensive regulation.”
Just like wealth taxes that keep the wealthy wealthy and make it harder for others to become wealthy.
Also like smart meters and ever changing (Dynamic?) prices, only the poorest will pay attention and consume at cheapest times, the better off will just continue to consume electric or gas as and when they want, regardless.
> the better off will just continue to consume electric or gas as and when they want, regardless.
I sort of agree your point, but some of us with electric cars are actively using dynamic pricing to reduce our cost per mile with an added benefit of helping balance the grid and offset some CO2.
Money isn't necessarily the only motivator to those who can afford to make decisions.
Do you have economy 7 or an smart meter that your car syncs with and charges at the cheapest rate?
If things are autonomous that’s great, but the way they are talking, minute by minute pricing, the price could shoot up in the 10 mins after the end of EastEnders or what ever is popular and causes spikes, slowly getting cheaper before the next spike, it’ll likely be cheap over night though. Not everyone is able to put their washer or dryer on over night due to noise. some older consumers may even be reluctant to make a cup of tea if the cost is too high. It’s ok for you to charge your car over night, especially as. It many people have electric cars, once we all have electric cars the grid won’t cope with overnight charging. Most consumers consume far far less overnight than during the day, suddenly charging several cars concurrently will result in far higher than daytime usage on domestic portions of the grid not designed to support the those high demands. Things will break in very bad ways.
"... only the poorest will pay attention and consume at cheapest times, the better off will just continue to consume electric or gas as and when they want, regardless."
That, and the idiotic pseudo-logics from the government about us saving money by only turning on the lights when it is cheapest are contrary to all human behaviour.
Smart meter or dumb, or even "power too cheap to meter" I am going to turn on the lights if it is dark and I am awake, I am going to cook when I need food and I am going to have a bath or shower if I can smell my spoor from two weeks away. The price of power *can't* affect what I turn on. All it can ever do is make me worry about the bills more.
"Smart" meters are one of the most idiotic and wasteful ideas any government has ever dreamed up. It is *stupid*.
Of course, it being almost as dumb an idea as HS2 just makes it ever so much more attractive to the wassochs in Parliament.
No it is not. Here in Portugal we have 3 rates, with hours changing between summer and winter.
The effect is that the majority of dishwashers and washing machines sold can be programmed to run later, i.e. typically during the night.
A lot of homes also have electric water heaters (as boilers are not that common), and they also make sense to run at night - we have timeswitches for the immersion heaters that support the solar heating of water.
BTW, I think you will find that illumination is a very small part of your electricity consumption
Smart meters over here will vary the charges minute by minute,
Expletive won’t be able to predict when is cheap or not, we are meant to check before starting something, I guess we should also check during consuming to ensure the price didn’t rocket up during. Problem will be if smart charging a car and the car doesn’t charge enough as the cost didn’t go down enough to be under a predetermined threshold.
Inevitable indeed, but oh so easily avoided.
Make payment for online services obligatory, no more of this freetard ad funded business model.
Advantages: 1) bad content is strongly linked to an identifiable person, good enough for a prosecution. The responsibility for bad content is then easily laid at the feet of whoever put it there. The service provider is then off the hook. 2) easy prosecutions will soon lead to sufficient publicity that everyone learns “don’t muck around on the internet”. 3) with a real revenue stream service providers no longer have to resort to questionable intrusions of privacy like they do at present. Result; better relationships with users (who’d become customers), and more ad free websites. 4) no energy is wasted on running analytics so the IT industry becomes cleaner.
Neutrals: as a regulatory requirement its a level playing field for all service providers and makes for more competition.
Disadvantages: the server and storage markets take a big dive.
Any other points? We used to pay for online services like Compuserve, and bad behaviour wasn’t very apparent back then.
"Make payment for online services obligatory, no more of this freetard ad funded business model."
That, indirectly, is more or less what is being proposed. If it becomes impossible to police the content under the current "ad-finananced, free at point of delivery" business model, then businesses will switch to something that lets them push the legal burden onto those creating the content. As you point out, a follow-the-money apporach would probably be effective.
It mostly works in the Real World, after all. When was the last time you saw images on a public billboard of someone actually being raped? It's unthinkable that anyone would be stupid enough to even try it, let alone that they'd get away with it. And yet, the same thing is possible on the web (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51391981).
If the internet's freedom fighters spent less time spouting platitudes and more time engaging with their fellow citizens, we could probably figure out a workable way of doing this. As things stand, however, I'm afraid that the likes of Nicky Morgan are going to be given no help and will come up with something that causes a whole lot of colateral damage.
You need to consider the downsides of that. What you're asking for, however indirectly, is destruction of anonymity. That sounds great when you first think about it. But when you don't have anonymity, you can't have privacy. Anything you do that leaves a trace can be linked to you, and anything you do that is merely passive (E.G. paying for and reading content but not writing comments) can be linked if the providers' records ever get released. You may think this kills the advertisers and analytics monsters, but you are wrong. In fact, it may strengthen some, because there is now less difficulty in creating a model of user activity that tracks more of what they do online. Even if advertising on the internet were made entirely illegal everywhere, someone would be willing to buy that data and use it for advertisements offline. And that's the positive scenario where the most they want to do with your data is convince you to buy something. If you think too much about it, lots of other possibilities unfurl from there. Some are nice. Some are very, very bad.
Just like my phone (landline or mobile) and probably a zillion other ways in which a commercial provider could invade my privacy. Somehow we survive.
And I'm only giving up my anonymity to each site on a case-by-case basis, which I'm doing to a large extent *already* based on my IP address and (if I permit) first-party cookies.
And, where I live, the ability of those providers to sell onward my personal profile was (until fairly recently) barred by GDPR.
Yes, but whilst you would probably consider CrazyShit a shitshow (no pun intended), I happen to like it. Thus the very bottom-line, highly distilled reason that censorship of things on the Internet is not easily accomplished. You don't like stuff I like, I don't like stuff you like, and it goes on endlessly...
> groundbreaking technology, that is trusted by and protects everyone in the UK
Haha I've got news for you Nicky. I don't trust anyhing you espouse, especially technology, and if it's anything like the Pirate Bay blocks it won't "protect" anyone in my household and many others in the slightest.
Just how they think this can be enforced is beyond me.
I think they need to send this one along with the you must give us your encrypted communications but it won't be used by the bad guys to the newly created Ministry of Magical Thinking (at least then the name would be accurate).
If people want to see the stuff, they will find it.
However, a lot of this hate and abuse is being forced on people who don't want to see it. They are not going to start installing vpns and proxy servers so that they can receive rape threats from people they want to avoid.
Unfortunately, it doesn't. This is mostly because the net has lost much of its ability to route around damage of any kind. If I want to cut off certain areas, there is usually a relatively small set of cables I have to cut or interfere with to do so. Of course it's difficult if I want to take out a continent, but if I'm a government and I want to interfere with my country's networks, I have a lot of power to do that. I can't find the context for the quote, but I'm wondering if it might refer to an individual node on the network deciding to censor, which is a small enough problem that it likely would be routed around.
Because the internet is so complex, it can be tricky to achieve perfect censorship. But that's just because there are so many things the end-user can do to try to get around whatever is put in place. The tough details of getting past the censors are almost never handled by the network; they're done by the person who wants to get at the other end. The global internet may be a resilient beast, but the local internet that each of us relies on is fragile. We need to prevent the people running around with hammers from hitting something important.
Wrong. They are the UK government. Their budget is finite and shows no signs of increasing in the next few years. Quite the reverse. We've just spaffed over a hundred billion on a train set, Boris is talking about another few dozen billion for a bridge, and I read elsewhere that the City of London (a fair chunk of our economy) is facing an existential threat.
"Boris is talking about another few dozen billion for a bridge"
He needs somewhere to put the customs point that he insists won't happen. If anybody seriously wants to improve traffic between Britain & N Ireland they should upgrade the A75 to dual carriageway all the way - and with no more roundabouts in the entire length than they currently have around Dumfries.
Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Nicky Morgan said: "With Ofcom at the helm of a proportionate and strong regulatory regime, we have an incredible opportunity to lead the world in building a thriving digital economy, driven by groundbreaking technology, that is trusted by and protects everyone in the UK," while also pledging to keep the internet "vibrant and open".
Morgan is a halfwit, and this "incredible opportunity" guff is proof.
This is basically government-controlled censorship. Which is a *very* slippery slope. The harm done by people saying or writing nasty, offensive or outrageous things is not nearly as bad as the government and media will have you believe. You won't collapse into a quivering pile of traumatised jelly at the sight of child pornography. If reading bad words and politically incorrect views upset you terribly, perhaps you would be better served by analysing exactly why you find it offensive, and giving as good as you get. If you are frightened that hate-speech will result in violence and terrorism, mayby you should respond with logical and reasoned counter-arguments rather than closing your eyes and pretending that if it's not on Twitter then it doesn't exist. If people write "fake news", then other people should write pieces that cast doubt on its veracity. And seeing the occasional bit of pornography or a few nasty words won't damage your child, I promise.
All in all, I believe that the danger of censorship is so great that I do not condone its use even in the few areas I believe it might be a good thing, except on a very temporary basis (e.g. not permitting media to live-stream a police operation that would tip-off the perps as to what's happening, etc). Its use as a tool of propaganda by governments and organizations that want to suppress facts and contrary opinions is just too great a temptation. Just about any opinion that is critical of the government could be twisted so as to be labelled "terrorism," "hate-speech" or "offensive".
You won't collapse into a quivering pile of traumatised jelly at the sight of child pornography.
There has been stuff which I have been emailed which has nearly made me puke and I'm not a wimp.
It wasn't child pornography, just the normal stuff that should turn one's stomach, for example the end result of someone jumping out of a high-rise window and thinking; ground! I wonder if it will be friends with me?
And seeing the occasional bit of pornography or a few nasty words won't damage your child, I promise.
I wouldn't want any child to see all that I've seen.
This is the problem; I would tend to agree that most stuff doesn't harm kids or anyone but I don't buy that nothing does, or that "anything goes".
I wouldn't want any child to see all that I've seen.
Having fought in a war, nor would I. Unfortunately many children *did* not only see, but experienced those things. No matter how bad you think some photographs on the Internet are, I can assure you that real life is far worse in many places, and nobody can censor that.
You found images of the grisly aftermath of an accident or violence nauseating. Others will be equally upset by the sight of cows in an abbotoir. Others by starving children. All of which in my opinion are far worse sights than the sort of content our government and the moral crusaders is worried about. If we cleanse the Internet of all upsetting content, it will be a make-believe fairytale place where everything is good and everyone happy. Is that really desirable? Do you really believe that "Out of sight, out of mind" is a good policy?
This is basically government-controlled censorship.
Shhhh, you numpty! Say it too loud, and Donald the Dipshit will hear, and then he'll want it, and then everything will get all dicked up. The only reason we don't have it already is that he's to dumb to know what the word "censorship" actually means.
Not to mention that he can't spell it....
"The US's controversial "Section 230" makes companies liable for user-generated content that could be linked to human trafficking and coerced sex work. In practice, this has led to overzealous self-policing"
It doesn't seem to have had any effect on Usenet pimp spam from Google Groups, more's the pity.
And it has made it harder to find sex traffickers, abusive pimps.
Previously US agencies could get details from easily found & well known to general public websites to help in investigations (e.g. BackPage) , now that companies are taking cautious route then the ads are no longer there on sites that used to help the police. Thus it makes job of police more difficult as helpful potential evidence now far harder to find.
And, as has been said, much worse for sex workers as the sites that allowed them to work more safely are now nuked.
I can see this being a bit of a joke. How do they "regulate" social media that's not based in this country, not to mention millions of websites? They don't do a lot about anything, anyway, other than slap TV stations' wrists every now and again for inappropriate content after the watershed - or something like that!
No need to worry about the small fry as the vast majority of use is Facebook and its few chums. Simply fining them real amounts (i.e. few percent of global turnover) for any shit posted will work very well.
Why? Because they depend on advertisers' payments and the gov/HMRC can take steps against companies operating in the UK. Might shore up the treasury coffers as well...
I was wondering about this as the other thing Section 230 does is provide YouTwitFaceAgram protection from prosecution based on posts on their site - basically it says they are not a publisher and they only host content. So technically, in the US at least they cannot be prosecuted for content on their site - even though the powers that be threaten it every now and then. Add in the US first amendment that stops government censorship and basically anyone can post anything as long as it is not illegal - immoral is fine.
How does that sit with the UK where we have fairly broad laws on what constitutes hate speech. We have a much more morality based take on what people can publish
An American post ranting about race/gender/sexuality etc. is perfectly fine in the US but may not be in the UK - what are OFCOM going to do about that??
I don't understand why the plod don't take it as a gift. Here you have people committing crimes *on camera*. Mostly on Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, who will all have a good idea who the uploader is. Subpoena to get the perp's details and then prosecute the crap out of them. Police are seen to be doing something; crime gets dealt with; and it might do plod's public image some good.
There's much that I don't like. Unfortunately for me, people have a right to do what they want regardless of my disapproval. Sometimes we win, though. Look at how easily we shut down that one site I really, really can't tolerate known as The Pirate Bay. Oh wait...
What is OFCOM going to do? Fine the tech companies peanuts? Order ISPs to block them? Or be a toothless shark?"
Yes, blocking Facebook and similar would be a REAL vote catcher for the politicians wouldn't it?
Facebook et al, is like a drug to some people. They just can't seem to be able to keep away from it for five minutes.
So much for freedom. Where is personal responsibility? If your children view bad content, that's on you, not Google. Watch your own damn children. Besides, what constitutes violence(one of the criteria)? Practically, anything worth watching that comes out of Hollywood might be considered to have violent content.