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 …
People need to grow a brain and learn to make choices instead of having an algorithm, a law, company or Government do it for them. It is quite simple, don't want to see certain content block it (social media) or scroll/click away from it. Don't like what is on television or radio? Change the channel or turn it off, stream a video of your choice, watch a DVD or VHS, read a book, challenge yourself and learn something. 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.
There are already filters built into browsers to block content, there are tools and ways to block content from children. With a simple google search you can block websites using the host file on Windows, there are programs that will do it for you. Use your brain instead of crying for someone else to make the decisions for you!
The thing is that the serfs must be wholly engaged with the in work in corporate labour camps while their children get indoctrinated to be even better serfs.
You can't have parents doing the parenting, because they may teach children about something called freedom, respect, values and people with such values are difficult to be installed as cogs building up billionaires' wealth.
While I agree with parenting being important and it being the job of parents and not the government, there are limits.
I use Family Link to limit which apps are installed and how long my kids can use their phones for.... but also with an eye to them taking on more responsibility as they get older. I talk to them about how to use the internet and social media, the school does classes on it (surprisingly good ones) ..... However as long as it easy to access "harmful content" and especially where it's easy to stumble upon it, what can I do?
Obviously by the time they're 16 I hope they're educated enough to click away but it's not so easy when they're younger unless I sit and watch them all the time.... and even at 16 a local girl committed suicide after being bullied online and I don't think that was the fault of her parents.
For me the ideal solution is to make harmful content harder to stumble upon and for moderation of groups to prevent bullying..... but then that raises other problems... how can we respect privacy if Whatsapp chat groups are all monitored? Who gets to say what harmful content is? Who gets to say what kids can and can't say to each other? Who draws the line between bad taste or things we don't agree with and things which are harmful?
>Who gets to say what harmful content is? Who gets to say what kids can and can't say to each other? Who draws the line between bad taste or things we don't agree with and things which are harmful?
That's not the point. The point is we need official ID cards that can be used to verify your age online and track which websites you visit.
We also need to ban VPNs so your can't just go and see naughty foreign websites.
We then need a law that lets us close down 'harmful' websites without having to specify why.
Oh well the clock just struck 13 so back to work....
>Children are killing themseves due to what they encounter online
I thought children were killing themselves because of hidden messages in that Rock Music ?
> the government that has to step in and stop the minority from ruining things for everyone else.
The same government that grew up in the 80s when the then government was banning "Frankie goes to Hollywood" from the TV
Raised by parents who grew up in the 50s when the government was banning Elvis
Children are also killing themselves for the simple reason of not being accepted in our society - one of the largest groups of teenage suicide are LGBTQ who feel ostracized by their peers, society, and even their own parents. Sometimes the government makes that situation worse, declaring them persona non grata in their own homes and lives.
This is not a simple topic, certainly. But telling your society that 'We'll fix things!' by restricting the internet, whilst at the same time telling other segments of the population that they aren't even worthy of being *in* the society, is nothing but pure hypocrite.
You don't think that maybe a women, sorry a person with a uterus, might not feel that a person born male can "become" female?
Before you hit the downvote button, let me just ask why you may think that a genetic female would be wrong to think that.
It's a very complicated subject that absolutely doesn't need the input of shouty keyboard warriors calling for people to be cancelled because of having an opinion that they happen to disagree with.
(note: I'm male and I don't really give a crap how somebody identifies)
> You don't think that maybe a women, sorry a person with a uterus, might not feel that a person born male can "become" female?
So what? Anyway, that's a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with transphobia.
Note that the sort of bullshit thrown against trans people is the same sort of stuff that was thrown against gays in the 80's.
Why is that acceptable?
"So what?"
And there is the problem neatly summed up. "I'm right, you are wrong". The Ana Kasparian 2016 "I'm better than you!" reaction.
Biological females who have fought for decades against the system to carve out their own bit are now seeing biological males entering their space and if they say anything they get attacked, sometimes physically, often by other biological males. If you go to a womens only spa you don't expect to see someones meat and 2 veg. You work your butt off to be the best at something and someone 6" taller than you with 50% more muscle mass comes along and sets a new womens record time and you have to stand there and accept it.
>> "So what?"
> And there is the problem neatly summed up. "I'm right, you are wrong". The Ana Kasparian 2016 "I'm better than you!" reaction.
What the hell are you talking about? Making shit up and then arguing against it is the classic weak strawman.
I never said I was right (or anyone was wrong) - how you can read that into 2 simple words is beyond crazy.
Here's a quick recap. The talk was about TRANSPHOBIA.
transphobia
noun [ U ] disapproving
UK /trænsˈfəʊ.bi.ə/ US /trænsˈfoʊ.bi.ə/
harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of transgender and non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with) :
His critics accused him of transphobia for his comments.
policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to cisgender people (= people whose gender matches the body they were born with) and unfair or harmful treatment of transgender and non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with) :
Heytick replied "You don't think that maybe a women, sorry a person with a uterus, might not feel that a person born male can "become" female?"
My "so what?" clearly meant "So what? That is no reason to excuse transphobia"
So please, explain how what a woman thinks is justification for my friend being put in hospital because they dared to wear a dress?
Just like if some men doesn't think men should be gay, it doesn't justify homophobic actions.
And there you go with the old trope "men are saying they are women just so they can attack women." In the 80's you were probably saying all gay men were sexually attracted to young boys.
The rest of your post, it's so obvious you're American. You are pulling the same lines that the idiots who watch fox use. Fortunately, most of the American on this forum aren't part of the crazy-sauce.
Until you right-wingers started this cultural a few years ago, there was never an issue. In Europe we have mixed sex bathrooms. The sky hasn't fallen in.
trans people aren't a new thing, you know... Still, even most of you know it's not cool to attack gays now, so it's immigrants, and trans people. Always a fake bogeyman to deflect from the real issues in an attempt to justify your hatred.
Not a 'murican.
Someone is perfectly allowed to hold the opinion that a biological male cannot become a 'woman'. It is (for the moment) completely legal to hold dissenting opinions. Some women, who are not 'far right', do not want to see any dangly bits in their single sex spaces.
"So please, explain how what a woman thinks is justification for my friend being put in hospital because they dared to wear a dress?"
Did I say that? I think you'll find I didn't.
What I did point out was further elaborated on by the person you're replying to who pointed out the very real fact that men who become woman are wanting to participate in female sports with a make physiology which gives them the very benefit that the split between male and female sports exist because of, and any woman who dares to question this gets labelled transphobic and shouted down to hell and back.
So, I ask again, what makes that point of view any less valid? Females that are biologically male aren't biologically female, yet saying such a thing gets considered a form of hate speech. Why? Can a guy give birth? Have periods? Can a woman have an erection? There are actual differences. Why is it wrong to observe this?
As for your friend, that sort of treatment isn't helpful either.
I do not think that is the case. The western world is bending over backwards to do anything and everything to make these kids 'feel accepted', the problem is that they are highly likely not having the issue they are being told they are having, hence causing metal issues.
Parents and teachers are always trying to fit kids problems into 'current thing'. E numbers, then ADHD, then MMR makes you autistic, then aspergers... Make the child fit the problem, no need to think to hard, tick, another one solved, NEXT!
Also if their friends are doing 'current thing' then they need to do it too. If their favourite influencer is doing it, they need to do it. Kids can't see how all of it is just made up and utterly fake as they are so immersed in it.
" The western world is bending over backwards to do anything and everything to make these kids 'feel accepted',"
In Europe and the UK, certainly!
But here in the U.S., not a chance. From the Bathroom bills to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law, to current attempts to prosecute parents of teens who seek gender affirmation treatments, the right-wing of the U.S. is fully embedded in making these teens feel less accepted, and this attempt at stigmatization is a hot discussion topic here. I'm sorry if you either aren't paying attention (highly understandable if you aren't located in the U.S.), or are indeed a U.S. citizen but in denial.
Gays are currently wondering if its even safe to go out with friends, what with the Club Q and Pulse attacks. For example, just today
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/03/drag-queen-clubq-shooting/
and you're claiming that society is "bending over backwards" for them?! Some of society certainly *are* bending over backwards to try to make them feel included...because the other part of the same society (in the U.S.) is 'bending over backwards' to eliminate and hide them from society.
>Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law
Could you please quote the part that you believe is harmful? I'm assuming you mean House Bill 1557 (2022). Reading the bill, the points I could parse from it relate to:
-notifying parents about all mental and physical care provided by the school, with the exception being notifications that risk parental abuse
-requiring sexual/gender identity education to be 'age appropriate' for those under 12
-empowering parents to take legal actions against a school when the bill is violated
If possible, could you please also give an example of something that you feel would be beneficial for a child but which this law would prohibit?
I can give you an example, it is right there in your last bullet point. A school has more than one child, and usually there are many parents involved in a given school. Now imagine one, just one parent, going off and "taking legal action" because they, and they alone, feel that the bill was violated. Not likely to happen? Look at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/10/vicky-hartzler-nephew-same-sex-marriage-republican-tearful. At least in my quoted case the one lonely "but think of the children" moron was badly outvoted.
" the right-wing of the U.S. is fully embedded in making these teens feel less accepted, and this attempt at stigmatization is a hot discussion topic here"
Yes it is. While the left wing is busy stigmatising anyone who sees this very complex issue with any nuance, rather than a complete black and white issue where they are by definition always right. Very unfortunately for the US, everything is ultra-politicised, so things like transgender issues and anything Covid related end up being an us vs them, left vs right with no attention paid to the complex medical and scientific realities.
> Kids can't see how all of it is just made up and utterly fake as they are so immersed in it.
Also they don't have the benefit of experience and hindsight.
Like, by the third time you've seen a "regime change in the name of democracy" you start thinking "oh, I didn't know these guys had oil over there".
Who gets to say when ADULTS can continue to be adults and have the ability to choose options that haven't been made child-proof???
The entire world does NOT have to be made child-proof for the benefit of someone [else's] children. As an adult I damn well expect that I [continue] to have all the rights and benefits of actually being an adult and that means participating in, and having access to, adult-level concepts and materials. Yes, that includes PrOn. As long as it does not harm anyone else (which, for example, underage pron does), what I choose to do needs to stay my own business and not made a topic of regulation.
I am tired of the Disneyfication of the entire world, thinking of "the children!".
If they really wanted to tackle the problem of children seeing harmful content, they would have done it in a completely different way.
For instance, it would be illegal to give child a phone, tablet, computer that does not have parental controls installed, specifically with allowlists that only a number of websites could be accessed.
For the platform to get on such list they would have to demonstrate how they keep creeps at bay and content is moderated and suitable for children.
That of course means things like Facebook would be banned for people under 16. If they wanted to stay in touch with friends, they could just as their parents could - using phone calls or text messages. Schools could have created a "social network" where only pupils and their parents could use and that could be heavily monitored.
"For instance, it would be illegal to give child a phone, tablet, computer that does not have parental controls installed, specifically with allowlists that only a number of websites could be accessed."
Exactly. Hasidic Jews have no problem restricting their children from accessing any forms of popular culture that the parents do not like - children are not allowed on the internet, watching TV or movies, unless the parents have directly approved and allowed the access.
So it *is* possible to parent in today's society. Shocker, I know.
I think kids have pretty much given up on Facebook now, it's mostly their parents on there wondering where all the kids have gone.
Telegram is the place to be, with its wonderful end to end encryption and complete lack of monitoring.
Also, WhatsApp groups for the same reason...
> they give you the choice of whether you want to interact with verified users or cowards who hide behind anonymity to attack and bully others.
I down voted you because I always post AC while being well aware that that carries a certain amount of extra responsibility.
However, you do have a point that posts made under someone's civil (aka "real") name seem to be more moderate in general.
The downside is that they're also vulnerable to the one psychopath that always shows up in time to crash the party.
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.
Exactly this... All the hype is about "big tech" but it equally applies to any content that can be accessed by a child.
Moved from Twitter to set up a Mastodon server? This now applies to you too for example (worth reading the OSB primer too)
I wait to see the fallout when the likes of the Daily Mail etc. pause the think of the children nonsense and realise this applies to their toxic comments section too. Quite a bit of legal but harmful BS on there!
Well, actually this is all just window dressing. Two reasons:
(1) The bill is suggesting that multiple impossible things can be done online before breakfast....
(2) ...and, as usual, there's absolutely no sign of a budget for enforcement
As to item #2, a good example of the lack of enforcement comes from GDPR:
- Link: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-deepmind-16m-patient-royal-free-deal-data-protection-act
Yup....1.6 million medical records slurped....absolutely no sign of any "consent"....and no enforcement activity in the subsequent five years.
......and that's what law making like this is about...."We're doing something!"....and not one penny will be spent on enforcement!!!
the good old days of IRC and FTP to share the naughty stuff then.
Until the the great british firewall is erected.
But then I guess that will be like youtubes algorithms that forces me to sign in with a credit card to prove my age to watch some friends play a video game, but will quite happily let me watch pulp fiction's 'apartment' scene uncensored
"say 'what' again I double dare you ....."
You cannot realistically eradicate all kind of internet-caused harm or self-harm, because there will always be other reasons for people to suffer or make others suffer.
Thus the question: Is some particular content so extremely bad as to justify the usage of large scale filters, and to slow down economic activity by forcing companies of different sizes to spend enormous amounts of resources on non-trivial censorship tasks.
Internet-illiteracy is another problem. Education is the answer. Introduce school courses with an obligatory exam on basic internet hygiene, such as not to share private photos or information online, to understand what URL means, how internet scam looks like. Showcase cases of suicide and bullying. Make children and then adults smarter and aware.
Disinformation wars is where the real danger is now. One solution can be enforcing tight quotas on publishing and commenting from unverified accounts to prevent anonymous information hoses. On the other side of the "information food-chain" you cannot realistically manage how much and how people consume information.
People of the past used to face horrible things in the real world and managed to survive. Many modern adults have to face real world dangers anyway. They have to learn about those dangers early in life, not to be isolated from them. Evolution doesn't stop: as the recent cases of all kind of hot and cold wars show.
Maybe we shouldn't try to create an environment sterile from all possible "pathogens". Unless extremely harmful and large scale. This makes a population stronger. Spend time with your children instead of letting them uncontrollably browse the internet as the substitute of your parenting responsibilities.
Free speech and anonymity have certain proven benefits to be taken away just like that.
This post has been deleted by its author
I don't know about you, but I didn't believe the stovetop was hot until the moment after I burned my finger.
Is it really Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop?
Is Jimmy Hoffa in a barrel of concrete on the bottom of Lake Michigan?
Who owns the 8mm porno starring Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy in the Lincoln bedroom?
Ah, but if nobody was there to hear you scream, did you really burn your finger?
And apropos of nothing, it was me who bought the MM+JFK tape from Jimmy Hoffa, and the laptop was abandoned by the person I sold it to after they used the laptop to digitise the 8mm film. No doubt the digital version will turn up as an NFT at some point, and the 8mm tape will join Hoffa at an unspecified location
You can add all the technical mechanisms you want, but ultimately trying to resolve a people problem with technology is doomed for failure.
Unless the UK is proposing effectively creating a walled garden internet in the UK, where all sites must comply with these rules, then it won't work. International services will continue to exist that don't follow the rules. Children will find ways around blocks easily enough. VPN services are easy to find and easy to use.
Just ask any IT staff in schools - keeping children off sites they're not supposed to be on is a constant task - new sites appear daily. A giant game of whack-a-mole.
Pray tell, how will this be implemented? Photos of a current passport and/or other identity document carrying a picture (driving licence)?
They can all fuck right off if that's the case. The last thing any of us should be handing to any social media company is even more personal information.
If this government was halfway competent, there would be a method of connecting to a government account (such as HMCR or NHS or whatever) and obtaining a short "key" to copy-paste where the government verifies that this person with this name and email address is really a real person, with no other PII sent.
I'm with you, but it makes no difference (Lab/Con/Whatevs).
We're IT. We know we can run all scenarios through a box and "come up with the right response". They[1] just want their day in the sunlight. It makes no difference which party, the other will argue, stuff doesn't get productive. They just want to justify their existence.
[1] The Connivance of Politicians. (I'm promoting that collective noun!)
[Icon: for the empowered girls and boys.]
It does matter. The party that will expand government the slowest is the best option and the party that will expand it the fastest is the worst.
Since the left conspired to remove the only PM + Chancellor that actually intended to shrink the state two months ago, holding back the frontiers of the state is the best we can hope for.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Just imagine what horrors the Labour party are going to inflict on us after the next election.
Did you learn that after using the tabloid press as training data for the last decade or so? Do you just parrot it as truth now even though you have know knowledge of why you believe it or how it got there? Would ChatGPT regurgitate the same phrase?
You are confusing politics with sports. Your "team" aren't always right. Your "team" aren't magically better than everybody else. The other "team" aren't choosing to do a bad job.
The idea that the hundred or so ministers wearing the "wrong" coloured tie have any real effect on the efficiency of an organisation that spends around a trillion pounds a year is just silly.
Or just keep chanting "come on you reds".
We've had a centre-left government continuously since 1997. And again, I'm not talking about individuals or individuals performances or even individual policies.
I'm talking about the poisonous ideology of everybody from Tony Blair to Rishi Sunak ( Liz Truss excepted ) that the state should gradually increase in size and scope until there is nothing else.
You mean Rishi Sunak's centre-left government who is talking about leaving the ECHR so they can remove asylum seekers?
Only Greece when it was under a fascist dictatorship and Russia which is an autocracy have left it so far.
Calling the current Tory government centre left is patently absurd.
Good morning DOTW ~
Well, if I've misunderstood then I've misunderstood.
I'm certainly not interested in attacking you, anyone else here, or creating a flame war. I apologise if I've overstepped the mark. I read El Reg articles and comments to learn from those more knowledgable than me in their fields in ICT, and not for political discourse - although there's often unavoidable overlap.
As an example of that overlap, and as a parting gesture relevant to the subject in-hand, allow me to quote this insight from one of computing's venerable pioneers:
Looking forward 20 years, I'm quite certain that the coming of the computer will have a significant effect on all businesses and most private lives. Whether these effects will be fully favorable, as they could be, or in-part harmful, will depend on whether those that make policy decisions are aware of what computers can do and what they cannot do.
~ John G Kemeny
Societies that go down the nanny-state, we know best, and you will only have a limited range of old choices route, are surely obviously extremely fascist in nature and program application.
Are we then to believe governments now, proposing very much the same to be the case today, haven't learned past valuable and vital lessons and they, those fascist elements, haven't gone away you know, and the future is in danger, because of the lack of novel leading intelligence in audiovisual media platforms and programs and government supporters, of presenting and energising and realising past historical mistakes allowing for a re-run of a former failed and disgraced project for another attempt at a New Reich/New Millennia?
That is not going to end at all well for them, is it? Of that it is guaranteed, both you and they can be fully assured.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
