11 ms·

UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

81 points by pmlnr 8y ago

luiscleto 8y ago
> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation. So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at the official's discretion.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  This is probably a tool the government wants to use when something like a mass shooting manifesto is published. Facebook can't stop people reading it? Well then let's block Facebook for a week. Interestingly, this is the same tactic dictatorships use to quell rebellions.
- zyxzevn 8y ago
  This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism? My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive. Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.
    - megous 8y ago
      Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties. You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
      - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
        thanks
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      > Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
      - mc32 8y ago
        As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs. What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with. There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
        Someone1234 8y ago
        The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country. > In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. So we knew.
        8y ago
  - megous 8y ago
    > Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters. https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1043009346362167297 https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  The web has been more or less mainstream for going on 25 years now - before that, the dominant mainstream mass communication medium was television. Television was, and still is, subject to government censorship and regulation based on very tenuous legal arguments (viciously supported by pearl-clutching moral panicking puritans), and we've seen what it becomes: mindless, thoughtless, brainless, and above-all only "offensive" or thought-provoking in very specifically constrained ways. As soon as the web started to become well known, I was idly curious how long it would take to become television - to be honest, it's taken longer than I realistically expected, mostly because world governments can't quite seem to agree on exactly how they should oppress us, but believe me, it's coming. And when it does, there really won't be many of us that see it as a negative.
calewis 8y ago
The issue here will be securing a conviction or affecting actual change. I suspect the cost to conviction/prosecution (for the Uk taxpayer) will be so high, and the fines/action so small for the respective platforms, it will hardly be worth the effort. Most likely companies will be fined retrospectively for a bit of government PR.
coldcode 8y ago
OK lets say this article harmed me in some way. If I don't need to prove it then this law lets me shut down the BBC? How do you deal with thousands of "online harms"? If I do need to prove it, given the law is so vague on what that is, I can never succeed since big sites have fancy lawyers, and small sites will just go out of business, and the law is a waste of time.
- onlydeadheroes 8y ago
  Lol this law is not to apply to THEM!
- filesystem 8y ago
  The law is not a waste of time. The law is clearly intended to prevent disruption in the online news / publishing space to protect the big players from competition. In that sense, this law seems like it will be extremely effective.
- CJefferson 8y ago
  I think you are over stretching. The lae has dealt for hundreds of years with idea that one person might harm another. Such laws tend to be a little vague, then build up case law, at least in the UK.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    A lot of commenters tend to think of the law as an API, and frame all discussions about it as such. "So what, I just have to POST https://law.uk/onlineharm https://law.uk/onlineharm, and I get to take down the BBC? That's ridiculous!" Any given strawman is ridiculous.
bamboozled 8y ago
I hate to say it, but large online social platforms are really giving governments way too much ammunition to start regulating and censoring the now largely centralized Internet. Very, very scary but interesting times ahead.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Because of the internet, a lot of people are becoming aware of stories like how the CIA watched over the "get Gary Webb team" of industry experts who said "we're going to take away his Pulitzer," before Webb died by "suicide" by two gunshot wounds to the head.(1) Just one of thousands of outrageous stories questioning where global power lies and what those who have it are doing with it. Iraq lies were territory of "fake news" and conspiracy theories, same as a lot of what Tulsi Gabbard is saying about the US military industrial complex. Every group of individuals will always have psychopaths whom try to cheat to exert control over others. Obviously many powerful people in the world dont want a democracy of individuals sharing ideas freely. https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-media-destruction-gary-webb/ https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-m...
mtgx 8y ago
Since David Cameron days, the UK government has had every intention of turning UK into another China, at least as far as surveillance and censorship goes. They just can't do it so obviously, so they do it in a round-about way like arguing for "porn filters" and later for other "serious crimes". And then you wake up one day that they use the filters for whatever they want.
hugh4life 8y ago
I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are taking towards the internet.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- MrEldritch 8y ago
  It's not particularly baffling if you think that Western nations are taking these stances for approximately the same reasons as Russia and China are.
- timomax 8y ago
  Not really. It's not the same ideology. It's the same tool.
  - rayvd 8y ago
    Leads to the same place.
  - CzechTech 8y ago
    Doesn't matter what kind of authoritarianism it is. Marxism, fascism, religious extremism... same deal. Freedoms are very easily given away, but getting them back usually costs a lot of lives. Sometimes millions of lives. I will never understand how shortsighted people can get when it comes to this simple concept. The fact that you're making the rules today doesn't mean that you're going to be making them tomorrow (or in 10 years). "Hate speech" laws are the greatest example of this. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see a problem in defining "hate speech" as "whatever the personal opinion of a police man or a judge happens to be at the time". Some countries, like the UK, have already gone far beyond even hate speech laws straight into persecuting wrongthink and "offense" (nazi pugs anyone?). It's sad to see because it can't really end well. The west's pathological obsession with being anti-racist (it's not even anti-racism at this point, it's anti-bigotry where bigotry can mean anything from being a white nationalist all the way to not validating morbidly obese people). It's a shame you pretty much have to be a conservative (or a citizen of a post-communist eastern european country) these days to realize these simple concepts. When the feelings start taking over logic and reason it's time stop and think what you're actually advocating for.
howiroll 8y ago
Is it me, or is Europe & AU & NZ facing a new “politically correct” left wing authoritarianism?
chatmasta 8y ago
Jeremy Wright, "Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK" penned an op-ed in CNN about this. [0] The closing line is particularly infuriating to me: "That is an objective on which the British Government, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Zuckerberg would all agree." No, I don't think TBL would agree on this. The cited organization started by him explicitly calls for the opposite [1]: - Ensure everyone can connect to the internet so that anyone, no matter who they are or where they live, can participate actively online. - Keep all of the internet available, all of the time so that no one is denied their right to full internet access. - Respect people’s fundamental right to privacy so everyone can use the internet freely, safely and without fear. [0] https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-online-regulation-wright/index.html https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-online-... [1] https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/ https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/
- jquery 8y ago
  >without fear. Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it out.
  - gnode 8y ago
    > A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content That's one way to generally interpret "fear" but not in its context of a right to privacy. "Without fear" in this context must mean fear of what happens when you don't have privacy, that is chiefly: embarrassment and persecution.
    - jquery 8y ago
      Thanks for the clarification, that makes a huge difference in meaning. Appreciated.
sparkling 8y ago
What is it with the obsession about "hate speech" in some random internet comment section? Report that user, ignore it, turn off the screen, whatever. How in the world is it worth spending actual policing resources on this nonsense?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  Well, the justification - mind you, I don't agree, I'm just answering your (rhetorical?) question - is that speech can sway opinions, opinions can shape behavior, and (the wrong sort of) behavior can lead to chaos, so it's best to nip the wrong sort of speech in the bud before it cascades into genocide. The problem with that sort of "slippery slope" thinking is that it always ends up slippery-slope-ing in the other direction: hate speech regulations designed to silence nazis calling for genocide are almost immediately applied to reasoned, principled, thoughtful people like Jordan Peterson whose conclusions are outside the mainstream.
bArray 8y ago
Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.
- timomax 8y ago
  It's a ballance. Town planning is also abused, but we do need it.
- gnode 8y ago
  I find this argument similar to: regulating the construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.
  - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
    > The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience. Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?
    - gnode 8y ago
      In the scenario of forcing speakers underground, those speakers have not been silenced (they may still speak to a large audience) but they will not speak to an audience which has not elected to listen to them. Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who are not looking for your speech. The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.
  - odessacubbage 8y ago
    and more importantly, removal of the ability to facilitate dissent in the public sphere. it's far easier to brand your opponents as reactionaries and pedophiles when they can only voice counter opinions in free speech ghettos that are already deemed unsavory.
usub98 8y ago
It's funny how this is such a popular topic on sites like HN who heavily censor users themselves based on their political opinion. HN put shadow bans on hundreds of users for non-conforming posts. It seems like anyone who had a wrong stance on the whole "NPC meme" is affected, even if they only found it mildly amusing. Source: I found it amusing, openly said so and I'm shadow banned on this IP.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  My impression is that HN moderators mostly focus on civility. IME stance-related silencing occurs only via downvotes by regular users.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    There’s a strong, intentional skew in their enforcement: dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb the groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting popular opinions would be excused for. That’s what it means when they say they censor to keep “civility”: if the groupthink finds you disruptive, you will be silenced by arbitrary application of rules others (who subscribe to groupthink) are excused for — and in this way, an insistence on civility always favors groupthink. The pretense of censoring for civility here is merely dishonest gaslighting about their ideological policing, in favor of groupthink. It’s precisely the same kind of dishonesty you see in YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook’s censoring of conservative voices: hyperpartisans screech, and complicit moderates use that as a pretense to enact their biases.
    - dang 8y ago
      I've not said that. If you're going to make such a claim, you should provide a link so readers can make up their own minds. The other claims you make aren't really falsifiable, though I can tell you we go out of our way not to moderate HN based on ideology, and I can also tell you that for whatever ideological position you'd care to name, people loudly complain that we're biased against it.
ilovecaching 8y ago
America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberties are paramount to a moral society. But now it seems we’re taking our new digital plane of existence and giving up a lot of that self determination for convienience and protection from exposure to things we don’t like. I’m not sure how this will shake out in America versus Europe, but this seems as paradigm shifting as the civil war or the new deal. The next decade will be critical for Internet freedom.
- Throwway32 8y ago
  America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberators are paramount to a moral society I wonder what US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki would have said to that argument. The truth is that political free speech has limits, even for the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    This seems a strange response, since the extra-judicial killing of an American by the Obama administration was widely regarded as a serious breakdown in American norms — precisely by the same crowd who says things like GP. Your link then would be support for their point, not a refutation. Generally speaking, point out something in the past few years that’s an example of what the person is talking about isn’t a way to refute that things are changed — that you can only point to recent ones is evidence that things have changed. Of course, Obama has no respect for American traditions, broadly: he’s the first president in history not to leave the capital and to continue to be politically active during his successor’s term. His actions certainly aren’t what I’d put forward to someone claiming that American values used to be something, but have recently changed — Obama in general is an example of that collapse in principles.
    - Throwway32 8y ago
      I never bought into Obama’s hype machine, but the drone strike was carried out by the United States armed forces, who are required to not follow illegal orders; via a chain of command. There is a different party in power now: have there been any prosecutions?Presumably there was a lot of legal advice that sanctioned the hit on a US citizen exercising his ostensible free speech rights,[1] otherwise it would not have happened. [1] My personal opinion is that praising terror and “inspiring” others is not free speech, but I don’t pretend otherwise
return0 8y ago
Or Vices as the Victorians would call them.
jatsign 8y ago
This looks like negative news for the Facebooks & Youtubes, but I think it's the opposite. Whenever the law, Facebook & Youtube will adapt - they have the resources to do so. Smaller players, and potential future competitors, will not be able to adapt. This just draws a moat around existing behemoths that will protect them against future disruption.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Yes, it's called regulatory capture and it's the reason big players push for regulation and government involvement.
  - matrixmultiply 8y ago
    This is indeed favors FB and YT. They will censor and blame it on the government, and they won’t take any responsibility.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    This is downvoted because I think people are insane. FB has indeed been pushing for regulation. Your comment is accurate.
ptah 8y ago
a bit late but could be extremely helpful
iicc 8y ago
Theresa May did an Op Ed[0] in the metro[1][2]. [0] https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leading-the-way-on-making-the-internet-safer/1510510/ https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leadi... [1] pdf about audience - https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/20190107104636/audience-metro-2019-01.pdf https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/201... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(British_newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(British_newspaper)
C1sc0cat 8y ago
Would that include the Daily mails website :-)
- kypro 8y ago
  Yes, hopefully any reporter or news outlet deemed to be too disagreeable by the state will soon be purged =)
- ohiovr 8y ago
  The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it never happens.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it never happens. The UK already does that with some decisions (which is technically the Queen-in-Parliament delegating to the Queen with the advice of the Privy Council), but that doesn't stop action (Orders in Council) on those matters from occurring. Of course, in practice this is almost exactly delegation from the Parliament to the government.
Bantros 8y ago
Fuck this country. They will implement it without any trouble. No one cares because they don't realise what they already have. Most media outlets will report on it as a "good thing" of course which doesn't help either
speeq 8y ago
Here's the white-paper (pdf): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793360/Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Also, the published code of practice: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793324/Code_of_Practice_for_providers_of_online_social_media_platforms.d.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Statement and parliamentary discussion: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c4-22e1723c47de?in=17:21:02 https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c...
jquery 8y ago
Once people accept that it's fine for social media to censor political speech, it's only a small mental leap to hand over that same control to the government. This development should come as no surprise as government officials see the thunderous applause heaped on media companies when they ban "problem people".

81 points by pmlnr 8y ago

> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation. So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at the official's discretion.

chatmasta 8y ago
This is probably a tool the government wants to use when something like a mass shooting manifesto is published. Facebook can't stop people reading it? Well then let's block Facebook for a week. Interestingly, this is the same tactic dictatorships use to quell rebellions.
zyxzevn 8y ago
This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and other similar journalism? My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very aggressive. Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  thanks for sharing this phenomenal video. not from the US so I wasn't familiar with him. really enjoyed the tear-down and explanation on this propaganda campaign and how it works in contrast to before the internet.
  - megous 8y ago
    Don't forget to check his track record on claims about past incidents from his past videos, that were actually later investigated by competent third parties. You may be less excited as a result, about his other claims.
    - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
      thanks
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    > Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier
    - mc32 8y ago
      As someone who was against the war, I would say I didn’t know they didn’t have WMDs. What I did think was that even if they did, there were other options on the table and that those had not been pursued to their full extent. Yes Saddam was playing 3-card Monty, but never the less we had time at our disposal we also didn’t pursue corroborating evidence and it all seemed like making up a reason for war rather than an actual casus belli. I mean, so what some known terrorists had passage? It’s not as if Saddam didn’t have his own insurrections to deal with. There was no nuance. It was all let’s go! Most dissenters were more like, slow down, we’re not there yet, we haven’t exhausted all options yet.
      - Someone1234 8y ago
        The UN Weapons inspectors debunked the WMDs before troops even entered the country. > In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. So we knew.
        8y ago
- megous 8y ago
  > Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I Why should I take him seriously when he acts like an asshole to people on Twitter, calling them AlQuaeda supporters. https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/1043009346362167297 https://twitter.com/mollycrabapple/status/104300934636216729... https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1112842690255708161 Did he aplogize yet for spreading outrageous lies about Khan-Sheikoun 2017 chemical attack, smearing doctors and first responders? The investigation of that attack is over. It would be appropriate, now that there has been a 2nd aniversary a few days ago.
commandlinefan 8y ago
The web has been more or less mainstream for going on 25 years now - before that, the dominant mainstream mass communication medium was television. Television was, and still is, subject to government censorship and regulation based on very tenuous legal arguments (viciously supported by pearl-clutching moral panicking puritans), and we've seen what it becomes: mindless, thoughtless, brainless, and above-all only "offensive" or thought-provoking in very specifically constrained ways. As soon as the web started to become well known, I was idly curious how long it would take to become television - to be honest, it's taken longer than I realistically expected, mostly because world governments can't quite seem to agree on exactly how they should oppress us, but believe me, it's coming. And when it does, there really won't be many of us that see it as a negative.

calewis 8y ago

The issue here will be securing a conviction or affecting actual change. I suspect the cost to conviction/prosecution (for the Uk taxpayer) will be so high, and the fines/action so small for the respective platforms, it will hardly be worth the effort. Most likely companies will be fined retrospectively for a bit of government PR.

coldcode 8y ago

OK lets say this article harmed me in some way. If I don't need to prove it then this law lets me shut down the BBC? How do you deal with thousands of "online harms"? If I do need to prove it, given the law is so vague on what that is, I can never succeed since big sites have fancy lawyers, and small sites will just go out of business, and the law is a waste of time.

onlydeadheroes 8y ago
Lol this law is not to apply to THEM!
filesystem 8y ago
The law is not a waste of time. The law is clearly intended to prevent disruption in the online news / publishing space to protect the big players from competition. In that sense, this law seems like it will be extremely effective.
CJefferson 8y ago
I think you are over stretching. The lae has dealt for hundreds of years with idea that one person might harm another. Such laws tend to be a little vague, then build up case law, at least in the UK.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  A lot of commenters tend to think of the law as an API, and frame all discussions about it as such. "So what, I just have to POST https://law.uk/onlineharm https://law.uk/onlineharm, and I get to take down the BBC? That's ridiculous!" Any given strawman is ridiculous.

bamboozled 8y ago

I hate to say it, but large online social platforms are really giving governments way too much ammunition to start regulating and censoring the now largely centralized Internet. Very, very scary but interesting times ahead.

wallace_f 8y ago
Because of the internet, a lot of people are becoming aware of stories like how the CIA watched over the "get Gary Webb team" of industry experts who said "we're going to take away his Pulitzer," before Webb died by "suicide" by two gunshot wounds to the head.(1) Just one of thousands of outrageous stories questioning where global power lies and what those who have it are doing with it. Iraq lies were territory of "fake news" and conspiracy theories, same as a lot of what Tulsi Gabbard is saying about the US military industrial complex. Every group of individuals will always have psychopaths whom try to cheat to exert control over others. Obviously many powerful people in the world dont want a democracy of individuals sharing ideas freely. https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-media-destruction-gary-webb/ https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-m...

mtgx 8y ago

Since David Cameron days, the UK government has had every intention of turning UK into another China, at least as far as surveillance and censorship goes. They just can't do it so obviously, so they do it in a round-about way like arguing for "porn filters" and later for other "serious crimes". And then you wake up one day that they use the filters for whatever they want.

hugh4life 8y ago

I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are taking towards the internet.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MrEldritch 8y ago
It's not particularly baffling if you think that Western nations are taking these stances for approximately the same reasons as Russia and China are.
timomax 8y ago
Not really. It's not the same ideology. It's the same tool.
- rayvd 8y ago
  Leads to the same place.
- CzechTech 8y ago
  Doesn't matter what kind of authoritarianism it is. Marxism, fascism, religious extremism... same deal. Freedoms are very easily given away, but getting them back usually costs a lot of lives. Sometimes millions of lives. I will never understand how shortsighted people can get when it comes to this simple concept. The fact that you're making the rules today doesn't mean that you're going to be making them tomorrow (or in 10 years). "Hate speech" laws are the greatest example of this. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see a problem in defining "hate speech" as "whatever the personal opinion of a police man or a judge happens to be at the time". Some countries, like the UK, have already gone far beyond even hate speech laws straight into persecuting wrongthink and "offense" (nazi pugs anyone?). It's sad to see because it can't really end well. The west's pathological obsession with being anti-racist (it's not even anti-racism at this point, it's anti-bigotry where bigotry can mean anything from being a white nationalist all the way to not validating morbidly obese people). It's a shame you pretty much have to be a conservative (or a citizen of a post-communist eastern european country) these days to realize these simple concepts. When the feelings start taking over logic and reason it's time stop and think what you're actually advocating for.

howiroll 8y ago

Is it me, or is Europe & AU & NZ facing a new “politically correct” left wing authoritarianism?

chatmasta 8y ago

Jeremy Wright, "Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK" penned an op-ed in CNN about this. [0] The closing line is particularly infuriating to me: "That is an objective on which the British Government, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Zuckerberg would all agree." No, I don't think TBL would agree on this. The cited organization started by him explicitly calls for the opposite [1]: - Ensure everyone can connect to the internet so that anyone, no matter who they are or where they live, can participate actively online. - Keep all of the internet available, all of the time so that no one is denied their right to full internet access. - Respect people’s fundamental right to privacy so everyone can use the internet freely, safely and without fear. [0] https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-online-regulation-wright/index.html https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-online-... [1] https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/ https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/

jquery 8y ago
>without fear. Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it out.
- gnode 8y ago
  > A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content That's one way to generally interpret "fear" but not in its context of a right to privacy. "Without fear" in this context must mean fear of what happens when you don't have privacy, that is chiefly: embarrassment and persecution.
  - jquery 8y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, that makes a huge difference in meaning. Appreciated.

sparkling 8y ago

What is it with the obsession about "hate speech" in some random internet comment section? Report that user, ignore it, turn off the screen, whatever. How in the world is it worth spending actual policing resources on this nonsense?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
commandlinefan 8y ago
Well, the justification - mind you, I don't agree, I'm just answering your (rhetorical?) question - is that speech can sway opinions, opinions can shape behavior, and (the wrong sort of) behavior can lead to chaos, so it's best to nip the wrong sort of speech in the bud before it cascades into genocide. The problem with that sort of "slippery slope" thinking is that it always ends up slippery-slope-ing in the other direction: hate speech regulations designed to silence nazis calling for genocide are almost immediately applied to reasoned, principled, thoughtful people like Jordan Peterson whose conclusions are outside the mainstream.

bArray 8y ago

Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.

timomax 8y ago
It's a ballance. Town planning is also abused, but we do need it.
gnode 8y ago
I find this argument similar to: regulating the construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading. The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  > The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience. Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?
  - gnode 8y ago
    In the scenario of forcing speakers underground, those speakers have not been silenced (they may still speak to a large audience) but they will not speak to an audience which has not elected to listen to them. Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who are not looking for your speech. The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  and more importantly, removal of the ability to facilitate dissent in the public sphere. it's far easier to brand your opponents as reactionaries and pedophiles when they can only voice counter opinions in free speech ghettos that are already deemed unsavory.

usub98 8y ago

It's funny how this is such a popular topic on sites like HN who heavily censor users themselves based on their political opinion. HN put shadow bans on hundreds of users for non-conforming posts. It seems like anyone who had a wrong stance on the whole "NPC meme" is affected, even if they only found it mildly amusing. Source: I found it amusing, openly said so and I'm shadow banned on this IP.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
My impression is that HN moderators mostly focus on civility. IME stance-related silencing occurs only via downvotes by regular users.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  There’s a strong, intentional skew in their enforcement: dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb the groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting popular opinions would be excused for. That’s what it means when they say they censor to keep “civility”: if the groupthink finds you disruptive, you will be silenced by arbitrary application of rules others (who subscribe to groupthink) are excused for — and in this way, an insistence on civility always favors groupthink. The pretense of censoring for civility here is merely dishonest gaslighting about their ideological policing, in favor of groupthink. It’s precisely the same kind of dishonesty you see in YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook’s censoring of conservative voices: hyperpartisans screech, and complicit moderates use that as a pretense to enact their biases.
  - dang 8y ago
    I've not said that. If you're going to make such a claim, you should provide a link so readers can make up their own minds. The other claims you make aren't really falsifiable, though I can tell you we go out of our way not to moderate HN based on ideology, and I can also tell you that for whatever ideological position you'd care to name, people loudly complain that we're biased against it.

ilovecaching 8y ago

America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberties are paramount to a moral society. But now it seems we’re taking our new digital plane of existence and giving up a lot of that self determination for convienience and protection from exposure to things we don’t like. I’m not sure how this will shake out in America versus Europe, but this seems as paradigm shifting as the civil war or the new deal. The next decade will be critical for Internet freedom.

Throwway32 8y ago
America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberators are paramount to a moral society I wonder what US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki would have said to that argument. The truth is that political free speech has limits, even for the United States. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...
- FakeComments 8y ago
  This seems a strange response, since the extra-judicial killing of an American by the Obama administration was widely regarded as a serious breakdown in American norms — precisely by the same crowd who says things like GP. Your link then would be support for their point, not a refutation. Generally speaking, point out something in the past few years that’s an example of what the person is talking about isn’t a way to refute that things are changed — that you can only point to recent ones is evidence that things have changed. Of course, Obama has no respect for American traditions, broadly: he’s the first president in history not to leave the capital and to continue to be politically active during his successor’s term. His actions certainly aren’t what I’d put forward to someone claiming that American values used to be something, but have recently changed — Obama in general is an example of that collapse in principles.
  - Throwway32 8y ago
    I never bought into Obama’s hype machine, but the drone strike was carried out by the United States armed forces, who are required to not follow illegal orders; via a chain of command. There is a different party in power now: have there been any prosecutions?Presumably there was a lot of legal advice that sanctioned the hit on a US citizen exercising his ostensible free speech rights,[1] otherwise it would not have happened. [1] My personal opinion is that praising terror and “inspiring” others is not free speech, but I don’t pretend otherwise

return0 8y ago

Or Vices as the Victorians would call them.

jatsign 8y ago

This looks like negative news for the Facebooks & Youtubes, but I think it's the opposite. Whenever the law, Facebook & Youtube will adapt - they have the resources to do so. Smaller players, and potential future competitors, will not be able to adapt. This just draws a moat around existing behemoths that will protect them against future disruption.

malvosenior 8y ago
Yes, it's called regulatory capture and it's the reason big players push for regulation and government involvement.
- matrixmultiply 8y ago
  This is indeed favors FB and YT. They will censor and blame it on the government, and they won’t take any responsibility.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- wallace_f 8y ago
  This is downvoted because I think people are insane. FB has indeed been pushing for regulation. Your comment is accurate.

ptah 8y ago

a bit late but could be extremely helpful

iicc 8y ago

Theresa May did an Op Ed[0] in the metro[1][2]. [0] https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leading-the-way-on-making-the-internet-safer/1510510/ https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leadi... [1] pdf about audience - https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/20190107104636/audience-metro-2019-01.pdf https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/201... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(British_newspaper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(British_newspaper)

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Would that include the Daily mails website :-)

kypro 8y ago
Yes, hopefully any reporter or news outlet deemed to be too disagreeable by the state will soon be purged =)
ohiovr 8y ago
The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it never happens.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it never happens. The UK already does that with some decisions (which is technically the Queen-in-Parliament delegating to the Queen with the advice of the Privy Council), but that doesn't stop action (Orders in Council) on those matters from occurring. Of course, in practice this is almost exactly delegation from the Parliament to the government.

Bantros 8y ago

Fuck this country. They will implement it without any trouble. No one cares because they don't realise what they already have. Most media outlets will report on it as a "good thing" of course which doesn't help either

speeq 8y ago

Here's the white-paper (pdf): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793360/Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Also, the published code of practice: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793324/Code_of_Practice_for_providers_of_online_social_media_platforms.d.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... Statement and parliamentary discussion: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c4-22e1723c47de?in=17:21:02 https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c...

jquery 8y ago

Once people accept that it's fine for social media to censor political speech, it's only a small mental leap to hand over that same control to the government. This development should come as no surprise as government officials see the thunderous applause heaped on media companies when they ban "problem people".