3 ms·

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Why would safety be contrary to business opportunity? If anything, I would say that users' safety should be present i

by Funes- 8y ago

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Why would safety be contrary to business opportunity? If anything, I would say that users' safety should be present in any legally viable business endeavor. Edit: I want to clarify that I'm not in favor of surveillance or opaque mechanisms run by any State.

inflatableDodo 8y ago
>Why would safety be contrary to business opportunity? They are a balancing act, you can't maximise both. If you maximised safety in recreation, for instance, you would make things like horse racing illegal. If you maximised business opportunity, you'd be allowed to feed the horse pcp before the race.
Nasrudith 8y ago
The costs of course - they need something to enforce the safety and that isn't free. And "should be" isn't worth a hill of beans unless it actually gives a competitive advantage like users trusting them more for it. Of course "safety" out of a politician's mouth is usually an excuse for a power grab. It is also abused in such a way that proving that the mayor is a serial killing cannibal, that the police knew about this and did nothing about it is a threat to public safety because it could incite a riot. However the cannibal mayor is not.
jsty 8y ago
If you think of a "digital business" as one that involves accepting user content, then being forced to identify those users and moderate their output could be a disadvantage compared to competitors in more 'liberal' (i.e. less regulated) regimes - if only due to the increased operational overhead. OTOH, this is probably a small percentage of what most people think of as digital businesses, and might be seen as a price worth paying.
ben_w 8y ago
Although in principle “safe” is a necessary precondition of most businesses, it’s being used in this case to mean “censorship of categories which have been poorly defined by people who think they’re obvious”. As I grew up outside the USA and never lived in a culture of “freedom of speech is an inalienable right” (even after it became a right in the UK in 1998), I’ve always been comfortable with the principle of censorship. However, I do also understand the inherent danger of censorship, and that it makes certain social and political movements totally impossible. For example, one of the examples given in this story is that moderators are exposed to bestiality — an act which was legal until a few years ago in Germany when a moral panic about animal brothels caused the law to change. Just like a Bayesian trap, when it became illegal, any evidence that it shouldn’t be illegal automatically got zero credence and was no longer able to change the average person’s beliefs (if you are willing to continue to update your beliefs about that, good for you, but the ability is uncommon). Now, I’m not going to argue for any particular prohibition policy positions on that or any other topic, but just the fact that “harm” isn’t defined in the UK proposal means that the censorship they call for is vulnerable to very large changes in short periods, and the nature of censorship means it’s likely to ratchet up rather than stay at any particular level. Not so much a “slippery slope”, more of a drunk walk/hill climber. Of course, as I said before, I’m not a free-speech absolutist. I’d be very happy if we start with the basics like “don’t make death threats” and “take steps to prevent your users making death threats”. I just want it done properly, and one thing most people can agree on these days is that the UK government isn’t capable of doing anything properly right now.

by Funes- 8y ago

inflatableDodo 8y ago

>Why would safety be contrary to business opportunity? They are a balancing act, you can't maximise both. If you maximised safety in recreation, for instance, you would make things like horse racing illegal. If you maximised business opportunity, you'd be allowed to feed the horse pcp before the race.

Nasrudith 8y ago

The costs of course - they need something to enforce the safety and that isn't free. And "should be" isn't worth a hill of beans unless it actually gives a competitive advantage like users trusting them more for it. Of course "safety" out of a politician's mouth is usually an excuse for a power grab. It is also abused in such a way that proving that the mayor is a serial killing cannibal, that the police knew about this and did nothing about it is a threat to public safety because it could incite a riot. However the cannibal mayor is not.

jsty 8y ago

If you think of a "digital business" as one that involves accepting user content, then being forced to identify those users and moderate their output could be a disadvantage compared to competitors in more 'liberal' (i.e. less regulated) regimes - if only due to the increased operational overhead. OTOH, this is probably a small percentage of what most people think of as digital businesses, and might be seen as a price worth paying.

ben_w 8y ago

Although in principle “safe” is a necessary precondition of most businesses, it’s being used in this case to mean “censorship of categories which have been poorly defined by people who think they’re obvious”. As I grew up outside the USA and never lived in a culture of “freedom of speech is an inalienable right” (even after it became a right in the UK in 1998), I’ve always been comfortable with the principle of censorship. However, I do also understand the inherent danger of censorship, and that it makes certain social and political movements totally impossible. For example, one of the examples given in this story is that moderators are exposed to bestiality — an act which was legal until a few years ago in Germany when a moral panic about animal brothels caused the law to change. Just like a Bayesian trap, when it became illegal, any evidence that it shouldn’t be illegal automatically got zero credence and was no longer able to change the average person’s beliefs (if you are willing to continue to update your beliefs about that, good for you, but the ability is uncommon). Now, I’m not going to argue for any particular prohibition policy positions on that or any other topic, but just the fact that “harm” isn’t defined in the UK proposal means that the censorship they call for is vulnerable to very large changes in short periods, and the nature of censorship means it’s likely to ratchet up rather than stay at any particular level. Not so much a “slippery slope”, more of a drunk walk/hill climber. Of course, as I said before, I’m not a free-speech absolutist. I’d be very happy if we start with the basics like “don’t make death threats” and “take steps to prevent your users making death threats”. I just want it done properly, and one thing most people can agree on these days is that the UK government isn’t capable of doing anything properly right now.