3 ms·

Landmark laws to stop racial hate and protect democracy online published

1 points by DanBC 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't think hate speech laws work. My country has hate speech laws and is often referred to as a positive example for it, but these laws are basically useless. Still, for government online laws this doesn't seem as bad as you might think. At least on the first look.
- DanBC 5y ago
  I'm in favour of banning hate speech. My worries about this law are that it compels sites to host some speech that they'd define as hate but which the current UK government doesn't. For example, a forum that provides peer support to trans people could be forced to host transphobic views because the person making those points could claim it's political, and thus protected, speech.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I have sympathy to hold etiquette and show courtesy. But that is a matter of freedom of conscience. You cannot ban love or hate. You can ban it in cases it affects others. There is this saying about breaking bones and stuff that is brought forward very often. I believe it to be wrong, words can hurt people. But I think it would be imposing to require people not to hurt my feelings. And then there is the matter that is has been heavily abused. Speech can be used to bully people directly and you can identify such causes quite easily. But instead it was already used to sanction politically undesirable language and people actively try to seek out offense. In this case hate speech laws are not sustainable. Especially if corporation weight in that want to build a profile with championing the most "inclusive" langue.
DanBC 5y ago
The full title is "Landmark laws to keep children safe, stop racial hate and protect democracy online published" which is too long for the HN title box. I feel like many on HN are missing some important parts of this proposed new law. The "censorship" isn't the worrying thing. The law forces platforms to host content that they deem unsuitable if that content has a political motivation. So, imagine that you're a trans person and you set up a trans support forum and someone joins and starts posting "trans women are men and they're sexual predators". Before the bill you could simply delete all those comments. After the bill? Who knows. There's a bunch of groups who campaign politically in the UK making this claim so maybe this kind of thing is now protected speech that you'll be forced to host? Here's the section ---begin quote Freedom of expression The Bill will ensure people in the UK can express themselves freely online and participate in pluralistic and robust debate. All in-scope companies will need to consider and put in place safeguards for freedom of expression when fulfilling their duties. These safeguards will be set out by Ofcom in codes of practice but, for example, might include having human moderators take decisions in complex cases where context is important. People using their services will need to have access to effective routes of appeal for content removed without good reason and companies must reinstate that content if it has been removed unfairly. Users will also be able to appeal to Ofcom and these complaints will form an essential part of Ofcom’s horizon-scanning, research and enforcement activity. Category 1 services will have additional duties. They will need to conduct and publish up-to-date assessments of their impact on freedom of expression and demonstrate they have taken steps to mitigate any adverse effects. These measures remove the risk that online companies adopt restrictive measures or over-remove content in their efforts to meet their new online safety duties. An example of this could be AI moderation technologies falsely flagging innocuous content as harmful, such as satire. Democratic content Ministers have added new and specific duties to the Bill for Category 1 services to protect content defined as ‘democratically important’. This will include content promoting or opposing government policy or a political party ahead of a vote in Parliament, election or referendum, or campaigning on a live political issue. Companies will also be forbidden from discriminating against particular political viewpoints and will need to apply protections equally to a range of political opinions, no matter their affiliation. Policies to protect such content will need to be set out in clear and accessible terms and conditions and firms will need to stick to them or face enforcement action from Ofcom. When moderating content, companies will need to take into account the political context around why the content is being shared and give it a high level of protection if it is democratically important. For example, a major social media company may choose to prohibit all deadly or graphic violence. A campaign group could release violent footage to raise awareness about violence against a specific group. Given its importance to democratic debate, the company might choose to keep that content up, subject to warnings, but it would need to be upfront about the policy and ensure it is applied consistently.

1 points by DanBC 5y ago

I don't think hate speech laws work. My country has hate speech laws and is often referred to as a positive example for it, but these laws are basically useless. Still, for government online laws this doesn't seem as bad as you might think. At least on the first look.

DanBC 5y ago
I'm in favour of banning hate speech. My worries about this law are that it compels sites to host some speech that they'd define as hate but which the current UK government doesn't. For example, a forum that provides peer support to trans people could be forced to host transphobic views because the person making those points could claim it's political, and thus protected, speech.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I have sympathy to hold etiquette and show courtesy. But that is a matter of freedom of conscience. You cannot ban love or hate. You can ban it in cases it affects others. There is this saying about breaking bones and stuff that is brought forward very often. I believe it to be wrong, words can hurt people. But I think it would be imposing to require people not to hurt my feelings. And then there is the matter that is has been heavily abused. Speech can be used to bully people directly and you can identify such causes quite easily. But instead it was already used to sanction politically undesirable language and people actively try to seek out offense. In this case hate speech laws are not sustainable. Especially if corporation weight in that want to build a profile with championing the most "inclusive" langue.

DanBC 5y ago

The full title is "Landmark laws to keep children safe, stop racial hate and protect democracy online published" which is too long for the HN title box. I feel like many on HN are missing some important parts of this proposed new law. The "censorship" isn't the worrying thing. The law forces platforms to host content that they deem unsuitable if that content has a political motivation. So, imagine that you're a trans person and you set up a trans support forum and someone joins and starts posting "trans women are men and they're sexual predators". Before the bill you could simply delete all those comments. After the bill? Who knows. There's a bunch of groups who campaign politically in the UK making this claim so maybe this kind of thing is now protected speech that you'll be forced to host? Here's the section ---begin quote Freedom of expression The Bill will ensure people in the UK can express themselves freely online and participate in pluralistic and robust debate. All in-scope companies will need to consider and put in place safeguards for freedom of expression when fulfilling their duties. These safeguards will be set out by Ofcom in codes of practice but, for example, might include having human moderators take decisions in complex cases where context is important. People using their services will need to have access to effective routes of appeal for content removed without good reason and companies must reinstate that content if it has been removed unfairly. Users will also be able to appeal to Ofcom and these complaints will form an essential part of Ofcom’s horizon-scanning, research and enforcement activity. Category 1 services will have additional duties. They will need to conduct and publish up-to-date assessments of their impact on freedom of expression and demonstrate they have taken steps to mitigate any adverse effects. These measures remove the risk that online companies adopt restrictive measures or over-remove content in their efforts to meet their new online safety duties. An example of this could be AI moderation technologies falsely flagging innocuous content as harmful, such as satire. Democratic content Ministers have added new and specific duties to the Bill for Category 1 services to protect content defined as ‘democratically important’. This will include content promoting or opposing government policy or a political party ahead of a vote in Parliament, election or referendum, or campaigning on a live political issue. Companies will also be forbidden from discriminating against particular political viewpoints and will need to apply protections equally to a range of political opinions, no matter their affiliation. Policies to protect such content will need to be set out in clear and accessible terms and conditions and firms will need to stick to them or face enforcement action from Ofcom. When moderating content, companies will need to take into account the political context around why the content is being shared and give it a high level of protection if it is democratically important. For example, a major social media company may choose to prohibit all deadly or graphic violence. A campaign group could release violent footage to raise awareness about violence against a specific group. Given its importance to democratic debate, the company might choose to keep that content up, subject to warnings, but it would need to be upfront about the policy and ensure it is applied consistently.