6 ms·

This sounds preferable to me - at the moment the websites are strangely viewed as if they directly authorised the content to be published, which obviously isn't

by RossM 14y ago

This sounds preferable to me - at the moment the websites are strangely viewed as if they directly authorised the content to be published, which obviously isn't the case. It will be interesting if a system comes about that content can be removed on a self-serve basis, a la YouTube.

cheatercheater 14y ago
What's more disturbing is that you seem to think there's content which should be banned from being published. What a perfect idea, let's start doing that right now. I'll let you decide what's bad for me! BTW, just bought some baby food, can you please spoon feed it to me? Also: change my diaper. Whether an idea should or should not be made available to the masses should never be in the hands of a process, even a democratic process. Attempts at doing so are terribly misguided. If you get offended at drive-by trolling by stupid people then you need to seek the issue in yourself, not in the website that was the playground to such behaviour. Grow up. No one's going to play nanny for the world, and if the UK wants to start doing that, then you can be sure as hell it'll see backlash.
- ig1 14y ago
  The bill isn't about restricting the publication of ideas, it's about restricting harassment and defamation.
  - novalis 14y ago
    As it was done many times in the past, the second can be gamed to prevent the first. It is not about the intentions, it's about the possible outcomes and this is just another reach for fear based censorship. Because you know the system is always gamed and abused when in place.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Everything can be gamed to suppress free speech. The same logic says we should do away with fraud statutes. You think this is an insightful and important point, but it's really a banal point.
      - novalis 14y ago
        Not everything can be gamed to suppress free speech, in particular statutes, the attempt to do so is predictably forbidden. That may or may not be a piece of banal insightful information. This legislation is proposed for online communication and that is the target and reach that can be gamed. Blanket statements will not make it any other than what it is. An abusive new piece of language that is open to be used for censorship purposes. As to what I believe is insightful or not, that is up to my devices and I am free to share it or not when and how I choose to, for the time being. Tend to keep it that way.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        The problem is the chilling effect. Who determines what "bullying" is? I've seen some heated discussions online that could be mistaken for something that they're not in more than one instance. I'm personally of the opinion that "online bullying" is a nonsense phenomenon. How do you deal with a bully online? You access the block function of the medium you're using and block the idiot. Done. You never have to deal with them again.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - smokeyj 14y ago
        The only banal point is arguing that freedom of speech and privacy are antiquated. I like how you frame OP as a hick because his opinions differ from yours. Is it easy being the smartest guy you know?
      - cheatercheater 14y ago
        I made it because no one else had and I knew I'd get upvoted. Don't think I don't realize it's trite. It's just fodder for the masses.
    - ig1 14y ago
      You realize this law has nothing to do with web-filtering right ? What this law means is if a UGC website is used by an individual for the purpose of harassment, the UGC website won't be liable for it as long as they co-operate in allowing the individual responsible to be prosecuted directly. It essentially gives UGC sites safe-harbour protection whereas before they could have been considered responsible for the content themselves as publishers. The legal responsibility is pushed back onto the individual who created the content, which is exactly how it should be.
      - novalis 14y ago
        ... to push action from a site to reveal someone that will be up for legal process. You can word that a lot of ways, but to define harassment through online communication is the sort of overreach needed to make sites do the dirty work with no due process or checks. Just the pathway. To provide a path for easy censorship is another way to put it, but you selectively left that out.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        What this law means is if a UGC website is used by an individual for the purpose of harassment, the UGC website won't be liable for it as long as they co-operate in allowing the individual responsible to be prosecuted directly. AKA "Give us names and you walk."
- tomgallard 14y ago
  You may be thick-skinned enough to cope with online harassment and bullying but not everyone is. Here's an example of a 13 year old girl who commited suicide after being bullied online . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569949/Girl-13-commits-suicide-after-online-bullying.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569949/Girl-13-co... Do you really think that is OK, and that the issue was in herself? I really hope you just haven't thought through what you said. Just in the same way you can't harass someone in the street, there shouldn't be carte blanche for bullying just because it happens to be online.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    Someone who suffers from depression and has ADHD should probably be extremely closely monitored by their parents/carers. It's not for the government to directly intervene in things like this. If a certain message is going to trigger someone to committing suicide, then connecting them to the internet is probably a very bad idea. > Just in the same way you can't harass someone in the street It happens all the time. People harass other people, begging, wanting you to fill out surveys, trying to sell you stuff. Go down a pub... Look at football supporters harassing each other. People need to grow far thicker skin when it comes to words. > there shouldn't be carte blanche for bullying just because it happens to be online Online "bullying" isn't really bullying though. It's your computer telling you that some human being apparently said something. You should take that with a huge grain of salt. It could as likely be a bot. It's parents place to educate their children into the mindset of assuming nothing is real online. People are not who they say they are. People may not exist. Am I being online "bullied" by the automated spam process sending me emails suggesting I need penis enlargement devices?
    - stfu 14y ago
      People need to grow far thicker skin when it comes to words. Sometimes these cases seem to be coming from people who just bought their first internet machine and become deeply offended that arguing on the internet works by different rules than their dinner table conversations. I would even go so far and argue that trolling can lead to a higher level of tolerance, as it pushes the believes of those being trolled over the top. In an ideal scenario this could lead to realization that their opinions, views, and in the end reality, are not as black and white as they think - i.e. a Steven Colbert effect.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > What's more disturbing is that you seem to think there's content which should be banned from being published. If you'd read TFA, you'd know that this case is where the trolls impersonated a woman, setting up a facebook profile with her name and photos on it - so that people who knew her IRL thought it was her profile. That profile painted her as a paedophile and drug dealer. They did this just for fun. I'm pretty sure that identity theft and libel (or the equivalent definitions in other legal systems) are illegal just about everywhere; and can and should result in this content being "banned from being published", and the anonymity of the people doing it being stripped away. This law could be over-broad, I don't know, but if you find the take-down the most disturbing part of this case, check your sense of proportion.
  - amurmann 14y ago
    There already are laws against identity theft, so we don't need another one that has the convenient side effect of adding more ways to cut free speech. This law might be used in rare cases like this, but probably more often to shut up negative opinions about policy and large companies.
  - sneak 14y ago
    Can we be careful with the term "identity theft", please? Creating a fake social network profile for the lulz should not ever be a crime. Taking out credit in someone else's name should be. A friend is being federally prosecuted (a five-year felony!) for identity theft... for possessing a list of email addresses. Please, slow your roll.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      > Can we be careful with the term "identity theft", please? Ok, lets be careful with it: > "Identity theft is a form of stealing someone's identity in which someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity, typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person's name. The victim of identity theft (here meaning the person whose identity has been assumed by the identity thief) can suffer adverse consequences if they are held accountable for the perpetrator's actions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft Taking out credit in someone else's name fits that definition exactly. Just possessing a list of email addresses does not at all. Now, as for making a fake facebook profile with someone's name and photos: "someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity" yes, that fits. "typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits" - no, but note that is "typically" not "always". "The victim of identity theft can suffer adverse consequences" - yes, that happened. So on the whole I would say that the definition of identity theft fits in this case.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by RossM 14y ago

cheatercheater 14y ago

What's more disturbing is that you seem to think there's content which should be banned from being published. What a perfect idea, let's start doing that right now. I'll let you decide what's bad for me! BTW, just bought some baby food, can you please spoon feed it to me? Also: change my diaper. Whether an idea should or should not be made available to the masses should never be in the hands of a process, even a democratic process. Attempts at doing so are terribly misguided. If you get offended at drive-by trolling by stupid people then you need to seek the issue in yourself, not in the website that was the playground to such behaviour. Grow up. No one's going to play nanny for the world, and if the UK wants to start doing that, then you can be sure as hell it'll see backlash.

ig1 14y ago
The bill isn't about restricting the publication of ideas, it's about restricting harassment and defamation.
- novalis 14y ago
  As it was done many times in the past, the second can be gamed to prevent the first. It is not about the intentions, it's about the possible outcomes and this is just another reach for fear based censorship. Because you know the system is always gamed and abused when in place.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Everything can be gamed to suppress free speech. The same logic says we should do away with fraud statutes. You think this is an insightful and important point, but it's really a banal point.
    - novalis 14y ago
      Not everything can be gamed to suppress free speech, in particular statutes, the attempt to do so is predictably forbidden. That may or may not be a piece of banal insightful information. This legislation is proposed for online communication and that is the target and reach that can be gamed. Blanket statements will not make it any other than what it is. An abusive new piece of language that is open to be used for censorship purposes. As to what I believe is insightful or not, that is up to my devices and I am free to share it or not when and how I choose to, for the time being. Tend to keep it that way.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      The problem is the chilling effect. Who determines what "bullying" is? I've seen some heated discussions online that could be mistaken for something that they're not in more than one instance. I'm personally of the opinion that "online bullying" is a nonsense phenomenon. How do you deal with a bully online? You access the block function of the medium you're using and block the idiot. Done. You never have to deal with them again.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - smokeyj 14y ago
      The only banal point is arguing that freedom of speech and privacy are antiquated. I like how you frame OP as a hick because his opinions differ from yours. Is it easy being the smartest guy you know?
    - cheatercheater 14y ago
      I made it because no one else had and I knew I'd get upvoted. Don't think I don't realize it's trite. It's just fodder for the masses.
  - ig1 14y ago
    You realize this law has nothing to do with web-filtering right ? What this law means is if a UGC website is used by an individual for the purpose of harassment, the UGC website won't be liable for it as long as they co-operate in allowing the individual responsible to be prosecuted directly. It essentially gives UGC sites safe-harbour protection whereas before they could have been considered responsible for the content themselves as publishers. The legal responsibility is pushed back onto the individual who created the content, which is exactly how it should be.
    - novalis 14y ago
      ... to push action from a site to reveal someone that will be up for legal process. You can word that a lot of ways, but to define harassment through online communication is the sort of overreach needed to make sites do the dirty work with no due process or checks. Just the pathway. To provide a path for easy censorship is another way to put it, but you selectively left that out.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      What this law means is if a UGC website is used by an individual for the purpose of harassment, the UGC website won't be liable for it as long as they co-operate in allowing the individual responsible to be prosecuted directly. AKA "Give us names and you walk."
tomgallard 14y ago
You may be thick-skinned enough to cope with online harassment and bullying but not everyone is. Here's an example of a 13 year old girl who commited suicide after being bullied online . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569949/Girl-13-commits-suicide-after-online-bullying.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569949/Girl-13-co... Do you really think that is OK, and that the issue was in herself? I really hope you just haven't thought through what you said. Just in the same way you can't harass someone in the street, there shouldn't be carte blanche for bullying just because it happens to be online.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  Someone who suffers from depression and has ADHD should probably be extremely closely monitored by their parents/carers. It's not for the government to directly intervene in things like this. If a certain message is going to trigger someone to committing suicide, then connecting them to the internet is probably a very bad idea. > Just in the same way you can't harass someone in the street It happens all the time. People harass other people, begging, wanting you to fill out surveys, trying to sell you stuff. Go down a pub... Look at football supporters harassing each other. People need to grow far thicker skin when it comes to words. > there shouldn't be carte blanche for bullying just because it happens to be online Online "bullying" isn't really bullying though. It's your computer telling you that some human being apparently said something. You should take that with a huge grain of salt. It could as likely be a bot. It's parents place to educate their children into the mindset of assuming nothing is real online. People are not who they say they are. People may not exist. Am I being online "bullied" by the automated spam process sending me emails suggesting I need penis enlargement devices?
  - stfu 14y ago
    People need to grow far thicker skin when it comes to words. Sometimes these cases seem to be coming from people who just bought their first internet machine and become deeply offended that arguing on the internet works by different rules than their dinner table conversations. I would even go so far and argue that trolling can lead to a higher level of tolerance, as it pushes the believes of those being trolled over the top. In an ideal scenario this could lead to realization that their opinions, views, and in the end reality, are not as black and white as they think - i.e. a Steven Colbert effect.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> What's more disturbing is that you seem to think there's content which should be banned from being published. If you'd read TFA, you'd know that this case is where the trolls impersonated a woman, setting up a facebook profile with her name and photos on it - so that people who knew her IRL thought it was her profile. That profile painted her as a paedophile and drug dealer. They did this just for fun. I'm pretty sure that identity theft and libel (or the equivalent definitions in other legal systems) are illegal just about everywhere; and can and should result in this content being "banned from being published", and the anonymity of the people doing it being stripped away. This law could be over-broad, I don't know, but if you find the take-down the most disturbing part of this case, check your sense of proportion.
- amurmann 14y ago
  There already are laws against identity theft, so we don't need another one that has the convenient side effect of adding more ways to cut free speech. This law might be used in rare cases like this, but probably more often to shut up negative opinions about policy and large companies.
- sneak 14y ago
  Can we be careful with the term "identity theft", please? Creating a fake social network profile for the lulz should not ever be a crime. Taking out credit in someone else's name should be. A friend is being federally prosecuted (a five-year felony!) for identity theft... for possessing a list of email addresses. Please, slow your roll.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    > Can we be careful with the term "identity theft", please? Ok, lets be careful with it: > "Identity theft is a form of stealing someone's identity in which someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity, typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits in that person's name. The victim of identity theft (here meaning the person whose identity has been assumed by the identity thief) can suffer adverse consequences if they are held accountable for the perpetrator's actions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft Taking out credit in someone else's name fits that definition exactly. Just possessing a list of email addresses does not at all. Now, as for making a fake facebook profile with someone's name and photos: "someone pretends to be someone else by assuming that person's identity" yes, that fits. "typically in order to access resources or obtain credit and other benefits" - no, but note that is "typically" not "always". "The victim of identity theft can suffer adverse consequences" - yes, that happened. So on the whole I would say that the definition of identity theft fits in this case.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]