3 ms·

In most parts of the World, some aspect of the media is regulated. In the UK, broadcast news is heavily regulated by an independent body (Ofcom), and newspaper

In most parts of the World, some aspect of the media is regulated. In the UK, broadcast news is heavily regulated by an independent body (Ofcom), and newspapers are "self-regulated" by a body created after the phone-hacking scandal[1] staffed by newspaper insiders (IPSO). Even so, sometimes bad things happen and Ofcom has to take GB News to task, and IPSO has to tell one of its mates off for printing something invasive. This is all below the level of the law coming into play (for example, slander/libel or personal data handling), this is just "best practice". The regulators are needed in the UK and everywhere else in the World they exist not to censor platform owners and contributors, but to protect the wider World from them. You can't just break into somebody's voicemail and report what you heard any more. You can't just have one politician interview another and pretend its news content, no matter what GB News say. There are standards to try and improve the quality of the output to make it useful. Social media has clearly reached a point where some rules are necessary for that purpose. Meta have had a little swing at this with their own Oversight Board, but its clearly not working enough in the interests of the audience because we keep finding examples of dead teenagers whose parents insist could have been saved if Meta had just been better members of society. [2] And then there is Musk. I get it, he started a company that builds cool rockets, and bought Tesla and drove it bigger, and he had a cameo in Iron Man 2 because Tony Stark is meant to be modeled on him by the film creators, but it's clear now, he can't run an influential platform well, and it's no surprise that even if he isn't actively promoting his strong political preferences in the algorithm, he's not exactly diving in and insisting it gets fixed to solve this problem. Regulation is seen by the tech industry as an impediment to innovation, a barrier to growth. I think with technologies that impact the health of a society, that society has a right - a need - to see that those technologies are regulated in the name of the society not being harmed by it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki... [2] https://news.sky.com/story/molly-russell-inquest-teenager-died-by-self-harm-while-suffering-negative-effects-of-online-content-coroner-finds-12707322 https://news.sky.com/story/molly-russell-inquest-teenager-di... https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/19/tech/social-media-lawsuits-teen-suicide/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/19/tech/social-media-lawsuit...

WalterBright 2y ago
What do you think of the obvious bias of the New York Times?
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The answer I expected! :-)
gosub100 2y ago
How about regulating teen accounts? If you want to use it, your parents must sponsor you. Then if you blame FB or whatever for the teen's suicide, FB can pull the logs and show how much interaction the parents had with their child? If the parents appear to be derelict, then let the court assume that neglect was the main factor.
lazyeye 2y ago
Why is Twitter only a problem to be solved now? Twitter was arguably more biased (in the opposite direction) before Musk took it over?
int_19h 2y ago
> The regulators are needed in the UK and everywhere else in the World they exist not to censor platform owners and contributors You say that, but then again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Ireland_Back_to_the_Irish#Ban_and_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Ireland_Back_to_the_Irish... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece:_The_Hidden_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece:_The_Hidden_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo#Official_secrets_and_UK_publication_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo#Offici...
- PaulRobinson 2y ago
  First one is irrelevant: McCartney refused to deny he was fund-raising for a terrorist organisation that was literally bombing the UK at the time. That, and the fact the majority of people living in Ulster wanted to remain part of the UK (and still do, but demographic changes mean that might not be the case in a generation), meant it was a slam dunk that the BBC would ban it to prevent offence that could lead to an incitement of violence at a delicate time. Also note that wasn't a regulator taking action, it was not the government, it was a broadcaster coming up to a charter renewal conversation. Complain about Auntie BBC if you must, but not a fault of regulators. The second one is irrelevant in the modern context: the IBA hasn't been a regulator for over 30 years, and had a different set of guidelines and authority to Ofcom. It is unlikely that a fair and balanced account where a reasonable right to reply was offered to all parties would be banned from broadcast today. The third one is a ban under OSA, and has nothing to do with media regulators, its about the scope of acts like the OSA, and its appropriate use.

WalterBright 2y ago

What do you think of the obvious bias of the New York Times?

WalterBright 2y ago
The answer I expected! :-)

gosub100 2y ago

How about regulating teen accounts? If you want to use it, your parents must sponsor you. Then if you blame FB or whatever for the teen's suicide, FB can pull the logs and show how much interaction the parents had with their child? If the parents appear to be derelict, then let the court assume that neglect was the main factor.

lazyeye 2y ago

Why is Twitter only a problem to be solved now? Twitter was arguably more biased (in the opposite direction) before Musk took it over?

int_19h 2y ago

> The regulators are needed in the UK and everywhere else in the World they exist not to censor platform owners and contributors You say that, but then again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Ireland_Back_to_the_Irish#Ban_and_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_Ireland_Back_to_the_Irish... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece:_The_Hidden_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece:_The_Hidden_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo#Official_secrets_and_UK_publication_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo#Offici...

PaulRobinson 2y ago
First one is irrelevant: McCartney refused to deny he was fund-raising for a terrorist organisation that was literally bombing the UK at the time. That, and the fact the majority of people living in Ulster wanted to remain part of the UK (and still do, but demographic changes mean that might not be the case in a generation), meant it was a slam dunk that the BBC would ban it to prevent offence that could lead to an incitement of violence at a delicate time. Also note that wasn't a regulator taking action, it was not the government, it was a broadcaster coming up to a charter renewal conversation. Complain about Auntie BBC if you must, but not a fault of regulators. The second one is irrelevant in the modern context: the IBA hasn't been a regulator for over 30 years, and had a different set of guidelines and authority to Ofcom. It is unlikely that a fair and balanced account where a reasonable right to reply was offered to all parties would be banned from broadcast today. The third one is a ban under OSA, and has nothing to do with media regulators, its about the scope of acts like the OSA, and its appropriate use.