6 ms·

Better alternative to first-party propaganda: https://www.eff.org/pages/uk-online-safety-bill-massive-threat-online-privacy-security-and-speech https://www.eff.

Better alternative to first-party propaganda: https://www.eff.org/pages/uk-online-safety-bill-massive-threat-online-privacy-security-and-speech https://www.eff.org/pages/uk-online-safety-bill-massive-thre...

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
Ofcom is an independent regulator; it's far from the "first-party" you're implying it is.
- pixxel 2y ago
  JFC. You probably think the BBC is impartial.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    Everyone knows the BBC is biased against their side.
- nohuck13 2y ago
  This is a press release, though. Whether or not Ofcom is independent, their press release writers are not independent, they are part of Ofcom's PR team, a team that absolutely exists.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Mindwipe 2y ago
  Ofcom really isn't actually independent on Online Safety in any way. It has to obey instructions on prioritisation from the secretary of state and has no real operational flexibility. As with much of the (dire) UK legislation here, the government saying something is true until it is blue in the face does not make it true.
  - vogon_laureate 2y ago
    The Online Safety Act provides for Ofcom to develop its own codes of practice and guidelines based on the provisions of the act and public consultation (including with the platforms). It has an enormous amount of leeway in deciding how to implement the Act. Ofcom has operational independence. Neither its investigations nor its enforcement actions are directly controlled by the Government. The Government does approve Codes of Practice but if it doesn't approve, it can only request modifications. It's still up to Ofcom to decide how to interpret and implement. Secretary of State interventions are, by convention, rare and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
    - vogon_laureate 2y ago
      I love how this got downvoted. I literally consulted on the draft legislation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- collyw 2y ago
  [flagged]
- randomcarbloke 2y ago
  there is no quango in the UK that is independent, they are all, without exception "independent" with an implied nudge and a wink.
- pjc50 2y ago
  The Q in Quango stands for Quasi.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    Right, so calling it "3rd party" would be a stretch, but it's definitely not "1st party". I think "2nd party" would be a fair compromise.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
krisbolton 2y ago
Well, that links to EFF's own "propaganda" - perpetuating privacy at all costs. Inevitably the place law and regulation should is somewhere in between, balancing risk and striving for an acceptable position all things considered within a democratic framework.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy It is never "inevitable" that the correct place for law and regulation is somewhere in the middle on every issue. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but it's never inevitable. Assuming that it is makes it far too easy to move the Overton window: regulation proposes something stricter than the status quo, "compromise" moves in that direction, repeat.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  > all things considered within a democratic framework The UK has a very funny (literally ha-ha funny) notion of "democracy" -- with people just voting against the status quo most of the time and with "first past the post" resulting in leadership that doesn't have, and cannot even credibly claim, genuine popular support. It's a totally broken system.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - BoxOfRain 2y ago
    If there is one political change I could make to the UK it'd be the adoption of the single transferable vote. There's massive amounts of political alienation in the UK which have complicated causes (often related to the 'managed decline' policies of governments past) but a big contributing factor in my opinion is how many votes are completely wasted under first past the post, if you're in a safe seat voting often feels completely futile. FPTP means there's a lot of seats where a donkey with the appropriate rosette would win easily and there's not a lot of competition to win these seats, and so these seats get taken for granted by politicians. A move to STV wouldn't be a silver bullet but at the very least it'd eliminate the phenomenon of wasted votes and make safe seats less safe, forcing politicians to care about all the seats rather than just currently competitive ones. The problem is there's no incentive for either major party to end their duopoly in the national interest, it's the same sort of problem the 'rotten boroughs' of old faced in that the people who benefitted from them were the only people with the power to deal with them. Labour in particular are notorious on this subject, they'll promise electoral reform in opposition and change their tune instantly once in power.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

Ofcom is an independent regulator; it's far from the "first-party" you're implying it is.

pixxel 2y ago
JFC. You probably think the BBC is impartial.
- blitzar 2y ago
  Everyone knows the BBC is biased against their side.
nohuck13 2y ago
This is a press release, though. Whether or not Ofcom is independent, their press release writers are not independent, they are part of Ofcom's PR team, a team that absolutely exists.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Mindwipe 2y ago
Ofcom really isn't actually independent on Online Safety in any way. It has to obey instructions on prioritisation from the secretary of state and has no real operational flexibility. As with much of the (dire) UK legislation here, the government saying something is true until it is blue in the face does not make it true.
- vogon_laureate 2y ago
  The Online Safety Act provides for Ofcom to develop its own codes of practice and guidelines based on the provisions of the act and public consultation (including with the platforms). It has an enormous amount of leeway in deciding how to implement the Act. Ofcom has operational independence. Neither its investigations nor its enforcement actions are directly controlled by the Government. The Government does approve Codes of Practice but if it doesn't approve, it can only request modifications. It's still up to Ofcom to decide how to interpret and implement. Secretary of State interventions are, by convention, rare and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
  - vogon_laureate 2y ago
    I love how this got downvoted. I literally consulted on the draft legislation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
collyw 2y ago
[flagged]
randomcarbloke 2y ago
there is no quango in the UK that is independent, they are all, without exception "independent" with an implied nudge and a wink.
pjc50 2y ago
The Q in Quango stands for Quasi.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  Right, so calling it "3rd party" would be a stretch, but it's definitely not "1st party". I think "2nd party" would be a fair compromise.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

krisbolton 2y ago

Well, that links to EFF's own "propaganda" - perpetuating privacy at all costs. Inevitably the place law and regulation should is somewhere in between, balancing risk and striving for an acceptable position all things considered within a democratic framework.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground_fallacy It is never "inevitable" that the correct place for law and regulation is somewhere in the middle on every issue. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but it's never inevitable. Assuming that it is makes it far too easy to move the Overton window: regulation proposes something stricter than the status quo, "compromise" moves in that direction, repeat.
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
> all things considered within a democratic framework The UK has a very funny (literally ha-ha funny) notion of "democracy" -- with people just voting against the status quo most of the time and with "first past the post" resulting in leadership that doesn't have, and cannot even credibly claim, genuine popular support. It's a totally broken system.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- BoxOfRain 2y ago
  If there is one political change I could make to the UK it'd be the adoption of the single transferable vote. There's massive amounts of political alienation in the UK which have complicated causes (often related to the 'managed decline' policies of governments past) but a big contributing factor in my opinion is how many votes are completely wasted under first past the post, if you're in a safe seat voting often feels completely futile. FPTP means there's a lot of seats where a donkey with the appropriate rosette would win easily and there's not a lot of competition to win these seats, and so these seats get taken for granted by politicians. A move to STV wouldn't be a silver bullet but at the very least it'd eliminate the phenomenon of wasted votes and make safe seats less safe, forcing politicians to care about all the seats rather than just currently competitive ones. The problem is there's no incentive for either major party to end their duopoly in the national interest, it's the same sort of problem the 'rotten boroughs' of old faced in that the people who benefitted from them were the only people with the power to deal with them. Labour in particular are notorious on this subject, they'll promise electoral reform in opposition and change their tune instantly once in power.