Britain plans social media watchdog to battle harmful content

[misskit]

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain proposed new online safety laws on Monday that would slap penalties on social media companies and technology firms if they fail to protect users from harmful content.

Easy access to damaging material, particularly among young people, has caused growing concern worldwide and came into the spotlight in Britain after the death of 14-year-old schoolgirl Molly Russell, which her parents said came after she had viewed online material on depression and suicide.


Internet companies could face big fines, with bosses also held personally accountable, under rules to be policed by an independent regulator.


In the most serious cases companies could also be banned from operating in Britain if they do not everything reasonably practical to eradicate harmful content.


“We are putting a legal duty of care on these companies to keep users safe; and if they fail to do so, tough punishments will be imposed,” Prime Minister Theresa May said in a video posted online.


“The era of social media firms regulating themselves is over.”


Media Secretary Jeremy Wright said the proposed legislation - the toughest in the world - would apply to any company that allowed users to share or discover content or interact online, such as social media sites, discussion forums, messaging services and search engines.


GLOBAL WORRIES

Governments globally are wrestling over how to better control content on social media platforms, often blamed for encouraging abuse, the spread of online pornography and for influencing or manipulating voters.


Global worries were stoked by the live streaming in March of the mass shooting at a mosque in New Zealand on one of Facebook’s platforms, after which Australia said it would fine social media and web-hosting companies and imprison executives if violent content is not removed “expeditiously”.




TechUK, an industry trade group, said the paper was a significant step forward, but one that needs to be firmed up during its 12-week consultation. It said that some aspects of the government’s approach were too vague.


“It is vital that the new framework is effective, proportionate and predictable,” techUK said in a statement, adding that not all concerns could be addressed through regulation.


Facebook said it was looking forward to working with the government to ensure new regulations were effective, repeating founder Mark Zuckerberg’s line that regulations were needed to have a standard approach across platforms.
COMPLEX ISSUES

Rebecca Stimson, Facebook’s head of UK public policy, said any new rules should strike a balance between protecting society and supporting innovation and free speech.


“These are complex issues to get right and we look forward to working with the government and parliament to ensure new regulations are effective,” Stimson said in a statement.


Prime Minister May said that while the internet could be brilliant at connecting people, it had not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people.


“We have listened to campaigners and parents, and are putting a legal duty of care on internet companies to keep people safe,” she said in a statement.


The duty of care would make companies take more responsibility for the safety of users and tackle harm caused by content or activity on their services. The regulator, funded by industry in the medium term, will set clear safety standards.


A committee of lawmakers has also demanded that more is done to make political advertising and campaigning on social media more transparent.




“It is vital that our electoral law is brought up to date as soon as possible, so that social media users know who is contacting them with political messages and why,” said Damian Collins, a Conservative MP who chairs the parliamentary committee for digital, culture, media and sport.


“Should there be an early election, then emergency legislation should be introduced to achieve this.”





https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1RJ0QP

[buriramboy]

Or it could be that politicians dont like people getting their news from sources other than their mouthpieces like the BBC and SKY. Let's just wait and see how this law is used.

[harrybarracuda]

Utterly fucking pointless.

11 years know more about getting round Internet blocks than any stupid fucking MP.

[DrB0b]

Utterly fucking pointless.

11 years know more about getting round Internet blocks than any stupid fucking MP.

It's nothing to do with Internet blocks, you retard.

[harrybarracuda]

It's nothing to do with Internet blocks, you retard.

"Easy access to damaging material".

Don't be a dumbass Bob.

[Cujo]

"Easy access to damaging material".

Don't be a dumbass Bob.

In this case it's you being the dumbass harry.
It's about removing the harmful material at the source, not blocking it at the other end.
Commendable, but where could this lead? Who decides what's suitable material for public viewing?
Will they ban certain views on things like Brexit for example?
(I'm talking way in the future).
Sharp edge of a nasty wedge if you ask me

[harrybarracuda]

In this case it's you being the dumbass harry.
It's about removing the harmful material at the source, not blocking it at the other end.
Commendable, but where could this lead? Who decides what's suitable material for public viewing?
Will they ban certain views on things like Brexit for example?
(I'm talking way in the future).
Sharp edge of a nasty wedge if you ask me

Were you both starved of oxygen at birth?

Do you think blocking or removing anything from UK servers will stop kids getting it via a VPN?

Do you think Pornhub would shut down because the UK bans it?

Fucking pair of idiots.

[Cujo]

"Easy access to damaging material".

Don't be a dumbass Bob.

In this case it's you being the dumbass harry.
It's about removing the harmful material at the source, not blocking it at the other end.
Commendable, but where could this lead? Who decides what's suitable material for public viewing?
Will they ban certain views on things like Brexit for example?
(I'm talking way in the future).
Sharp edge of a nasty wedge if you ask me

[Cujo]

Were you both starved of oxygen at birth?

Do you think blocking or removing anything from UK servers will stop kids getting it via a VPN?

Do you think Pornhub would shut down because the UK bans it?

Fucking pair of idiots.

How are they going to get it at all I'd it's NOT FUCKING THERE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN REMOVED????
Fuckwit.

[DrB0b]

Do you think blocking or removing anything from UK servers will stop kids getting it via a VPN?

You seem to have no understanding about how social media works. This is about stopping illegal or dangerous material making it on to the platform in the first place. That's an easy thing to do. Facebook, for example, already employ thousands of moderators who check and remove posts reported by users. The way to deal with illegal content is to insert a 15 minute or so delay between uploading and publishing so the content can be moderated. Before you fly into another of your uninformed rages be aware that most social media content is ALREADY moderated but the onus is on the users to report it rather than on the publisher to be proactive.

[Cujo]

I see it now.
The problem is if it's hosted in the U.S. and acceptable in the U.S. (but not Britain) then they can't force YouTube for example,to remove it so they could only try to block it.

[Norton]

damaging material

Hmmm....

[harrybarracuda]

I see it now.
The problem is if it's hosted in the U.S. and acceptable in the U.S. (but not Britain) then they can't force YouTube for example,to remove it so they could only try to block it.

Bingo!

[harrybarracuda]

You seem to have no understanding about how social media works. This is about stopping illegal or dangerous material making it on to the platform in the first place. That's an easy thing to do. Facebook, for example, already employ thousands of moderators who check and remove posts reported by users. The way to deal with illegal content is to insert a 15 minute or so delay between uploading and publishing so the content can be moderated. Before you fly into another of your uninformed rages be aware that most social media content is ALREADY moderated but the onus is on the users to report it rather than on the publisher to be proactive.

You should try reading the OP before you post Bob.

"Easy access to damaging material, particularly among young people, has caused growing concern worldwide and came into the spotlight in Britain after the death of 14-year-old schoolgirl Molly Russell, which her parents said came after she had viewed online material on depression and suicide. ".

So let's say the UK puts in laws that says FB and Twitter have to ban stuff in the UK about depression and suicide.

And let's say they do.

And let's say an 11 year old who clearly knows more about the fucking internet than you do decides to go and read it through a VPN.

Who are the UK going to go after here?

FB USA? The VPN provider?

It's about as well thought out as your posts on this subject.

[DrB0b]

I see it now.
The problem is if it's hosted in the U.S. and acceptable in the U.S. (but not Britain) then they can't force YouTube for example,to remove it so they could only try to block it.

It's not a blanket solution but murder, rape, and certain types of porn are illegal everywhere. A publisher is not obliged to publish everything, regardless of local laws.

These days Internet connections to global sites are generally routed to local data centres using anycast or similar technologies, although of course that can be circumvented with a VPN and is not actually relevant in this case.

Finally, countries can indeed force social media companies to obey local laws, it's done all the time. There was no issues about enforcing GDPR compliance on overseas companies and there would be no issues about enforcing this either.

[DrB0b]

So let's say the UK puts in laws that says FB and Twitter have to ban stuff in the UK about depression and suicide.

As someone who actually has input into the UKs current and future laws in this area I know that such a simplistic method is not even up for discussion in this case. I've already told you how it will work, legally-binding pre-moderation. This is, for example, already done by countries such as China for a number of social media sites.

This is about companies accepting responsibility for the content they publish and no one expects it to be a 100% effective solution for restricting access no matter what hysterical and uninformed spin people like you try to put on it. It woud have, for example, prevented the live streaming of the New Zealand murders on facebook and no VPN or onion routing system would have got around that.

[harrybarracuda]

As someone who actually has input into the UKs current and future laws in this area I know that such a simplistic method is not even up for discussion in this case. I've already told you how it will work, legally-binding pre-moderation. This is, for example, already done by countries such as China for a number of social media sites.

This is about companies accepting responsibility for the content they publish and no one expects it to be a 100% effective solution for restricting access no matter what hysterical and uninformed spin people like you try to put on it. It woud have, for example, prevented the live streaming of the New Zealand murders on facebook and no VPN or onion routing system would have got around that.

It's interesting that you mention China.
Because all of this is is yet more attempts at imposing government censorship.

First they start censoring social media. Then what?

Forums such as this?

And then what? Your email?

They can all fuck off.

The issue in this case is not what is on the Internet, it's crap fucking parenting.

So some depressed child committed suicide after they went looking for information on the internet on how to commit suicide.

Someone needs to be asking the parents of 14-year old Molly Russell why they were not monitoring what she was looking at and why they were so ill-equipped to notice that they had a suicidal daughter.

Treat the fucking cause and not the symptom.

[DrB0b]

The issue in this case is not what is on the Internet, it's crap fucking parenting.

So some depressed child committed suicide after they went looking for information on the internet on how to commit suicide

You're really stuck on that one, aren't you? That's not the only example that was given, you know, and it's not the prime reason for making social media companies behave like any other publisher.

First they start censoring social media. Then what?

First? Are you aware that censorship already expects and what is happening is that social media companies are being asked to behave as every other media organisation has to? Sit down and take a deep breath, ffs.

[baldrick]

So my site.onion can be blocked from the younguns with their VPN running on their VPS in Bulgaria that has a Tor bridge and paid for in nano

Because we are not far from this being the average scenario as people start to grasp the reality of corporate tracking

[DrB0b]

So my site.onion can be blocked from the younguns with their VPN running on their VPS in Bulgaria that has a Tor bridge and paid for in nano

Because we are not far from this being the average scenario as people start to grasp the reality of corporate tracking

Rubbish. Most people couldn't care less about corporate tracking and the tiny number who do know how to avoid it. Can you imagine the geriatrics on here, who struggle to upload a photo from their PCs, struggling with Onion routing? Especially when they find it allows them slightly less bandwidth than a 1990s dialup.


Anyway, what's that got to do with anything? The OP is nothing to do with blocking, the only reason it was mentioned is because our local ragebot misunderstood the OP.

[harrybarracuda]

Rubbish. Most people couldn't care less about corporate tracking and the tiny number who do know how to avoid it. Can you imagine the geriatrics on here, who struggle to upload a photo from their PCs, struggling with Onion routing? Especially when they find it allows them slightly less bandwidth than a 1990s dialup.


Anyway, what's that got to do with anything? The OP is nothing to do with blocking, the only reason it was mentioned is because our local ragebot misunderstood the OP.

It's exactly to do with blocking.

Only they are trying to get someone else to do their dirty work for them.

When the real problem is simply shit parenting. The average parent loves computers and the internet because it means they can sit down and watch Eastenders and Coronation street without their kids whining about watching top of the fucking pops or whatever shit fills that gap these days.

They are actually happy for the kids to be locked in their room wanking, plotting ways to kill themselves or trolling because it means they can abdicate their parental responsibilities.

And no matter what they do with social media, kids will still find a way to access Liveleak or equally grotesque content, or alternatives will pop up as they always do.

This is just slapping lipstick on a pig, and most of the idiots involved in it are clueless wankers.

If Mary Whitehouse was still alive she'd be screaming for the fucking Internet to get turned off.

[DrB0b]

Jesus. When you pick up the wrong end of the stick you just don't let go, do you?

[Norton]

Liveleak

Had a look. Was expecting golden shower vids. Nary a one but the rest was interesting.

The site should be safe from action by the "independent regulator" deemiing it has "damaging material" content that must be removed.

Then again, the independent regulator might disagree with my assessment but "My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” ― Christopher Hitchens

[DrB0b]

Had a look. Was expecting golden shower vids. Nary a one but the rest was interesting.

The site should be safe from action by the "independent regulator" deemiing it has "damaging material" content that must be removed.

Then again, the independent regulator might disagree with my assessment but "My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” ― Christopher Hitchens

Once again, this is not about blocking sites or removing content, this is about making social media companies and other publishers take responsibility for their content before it is published. Harry has gone off on some wild tangent and is too up himself to admit he got it wrong.

[harrybarracuda]

Once again, this is not about blocking sites or removing content, this is about making social media companies and other publishers take responsibility for their content before it is published. Harry has gone off on some wild tangent and is too up himself to admit he got it wrong.

Stop fannying around with all the waffle, it's about making social media do your censorship for you.

No matter how desperately you try and spin it, it's there in plain English:

"Easy Access to damaging material"

Read the fucking OP. They are blaming their daughters death on the fact that she had access to material on the internet and they think it should be blocked. It doesn't matter if they use government Internet filters or get the ISPs/Social Media companies to do it for them, it's censorship.