Submitted by Sorin61 t3_z7qa8l in technology
Fando1234 t1_iy7pmbr wrote
Personally I think this is a really positive change to the bill. The issue with putting the onus on companies to police even legal speech, is you incentivise them to over police it.
Given the wide range of ideas, art, satire that have the capacity to offend people... Social platforms would rather take down everything than risk a lawsuit where they could be liable.
Mr_ToDo t1_iy8ma49 wrote
Well I haven't seen the proposal itself but going by the article I find the whole thing odd.
If the rules only apply if you make the type of speech part of your user agreement then I'm not entirely sure why it's as big a deal as people are making. Yes the cost is pretty high, but some level of enforcement of an agreement seems on point to me. And if you don't want the cost you don't need to include it in the EULA.
Unless my understanding is wrong.
Fando1234 t1_iy8msh3 wrote
That's correct now. But originally the bill went as far as to say platforms are legally responsible for any offensive content. Whether or not it is illegal or in their EULA.
The main issue being the ambiguity around what is/isn't offensive. Is satire offensive? Or artistic expression?
And under that framework, with the threat of near constant law suits you can see why social media sites would just take down anything that could be deemed offensive by anyone. And that would be an issue for free speech.
Mr_ToDo t1_iy8ozua wrote
Ah, I assumed it would be down the lines of "offensive as defined in the EULA". But considering how ill defined it is generally in EULA's it's probably just as bad to say that(which is probably it's own problem that needs addressing).
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy7wcls wrote
You're not accounting for the fact that the world hasn't caught up the digital age. Right now it's still the wild west on the internet, and there really does need to be heavy conversations about regulation and what the future looks like so we're headed in a good direction. There needs to be accountability for someone who goes online and starts telling random users on reddit they're going to kill them, higher punishments than a simple ban.
What Elon Musk is doing right now is a good reason why there should be laws in place for safe guard people. Letting things run unchecked is just as bad as regulation, possibly even worse. Look at the damage trump has caused. Long lasting damage that will be felt for decades. Or Alex Jones. None of that is a benefit to anyone.
Fando1234 t1_iy7wzqq wrote
>There needs to be accountability for someone who goes online and starts telling random users on reddit they're going to kill them, higher punishments than a simple ban.
But in your example here that is already illegal in the UK. And under existing legislation platforms are already required to take it down and report it.
Any incitement of violence, threats or hate speech is already illegal. Online and in real life.
[deleted] t1_iy833ny wrote
[removed]
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy7x3q1 wrote
Illegal and taking action are two entirely different things. I can guarantee you there are thousands of people from the UK who go online every morning and troll people with things like this and nothing is done.
BigEyeFiend t1_iy83h3i wrote
Oh no! Trolls! If only there was, I dunno…a block button or something?!?
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy845zz wrote
Don't you have a trump rally to attend?
BigEyeFiend t1_iy866al wrote
“A-A-Are you suggesting people t-take personal agency??? You m-must be a TRUMPER!”
Bruh. Grow up.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy86glk wrote
But im probably right.
Even through the internet I can get a feeling on if someone voted for trump.
BigEyeFiend t1_iy896wz wrote
Shouldn’t that sadden you, then?
That the people you think voted for Trump are the people who advocate for personal agency? 😂
My view is this - give people a block and mute button. Remove people who are doing anything illegal. That’s it. That’s all you need to do.
If you want to be babysat that’s your issue.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy89buh wrote
Nope. Regulation. Please.
BigEyeFiend t1_iy8b5mb wrote
Explain that logic to me.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy9kr5m wrote
Why do you hate accountability so much?
BigEyeFiend t1_iy9zb2n wrote
Or don’t. OK.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iya0c6i wrote
When you can answer me why you're absolutely terrified of being held accountable for what you post, then we can have an honest talk.
KingOPork t1_iyaglnw wrote
I'm a lefty who is terrified that having 10 year old lefty free speech views makes you a Trumper. "We need to limit speech so the government can easily stop dissent and to make every place more corporate ad friendly." Great. Cool.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iyaihwe wrote
Do you think you deserve the right to harass people online? Because that's what you're saying
KingOPork t1_iyak54r wrote
I think people want to harass and keep their political opponents from being able to do the same. When I bully its justified and speaking truth to power. When they do the same? It's time to legislate.
The-sly-goat t1_iy8a2hs wrote
Let’s assign a FBI agent then to everybody then lol
Soylentee t1_iy8aeag wrote
There is a time and place for regulation, this isn't it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments