Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mr_ToDo t1_iy8ma49 wrote

Reply to comment by Fando1234 in UK waters down internet rules plan after free speech outcry by Sorin61

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.

−3

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.

10

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).

2