Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Lemon_LostSock t1_iy7suie wrote

In other news UK government to paint whole internet beige.

77

memberjan6 t1_iy84s0n wrote

In other news UK government to deputize all corporations who own web sites! What could go wrong with privatized police work? Anyone? Bueller?

16

UnkindlyDisagree t1_iy7samx wrote

I wonder if it will apply to everyone or if we'll have the usual double standards.

71

HanaBothWays t1_iy7s5tr wrote

Football fans gonna get deplatformed LOL

69

[deleted] t1_iy8r8u1 wrote

[deleted]

23

HanaBothWays t1_iy8rpbt wrote

Even Twitter under previous management could not have been arsed to keep up with this.

9

F0sh t1_iy8b68c wrote

The actual proposals are remarkably sensible: it amounts to a legal duty to uphold your own terms of service, no bans except as set out in the TOS, and right of appeal against bans. If you want to allow offensive speech on your platform then I think you should be allowed to, but if you say you aren't going to and then people sign up thinking they won't be exposed to it but actually are, that's an issue.

36

yem_slave t1_iyaskbe wrote

I want to know about a single person who read the TOS then logged into Twitter and got the vapors from seeing something offensive.

3

F0sh t1_iyf1qy2 wrote

Even for the majority of people who don't read the TOS, the existence of that in the TOS becomes known because people talk about it.

1

yem_slave t1_iyf3895 wrote

At that point it's too late you've already been exposed.

−1

RawrRRitchie t1_iy9mpl7 wrote

You say that like people read the entirety of a TOS most people ignore that shit then act shocked when they break the rules

−4

onyxengine t1_iy9vcff wrote

Of the millions of users some have read the TOS, and there are reasonable expectations, even if someone hasn’t read it. Not reading the contract doesn’t make it invalid, and a government enforcing a corp’s TOS on behalf of its users is actually a step in a positive direction.

8

zanven42 t1_iyad135 wrote

You can usually ignore it if you just follow a personal rule of "don't be a dickhead"

4

Mikeavelli t1_iyasrah wrote

The real beneficiaries are content creators who depend on social media to earn an income. Most have read the ToS, and creators are often banned or demonetized for frivolous reasons that dont actually violate the ToS. Every once in a while a story about this happening makes it to r/technology.

3

xabhax t1_iy88i55 wrote

This coming from a government. That allows a convicted child killer to roam around and be a pedophile. And when he gets caught they change his identity and arrest people who post his picture

27

ronnieler1 t1_iyb3jsa wrote

Ya, but going against those companies pays well.... Catching that predator doesn't help their pockets

1

[deleted] t1_iy8hpuc wrote

This is slippery slope . I can see government shutting down valid criticism by using “sexism or racism” card.

19

bastiroid t1_iy8ql5p wrote

Already happening, the amount of valid criticism of Liz truss that was written of to sexism was stagering imho

5

onyxengine t1_iy9w1o8 wrote

To be fair, how much valid criticism of feminism gets mixed in with foaming at the mouth misogyny on the internet. I can’t remember the last time I read a valid critique of feminism, and toxic femininity that didn’t end up next to way past the line of decency red-pill takes. The internet is a confusing mess.

3

yem_slave t1_iyastb9 wrote

I was told that opposing a downtown baseball stadium was racist. So yeah we've already slid down that slope

1

hblok t1_iybyy98 wrote

You think?

Pretty much everything anybody says which somebody else does not agree with is "racist". Unless it relates to a woman, in which case it's "sexist". And obviously it's illegal to make claims such as "men cannot bear children".

Now, the mindbogglingly thing here is not that governments wants to censor. That's what they do. Rather, it's that the woke cancel culture still has so broad support that politicians push through with it. In a free society, it ought to be political suicide to even as much as propose a law like this. Yet here we are, with more and more censorship and cancel laws.

0

typing t1_iy824h6 wrote

Don't censor, get fined? Sounds like a hit to free speech.

11

DataGOGO t1_iy8yw0j wrote

The UK and EU do not have free speech (Literally).

5

masterblaster0 t1_iy96z9n wrote

THB there is no free speech with these businesses, they already moderate and their ToS limits the sort of content one can post.

2

Alternative_Dish740 t1_iyaaih7 wrote

UK doesn't have free speech at all. They've already arrested people for "causing anxiety" on Facebook.

1

Daetra t1_iy84yn9 wrote

When has it ever been about free speech and social media? It's was always about controlling who says what and it hasn't changed.

−16

typing t1_iy85oqn wrote

Controlling who says what is preventing free speech.

8

Daetra t1_iy85uf1 wrote

How so?

−14

MrDefenseSecretary t1_iy8hzak wrote

Bruh. Controlled speech is the literal antithesis to free speech.

9

Daetra t1_iy8lm4x wrote

That being said, most people don't actually care about free speech and it's usually being virtue signalled. Truth Social is heavily moderated and when people cry about free speech, like Musk, they show themselves to be hypocrites. It was always about controlling speech.

2

EmotionalPlum2102 t1_iy8vwbb wrote

It hasn’t been always about controlling the speech it’s always about controlling people. Speech is part of that yes but having control over people is what it’s about.

I am pro policing social media and what we are seeing are countries trying to act on that as we learn more and more about how social media is affecting the people of the world. The countries actions won’t be perfect and nor will the actions take effect over night in the change that world societies need to happen but not doing anything about the current social media problems is not the course of action to take we are finding that social media affects the well being of individuals all the way up to entire tribe mind mentality countries where we see a complete picture of what misinformation spread on social media does: it elected Donald trump, if not for twitter Trump would not have been elected IMO.

The internet was great prior to social media and now that internet traffic has consolidated to maybe 5 major platforms we see the problem with it and hive mind. Reddit is unique with our communities being able to mod themselves and I suspect policing social medias via govt will entice users to leave said major social media platforms.

3

Daetra t1_iy8xph3 wrote

I agree with a lot of what you said. Moderators can moderate how they see fit. When we sit down and talk about censorship honestly, most people would agree that in some form of it. Like who would want grown ass adults walking up to children and saying anything they want because of this notion of free speech. We censor ourselves when we are at work and act in a professional manner. Same when we are having conversations with people we don't know very well and we learn to read the room and avoid divisive conversations.

As far as social media and it's effect on our mental health, it doesn't look great. The internet and social media is a new phenomenon that will have to adapt to. Are places like 4chan where there's no moderation better for humans overall? I don't think so. Do we want a fascist state that controls all forms of media online and offline? Probably not. I don't think absolutes when it comes to free speech and expression is safe or healthy.

2

EmotionalPlum2102 t1_iy966t3 wrote

Are you me? Because I feel like I just replied to myself. Wow I’ve never met anyone on this sub that thinks like me lol

2

EmotionalPlum2102 t1_iy97z7t wrote

Do you listen to the Making Sense Podcast by ol Sammy boy Harris? His most recent interview with Cal Newport paints a great picture on said phenomenon’s and better health for the world. I am urging everyone I know to give it a listen and seriously consider how humans will never adapt to the quick change of technological of the future if we don’t change how we communicate online. The podcast aired only yesterday and if enough influential people and the hive mind takes hold of it, change may happen quicker than expected ;)

Why I Left Twitter by Sam Harris

1

Daetra t1_iy99iis wrote

I'll check it out, though I don't agree with Sam on a few issues. If he's worried about how we interact online isn't healthy, I would have to agree. Especially when it comes to young men. Too many are developing cluster B tendencies and a general negativity towards women.

People like Andrew Tate can be dangerous to young men and while I do understand why people say that we should allow everyone to speak freely and bad ideas like his should be challenged, as most would see what hes saying as bullshit. The problem is the few that buy into his rhetoric.

2

Daetra t1_iy8kkr9 wrote

Oh the idiot edited their post. Before they were saying controlled speech was free speech.

1

[deleted] t1_iy8mav6 wrote

Criticism of government to be now considered racism online

8

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iya46pg wrote

The great thing about living in a democracy is that if the government intervenes, there is going to be public record about it with which you can complain about.

3

Thrilleye51 t1_iy7wkqb wrote

Twitter is that you and freedom of speech??

7

FRIGIDfreya t1_iy89xyw wrote

So what will they do? they’ll just remove access to those platforms for UK citizens? VPN stocks rising.

7

Thrilleye51 t1_iy8aiqm wrote

Is that a likey scenario?

5

MrDefenseSecretary t1_iy8hpmo wrote

I don’t have the expertise to say but I think it is the most likely scenario.

Managing networks of hundreds of millions of people is impossible, especially with how nuanced the English language is. It would be a massive liability.

They would have to have a very restrictive and isolated version of a platform that wouldn’t even accept different words, phrases, and the problem is even harder with images and videos so those would probably be gone too.

Not an expert by any means just my two cents. From my understanding, it’s incredibly hard to police everything internally and AI moderation just isn’t where it needs to be. If a company is held liable for what end users do with their product or service, they will stop providing it.

8

Thrilleye51 t1_iy8j7b0 wrote

Exactly. Musk is going to have to do better or it's going to fail. The whole world is watching and it's not looking good.

3

MrDefenseSecretary t1_iy8jk6o wrote

I think it will work out but maybe not at the scale he is hoping. Meaning sports betting apps will advertise happily but maybe not companies like Disney.

I agree though, it will be interesting to see in ten years.

1

Thrilleye51 t1_iy8jtbu wrote

That's a substantial amount of time that will come quickly

1

FRIGIDfreya t1_iy8tpkd wrote

I don’t know the laws for “network neutrality” in UK. I know that ISPs in USA do have the power and legal authority to filter and block connections to whatever they want. I mean Google/Facebook/Alphabet/Youtube bans or restricts services for locations at the request of governments all over the globe. It’s really not that difficult, even Canada’s new “YouTube Canadian promotion law” or w/e the official title is, is filtering foreign content.

2

memberjan6 t1_iy84k84 wrote

The musk is rather stinky there. Is it just me?

−4

Thrilleye51 t1_iy85h3i wrote

The stench of poor decision making, and large numbers of people leaving, and public employee meltdowns.

−2

towhom_it_mayconcern t1_iy8a8qu wrote

People were suing over this in Australia ten years ago. They basically started censoring comments or locking certain articles to prevent lawsuits.

7

memberjan6 t1_iy849k2 wrote

The responsibility for execution of the UK's censoring would better belong to UK public services employees or conscripts, not the websites. A service corps is what I sm talking about. The paving company who constructed the streets and sidewalks inthe brick and mortar parts of the UK, as well the pubs and stadiums, are not equipped and should not be equipped to perform public policing jobs at alL. The police are thebest ones to be the police. l.

5

DataGOGO t1_iy8z72w wrote

The UK has no authority to sensor a post on a US based platform. Social media platforms can literally tell the UK to fuck off, and the UK is powerless to do anything about it.

0

masterblaster0 t1_iy9732i wrote

If a US based business operates in their jurisdiction they have to comply with their laws.

6

DataGOGO t1_iy9rlrc wrote

Define "Operate"?

If they have no offices and no employee in the UK, are they "operating" within the UK?

3

masterblaster0 t1_iybyfob wrote

Well, take the EU's GDPR. Many US businesses have no presence in the EU but still catered to the GDPR requirements because they were serving EU citizens. Businesses that couldn't set up GDPR compliancy used IP blocks for EU addresses to avoid falling foul and having to pay a fine etc.

If there was no authority all of these businesses would have just carried on as they were or, as you said it, told them to fuck off.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyd9wui wrote

Incorrect.

A US based business, with no operations in the UK or EU, can serve whatever content they want, to anyone in any county and they do not have to follow the EU laws, and the EU has no authority or power to fine them. Period. They can call it a media import if they want, and the US based company can tell them to fuck off.

If they chose to follow GDPR I 100% guarantee it is because they have operations, there.

They can ban them if they censor the internet, then could in theory block direct payments to them, but they can't fine them.

The UK and EU have zero authority over any business that does not directly operate on thier shores. Period

1

youmu123 t1_iyc9rd2 wrote

Even if it is essentially seen as a "media import", imports are regulated. A Chinese factory with no offices and no employees in the US still must obey US laws for its products to enter. In this case, the product is the social media service itself.

1

DataGOGO t1_iy8yqnv wrote

This is easy to avoid.

1.) Withdraw all servers out of the UK/EU and close any physical offices. It's the internet, everything will still work; There are plenty of place to host in those GEO's that are not part of the UK/EU.

2.) Tell the UK/EU to fuck off. They can't regulate or fine companies that do not operate within thier borders.

3.) Laugh at the UK & EU thinking they have any control at all over the internet and foreign corporations.

5

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iya535l wrote

I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious or not. To profit in the UK/EU (which Twitter does) you need to be registered there and follow their rules. They're not going to let you serve UK/EU users and have no control over that. Welcome to the 21st century. America also has this right for foreign companies that operate in their borders and they use it often (for example, TikTok).

3

DataGOGO t1_iyacajr wrote

Being serious.

>To profit in the UK/EU (which Twitter does)

If UK companies make payments to a company in the US, that does not make the company beholden to UK/EU rules.

>you need to be registered there and follow their rules.

No, they don't. They can literally completely ignore them.

​

>They're not going to let you serve UK/EU users and have no control over that.

If they want to block thier citizen's access to the internet, that is between them and thier citizens; it has nothing to do with the company that does not operate in the EU/UK.

​

> Welcome to the 21st century

yes, where global routing is a thing, and no one gives a fuck about the EU.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaesvv wrote

So you honestly think that a foreign company can serve ads in the UK/EU, profit off of users in these countries and not follow any local laws? In what universe are you living?

1

DataGOGO t1_iyarqx0 wrote

Yes, happens all the time. Goto websites not on in UK/EU , pick one, Doesn’t matter which, do you see ads and banners?

Do you honestly think seeing ads or earning money of foreign users is all that is required to be subject to local laws?

Let’s try a simple one. Goto cnn.com

Do you see ads? Do you think that means CNN has to follow uk/eu laws? Obviously not.

Serving content, presenting ads, and earning revenue is not what determines if a forgien company has to follow local laws. They have to operate in the country; have an office, have employees, have a formed business entity in those countries.

If they don’t, they don’t have to care.

2

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaturm wrote

>Do you think that means CNN has to follow uk/eu laws?

When I visit CNN.com I see a popup box asking me if I consent to using cookies. This isn't present everywhere and is there for GDPR.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyawelj wrote

Because CNN also operates in the EU. They have offices all over the world. That person's point remains. If I create a website in the US, and keep all my servers in the US, but don't block Europe and its users from accessing it, I am NOT subject to EU law. I am subject to US law, where my actual infrastructure is. There's millions of websites I can access from here that weren't intended to be viewed by my region but because of the open nature of the Internet, I can still see them.

Edit: Not sure how old you are but in the early 2000s this is how the famous filesharing website Pirate Bay was able to keep evading being taken down by moving their servers from country to country every time they encountered trouble with the local authorities. Foreign countries weren't able to do shit about it, but their users were still able to access it. That's how the Internet has always worked since its inception. The region blocking thing and serving different data to users of different countries is a relatively new thing. It's carving up the Internet into little bubbles and enclaves and defeating the whole purpose of it.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaxv1z wrote

His point was that US websites can serve UK/EU users relevant ads without being present in the UK/EU, which is incorrect. I would understand if the US website only targeted US users but if you have UK/EU ads it means you're targeting users from those territories and could get fined.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyaxzsh wrote

Fined by who, exactly? Is an EU/UK official going to fly over to the US, find the offending website operator, and fine them? Good luck with that.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaydnq wrote

Tell me genius, how are you supposed to target UK/EU users with relevant ads without explicitly being in the UK/EU? Do you honestly think that you, as a company, are going to be able to collect data from users in the UK/EU and not have any kind of repercussions? You're in the US, not Iran.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyayhuy wrote

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. My government isn't going to do shit if users from the EU see any of my ads and I happen to profit off them. That's how a sovereign country works.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyays3b wrote

They literally will. You wanna know why? Because literally no company has done it. Every US company, even those that don't even target EU users like US news sites block EU IP addresses because they don't want to comply with GDPR.

The US and UK/EU are not lawless lands, they comply heavily with each other. Imagine if copyright law was incompatible between the two.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyaza6t wrote

If I had the time, I can log onto a European VPN right now and probably find you hundreds of websites hosted inside the US not complying with GDPR but yet are still accessible from inside the EU and give you log files and screenshots and everything. There's way more out there than the big corporate sites that will bend over backwards for any country's laws.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyazm11 wrote

As someone who is actually in the EU and actually knows how many US websites either respect GDPR or block, it is the vast majority. Those that don't usually think they're small enough to get away with it. Certainly not when it comes to something like Twitter.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyb0805 wrote

Because the EU is a 700 million person market, and no big company wants to forever sully their potential profit on those people by getting on the EU's bad side. JimbobJamesNews.com however, isn't going to give a shit, and nobody in the US is going after them. The big ones aren't doing it because they're forced to. They're doing it because money.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyd885i wrote

>Tell me genius, how are you supposed to target UK/EU users with relevant ads without explicitly being in the UK/EU?

Easy. The source IP address, which is present in every request, reveals the source geo (unless using a VPN). So the site can present to you UK/EU specific ads.

​

>Do you honestly think that you, as a company, are going to be able to collect data from users in the UK/EU and not have any kind of repercussions?

Yes, because that is exactly how it works today.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyd7u7i wrote

> which is incorrect.

It isn't.

> but if you have UK/EU ads it means you're targeting users from those territories and could get fined.

Incorrect.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyda1r9 wrote

Aww... yep, CNN has a UK office, my bad.

1

youmu123 t1_iycatmr wrote

>If UK companies make payments to a company in the US, that does not make the company beholden to UK/EU rules.

>No, they don't. They can literally completely ignore them.

Someone has not worked with the Banking system.

How can the UK/EU prevent ordinary individuals and businesses from sending money to Twitter? The answer: the exact same way the West stops individuals and businesses from sending money to Iran or Al-Qaeda.

The entire anti-moneylaundering infrastructure the West has built actually creates an infrastructure to make it hard for ordinary citizens to pay. Many criminals will always slip through - but social media platforms have law-abiding users as the vast majority of their base, and they will not be able to pay.

>If they want to block thier citizen's access to the internet, that is between them and thier citizens; it has nothing to do with the company that does not operate in the EU/UK.

It does have everything to do with the company that does not operate. That company loses revenue. It's the same way sanctions work.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyd8sv2 wrote

>How can the UK/EU prevent ordinary individuals and businesses from sending money to Twitter? The answer: the exact same way the West stops individuals and businesses from sending money to Iran or Al-Qaeda.

No one said they couldn't stop people from making payments, only that a US company receiving payments from the EU/UK does not mean they are required to follow UK/EU laws.

​

>It does have everything to do with the company that does not operate. That company loses revenue. It's the same way sanctions work.

That is between them and thier citizens. All I said is that if there are no operations in the UK; they are under no obligation to follow the UK's laws. Which is 100% correct.

1

youmu123 t1_iydg41o wrote

>That is between them and thier citizens. All I said is that if there are no operations in the UK; they are under no obligation to follow the UK's laws. Which is 100% correct.

The person you replied to clearly said they have to follow rules to PROFIT there. Which is my point.

1

Daedelous2k t1_iy9s4cy wrote

Far too late for that, the EU has an immense level of control, nearly every tech co bends the knee.

1

[deleted] t1_iy9294s wrote

[deleted]

5

yem_slave t1_iyat24s wrote

The desire to censor speech is strong on this site.

3

[deleted] t1_iyaw6a6 wrote

[deleted]

2

yem_slave t1_iyb1rdl wrote

People want to live in an echo chamber of people who will confirm their biases.

2

square_mile t1_iy7yxxk wrote

Ofcom is a fucking disgrace

3

Neopiate13 t1_iyae8xf wrote

Studies have shown that moderated social media is a net positive. Moderate your platforms and watch the money pour in.

3

yem_slave t1_iyasbmn wrote

So I assume this means banning official accounts from Iran and Saudi Arabia? Oh no? Interesting.

3

turnipmeatloaf t1_iy8di43 wrote

> The shadow culture secretary, Lucy Powell

Not really related, but that’s a cool ass job title

2

night_dude t1_iya29m5 wrote

"Shadow ministers" is a great turn of phrase. Would be a great band name.

3

nick_rhoads01 t1_iy96byg wrote

So if I’m sexist and racist on the internet I can hurt social media? Let’s gooo

2

LolcatP t1_iy84fok wrote

Do we even have the money to

1

ALBUNDY59 t1_iyamc18 wrote

Twit ter will be under review by the EU / UK. Let the fun begin.

1

thatguyad t1_iy8hr1k wrote

That would be great.

0

SaidTheTurkey t1_iy7zvox wrote

At least social media firms didn’t pull out the EU because they’re scared of brown people

−3