UK Health Secretary Urges Social Media Companies To Block Cyberbullying And Underaged Sexting (betanews.com) 71
Mark Wilson shares his article on Beta News:
Health secretary Jeremy Hunt has made calls for technology companies and social media to do more to tackle the problems of cyberbullying, online intimidation and -- rather specifically -- under-18-year-olds texting sexually explicit images. Of course, he doesn't have the slightest idea about how to go about tackling these problems, but he has expressed his concern so that, in conjunction with passing this buck to tech companies, should be enough, right?
Hunt apparently believes there's already a technology which can identify sexually explicit photos, and that social media networks should now also develop algorithms to identify and block cyberbullying, an idea the Guardian called "sadly laughable."
"Is the blanket censorship of non-approved communications for all under 18s -- something that goes far further than even the Great Firewall of China -- really the kind of thing a government minister should be able to idly suggest in 2016?"
Hunt apparently believes there's already a technology which can identify sexually explicit photos, and that social media networks should now also develop algorithms to identify and block cyberbullying, an idea the Guardian called "sadly laughable."
"Is the blanket censorship of non-approved communications for all under 18s -- something that goes far further than even the Great Firewall of China -- really the kind of thing a government minister should be able to idly suggest in 2016?"
Sexting is a health issue? (Score:2, Insightful)
How is "underaged sexting" a health issue? It may be a moral issue, but that seems to be outside the authority of the Health Secretary.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you have sex when your age is 15 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 seconds or younger, then your mind is permanently damaged and you'll probably go on a columbine style shooting spree. If you wait a second later, you'll be fine though.
Re: (Score:2)
The magical number 16 is for a 16 year old having sex with an ADULT!!! Because the Adult might be so exploiting if the other part is only 15 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 seconds old.
The age limit in most countries in Europe is 14, not 16. 14 year olds can have as much sex as they want as long as the partner is below 18 or 16 (depending on country) but not with an adult (who actually might know some nice tricks ;D )
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it can affect their mental health if they send a nude pic to their boy/girlfriend, and that person decides to post it to facebook or twitter or forward it to a bunch of their friends at school...
Re: (Score:2)
Why is underage sexting a problem worth addressing, but adult sexting is not?
Disclaimer: I make no comment on the morality of sexting generally.
To answer your question, it's the same reason we make the distinction between consensual and underage sex: the line between parental and self-responsibility has to be drawn somewhere.
The strange thing is, we usually don't blame the child for wearing the stupid hat. Instead, we blame the peer for mockingly posting the hat photo on facebook.
Either you've never been in a school playground or that's a bald-faced lie. That's to say nothing of what happens when an adolescent gets access to social media. If you think adults are any better then I'm amazed you've managed to last as long as you have.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that's why knife crime is so bad there they want to ban pointy knives.
Re: (Score:2)
I am with you at the thing, why sex or in this case even just nudy (maybe sexy) pictures should be a problem.
But ridiculing the age limit with "... and X seconds" isn't that useful. If you decide to set some limit somewhere, you will always have some time span around the limit, where you can say "hey, she was just one day younger / she was just one day older" and ridicule it. Still you set the limit somewhere and if you set it lower, you have such a time span again. So get over it, a limit involves a certai
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> It would be nice if women were entitled to privacy on the internet but that isn't available. The problem isn't one-on-one communication, it's the image being uploaded to the public domain.
The laws are not against uploading the images into public domain (i.e. to facebook services like whatsapp, which reserve the right to use it in any way they like), but against making and distributing them, if you WANT to.
> That is copyright piracy
So, it's privacy, if i upload an image of me?
> Like the age of co
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid laws (Score:1)
Sounds like the laws need fixing, not the kids.
Teenagers have sex. Some of them a lot of it. Turns out people like to take pictures. Shock, horror.
Stupid.
Deregulated regulation (Score:1)
This is a pattern I have come to call "deregulated regulation". Pondering a law and ultimately passing it is hard. Enforcing is too. There are such annoying nitties as "free speech", checks, balances, yadda, yadda.
Easier to lean (if needed, robustly) on some Internet Powerful, and let them the dirty work (which they are often happy to do, their occasional show of resistance notwithstanding). Because this allows them to silently increase user control -- the best way these days to protect their silos.
Just send them to Hunt (Score:2)
the trouble with trolls. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you ban a troll, they can just create a new account. If you shadowban a troll, it will take some time and then they will figure it out and make a new account. What we need is a "verseban" for trolls. This would be a progression of a shadowban but instead of being shunned it would appear that people are responding to them when in fact they are conversing with AI chatbots posing as those users. With the latest AI, this would be significantly more difficult to detect, especially if the replies were modeled on things users had written previously. In effect the troll would be banished to their own little universe where they cannot hurt anyone but also don't know they have been caged.
Re:the trouble with trolls. (Score:4, Insightful)
Technology never solved social problems.
And here the workaround to your idea: Troll with two accounts. Do you still see the second one? Oh, it must be "versebanned".
Ideas like shadow banning seem clever to their inventors, but actually they are a silly game. Just convery your message and say "You're banned. That's it". Controlling if somebody returns needs to be done anyway, and hoping nobody notices your fancy new type of ban is just hopeless. Like the forums with the "crash browser of banned users" option in the good ol' times.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology never solved social problems.
Who said anything about solving it?
And here the workaround to your idea: Troll with two accounts. Do you still see the second one? Oh, it must be "versebanned".
Accounts originating from the same IP address would be kept in the same verse.
Ideas like shadow banning seem clever to their inventors, but actually they are a silly game.
They are clever but you seem to think that they are intended to be a cure-all which isn't the point at all! The point isn't to keep them off the site forever, it's to delay them as long as possible.
Just convery your message and say "You're banned. That's it".
The immediate response is that they will create a new account.
Controlling if somebody returns needs to be done anyway, and hoping nobody notices your fancy new type of ban is just hopeless. Like the forums with the "crash browser of banned users" option in the good ol' times.
The point is to keep them busy trolling in an environment that doesn't harm others and possibly frustrate them enough times that they don
Re: (Score:2)
> Accounts originating from the same IP address would be kept in the same verse. ...
If it's that easy, then just ban.
Its not like i cannot just have my "am i shadowbanned" account on my phone
> it's to delay them as long as possible.
Which is bullshit. You* do not ban people, you do not ban opinions, you ban behaviour. People trolling, people flaming and people posting hate (that are three different things!) may be unwelcome (and this should be stated before) and that's a behaviour. Banning an account w
Re: (Score:2)
> Accounts originating from the same IP address would be kept in the same verse.
If it's that easy, then just ban.
But it takes time to evaluate if someone should be banned. Therefore, it is far better to keep people banned as long as possible.
Its not like i cannot just have my "am i shadowbanned" account on my phone ...
Again, it's not intended to be a cure-all.
> it's to delay them as long as possible.
Which is bullshit. You* do not ban people, you do not ban opinions, you ban behaviour.
It is unreasonable to expect a forum can be read and fully managed by the people hosting it all the while not becoming frustrated with malicious users. The only thing that could manage that is a highly sophisticated AI. The alternative to this is to ban malicious posters.
People trolling, people flaming and people posting hate (that are three different things!) may be unwelcome (and this should be stated before) and that's a behaviour. Banning an account won't stop the next. No matter how clever your special kind of ban seems to be.
So when somebody commits a crime, do tell them, "don't break the l
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This would be a progression of a shadowban but instead of being shunned it would appear that people are responding to them when in fact they are conversing with AI chatbots posing as those users.
Given the quality of the modern internet, I think the whole thing may have already been replaced with something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Brexit? (Score:2)
In most european countries adolescents have the right to have sex with 14. Sending a picture of your self is not even close to that ...
So good luck with that proposal ...
Ah, BREXit ... I forgot about hat.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope ... its more like "you may have sex, but do not send pictures of it to anyone or they/you will get into trouble".
Silly as it is, different european countries have such laws.
Dear politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
If you plan to propose a law concerning the internet and telecommunication:
1) Find out how the internet and telecommunication infrastructure works.
2) Ponder how to enforce the law.
3) Ponder who gets to set the required rules and regulations to enforce the law.
4) Propose it.
Jumping straight to 4, as you usually do, leads to ridicule and only accomplishes that you're showing off your ignorance to a more and more computer- and internet-savvy population. In other words: Don't do it if you value your career.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Jumping to 4 is not a problem for politicians. The general public is equally ignorant, and probably has more sympathy for the politician than scorn (if the general population ever even notices the articles pointing out the holes in the politicians knowledge). And it helps gain name recognition for the politician, which is somewhat more important for his/her career.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's being shot down left and right by everyone from the "established" media as well as bloggers, and ridiculed on Twitter and Facebook, they'll at best become the next Cameron, who had an SI unit named after himself: 1 Cameron being the minimum distance between two blunders.
Re: (Score:2)
[banning] under-18-year-olds texting sexually explicit images. Of course, he doesn't have the slightest idea about how to go about tackling these problems
I can just see tomorrow's news story:
HEALTH SECRETARY ANNOUNCES NEW PARTNERSHIPS TO CURB SEXTING AMONG TEENS
Jeremy Hunt has reported that he has not only found partnerships to reduce teen sexting -- he claims he can do it without costing the UK government anything. In an interview, Mr. Hunt said, "I was shocked at how easy this was! A U.S.-based organization contacted me within a few hours of my announcement saying they'd are 'highly experienced' with such materials and were willing to screen most of the images for no cost whatsoever. The organization is called NAMBLA, though I don't recall exactly what the acronym stands for; they said it very quickly in our conversation. I queried them about privacy concerns, and they said, I quote: 'We will treat these images as if they were a prized possession.' I was also concerned about security, and they said, 'We have a lot of experience handling such materials and keeping them secret.' "
Unfortunately, Mr. Hunt said the group will only handle male images for free, due to unspecified issues in their screening apparatus. But an open call on the Health Secretary's website for "Experienced people willing to screen images and search for nude teenage girls" has already received hundreds of applications from volunteer organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tories should have enough qualified members to take care of the female pics. I'm certain they'll even do it pro boner, I mean pro bono.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn autocorrection. Thanks, AC.
What should he do instead? (Score:2)
If you accept the premise that there's a problem* then isn't this exactly the right thing to do?
He's saying there's a problem, and asking the people in the best position to do something about it to figure out a way. And don't pretend there's nothing they can do; Google image search is pretty damn good at identifying image content.
* If you want to deny the premise this doesn't apply, so go reply to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you accept the premise that there's a problem* then isn't this exactly the right thing to do?
You are correct *if* there are no associated trade-offs.
But there are *always* trade-offs.
The only interesting question is whether the benefits (fewer children doing things that in some fraction of the cases have significant long-term consequences) is worth the costs (creation of infrastructure to real-time censor images, etc.)
It's not all that different from what asking what costs are acceptable for reducin
The minister for magic strikes again (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately (especially for those of us in the UK), Mr.Hunt has a number of views that appear to be at odds with reality. e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
In the UK, if you speak to many doctors about the minister, prepare yourself for a very, *very* long stream of invective.
Time for surveilance again (Score:4, Insightful)
Last time we had it because of terrorism, this time it's because of the children. Next time terrorism again, but then censorship instead of surveilance.
Legislate under 18-year olds have no sex drive! (Score:3)
Because that will make it true, right?
This is the worst ever suppression of human nature and if this is not sexually motivated abuse of underage youth, I do not know what is. This person is obviously a dangerous pervert.
Down the slippery slope we go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Down the slippery slope we go! (Score:1)
You are correct. Additionally the UK is now seeking to decide what porn we can view [slashdot.org] once we've opted in.
Re: (Score:1)
The provider account and user's premises will be blocked from the internet, voice services only. If the user registers with any new UK provider, the block stays.
Rent a new premises, change device the block follows the person.
A UK user still has the freedom to comment on politics but an empowered SJW will always report them.
Oh please (Score:2)
Jeremy Hunt sounds like the kind of clown who would advocate for putting a chip in the brain of newborns that would turn off sexual desire until they were X years old.
I was having sex at 14 with girls who were my age as well as some who were older (in some cases much older). I knew exactly what I was doing and wasn't being taken advantage of, as Hunt seems to believe is the case. If I'd had a camera I'd have probably taken pictures. So what?
In short, not everyone who's having sex below the age of 16 or 18,
Social media companies urge UK government to ... (Score:3)
Social media companies urge UK government to issue national ID cards to everyone over the age of 4.
Social media companies also urge the UK government to implement a back end system so that, given the card, they can verify underage status or not in a government database.
Social media companies further urge that the UK government have plans in place, should the ID card be stolen, for issuing a replacement ID with a different number, and repudiation of the stolen ID, such that it's no longer considered valid ID, by maintaining a revocation status bit in the back end verification database.
Social media companies finally state that the plan can not be implemented without these systems being put in place prior to deployments, and if they are unwilling to get the necessary infrastructure built so that it's even possible to comply, the UK government can go stuff themselves.
uknistan (Score:2)
Cyberbullying != underage sexting (Score:2)
Cyberbullying and online intimidation are a form of aggression. There is a victim and a culprit.
How is it related to teenagers doing sexual things? There are good reasons for making underage sexting illegal (the pictures may fall in the wrong hands) but it is an entirely different problem.
It is like saying : here, we are going to tackle the problem of burglary, so let's investigate the porn industry.
Eggplants (Score:2)
I'd love to see how they're going to accomplish that. People are brilliant in coming up with ways to circumvent things. Hell, kids apparently use the eggplant emoji as a surrogate penis.
So yeah... good luck with that. I wonder how many millions they're going to piss away *this time* only to find their efforts useless.