Harmful Lies Spread Easily in the UK Because the Nation Lacks a Law To Regulate Social Media, Study Concludes (bbc.com) 249
Misleading and harmful online content about Covid-19 has spread "virulently" because the UK still lacks a law to regulate social media, an influential group of MPs has said. From a report: The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee urged the government to publish a draft copy of promised legislation by the autumn. It follows suggestions the Online Harms Bill might not be in force until 2024. The group's chairman said tech firms could not be left to self-regulate. "We still haven't seen correct legislative architecture put in place, and we are still relying on social media companies' consciences," said Julian Knight. "This just is not good enough. Our legislation is not in any way fit for purpose, and we're still waiting. What I've seen so far has just been quite a lot of delay." Google and Facebook have said they have invested in measures to tackle posts that breach their guidelines. But the report has already been welcomed by the children's charity NSPCC.
"The committee is right to be concerned about the pace of legislation and whether the regulator will have the teeth it needs," said Andy Burrows, its head of child safety online policy.
They supress harmful truths pretty effectively (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the results of the child-grooming gang investigations. Can't allow something that is bound to cause social unrest to be released to the public.
I suppose the next logical step is to suppress opinion that clashes with official narratives. Must save the people from themselves, you know.
That's what politicians call "true", right? (Score:5, Insightful)
> the next logical step is to suppress opinion that clashes with official narratives.
Seems to me that's THIS step, not the next. "Untrue" would be whatever doesn't match the official truth, isn't it.
So, will this law:
A. Stop people from saying dumb shit
B. Give politicians a way to prosecute people who say stuff they don't agree with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know, can't you guess. The rich and powerfull buy access to control censorship of the rest and when you censor the truth, you are free to publish lies, including those that get people who oppose the establishment arrested.
Yeah, this is some real monarchist psycho shite, first they started with Russian interference in social media as the scam to start this and now they are already trying to push to silence the rest of us, using the chaos of covid 19, they created on purpose.
It looks worse and wor
Re:That's what politicians call "true", right? (Score:5, Informative)
> Only a way to prosecute social media companies.
Like Slashdot. You're right, I'll rephrase - a way to prosecute anyone offering a forum where people say stuff the politicians don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised this hasn't already ended up in court. In Europe companies have an automatic duty of care towards users of their services, that's the basis of health and safety laws. Gross negligence can be prosecuted but civil action is also possible.
I'm thinking that the family of someone who was convinced by social media that COVID-19 is a hoax and then died of it could sue them. It might be hard to prove that social media was the cause though. But this isn't even a new thing, lots of people have been hara
Re: (Score:2)
Under these laws, you wouldn't be allowed to say that. You're literally arguing for laws that will silence you.
One would think that you'd argue for your own self-interest, not against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain why you think that? TFA gives the opposite impression, it's making it easier to bring claims based on duty of care.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you explain why you think that? TFA gives the opposite impression, it's making it easier to bring claims based on duty of care.
TFA makes it clear that the "harm" is not objective, it is not a measurable metric. It is fully determined by someone's interpretation of what you meant. What makes you think that they agree that your words are innocent?
Re: (Score:2)
That's now how laws work in the UK. The standard for these things is always what a "reasonable person" would consider negligence, harm, obscene or whatever.
It's similar to US law where for example "true threats" are illegal. The law doesn't define what makes a threat true exactly, only setting the bar at what could "reasonably" be believed to be true.
That's the only sensible way to write laws.
Re: (Score:2)
That's now how laws work in the UK. The standard for these things is always what a "reasonable person" would consider negligence, harm, obscene or whatever.
Maybe so, but this bypasses the courts. The infringing material is removed without ever being put in front of a court. In fact, it goes further, the infringing material is never posted in the first place.
It's similar to US law where for example "true threats" are illegal. The law doesn't define what makes a threat true exactly, only setting the bar at what could "reasonably" be believed to be true.
That's the only sensible way to write laws.
And what makes you think that the "reasonable person" envisaged by the forum matches their definition of you?
The problem is that what you think are are arguing for is different from what you are actually arguing for.
You think you're arguing for "Only people who agree with me should be allowed a voice."
You'r
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but this bypasses the courts. The infringing material is removed without ever being put in front of a court. In fact, it goes further, the infringing material is never posted in the first place.
Where did you hear that? The White Paper doesn't seem to mention it: https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
It will be mostly self-regulation with Ofcom there to step in if that fails. Doesn't specify exactly what regulation, it will be up to platforms to decide and agree with Ofcom. Of course some platforms have been blocking posting certain things for decades already, e.g. known illegal images, copyright infringement on YouTube, the n word on Slashdot...
And what makes you think that the "reasonable person" envisaged by the forum matches their definition of you?
Nothing, I do sometimes disagree with what courts decide i
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so, but this bypasses the courts. The infringing material is removed without ever being put in front of a court. In fact, it goes further, the infringing material is never posted in the first place.
Where did you hear that? The White Paper doesn't seem to mention it: https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
It's actually quite funny, you did exactly what I just said left-extremists do, in a previous comment - https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org] You're literally following the script there, and and I posted that before you started the script! Back on topic: Can you point out in your link where it says that this goes through a court? A quotation perhaps? The only relevant one I see is:
6.13 Companies and others must have confidence that the regulator is acting fairly and within its powers. They will have the ability to seek judicial review of the regulator’s actions and decisions through the High Court.
Which means that after the regulator has censored something, then the aggrieved party can complain, which is literally "censoring
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that after the regulator has censored something, then the aggrieved party can complain, which is literally "censoring bypassing the courts altogether". You can complain after the fact.
No, the regulator only has the power to take them to court if they refuse to do what it asks. Nowhere is Ofcom given the power to force companies to remove something directly, only to oversee their self regulation and take them to court if it feels necessary.
No, you're demanding that government step into everyone's soapbox, including yours.
I'm not demanding anything, I'm describing this law that you couldn't be bothered to read and understand to you.
It doesn't even regulate individuals, it only applies to businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that after the regulator has censored something, then the aggrieved party can complain, which is literally "censoring bypassing the courts altogether". You can complain after the fact.
No, the regulator only has the power to take them to court if they refuse to do what it asks. Nowhere is Ofcom given the power to force companies to remove something directly, only to oversee their self regulation and take them to court if it feels necessary.
Your link doesn't say that. If you think it does, post the paragraph here.
Re: (Score:2)
> Can you explain why you think that?
I'm not the one who said it, but I'll give a go at explaining what I took from what they said.
MOST of what you say here is, in my view, untrue and harmful. For example I think it's harmful for you to say to my daughter that she needs special bonus points given to her because she can't possibly compete with white people, or with men, based on her own ability. Blacks and women can't get ahead by studying and working hard, you say. I think that's very harmful. Therefo
Re: (Score:2)
Two follow-up points:
First, while I do think that much of what you say is misguided, I will defend your right to say it. You have a right to speak your mind, and I have a right to differ and point out evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, I think that most of what you say makes perfect sense and it's totally logical to think those things, based on the information you get from CNN and the Bernie newsletter. So I'm not saying you are a dumbass. You sound like an intelligent person intelligently processing the
Re: (Score:2)
For example I think it's harmful for you to say to my daughter that she needs special bonus points given to her because she can't possibly compete with white people, or with men, based on her own ability.
Just to be absolutely clear: I did not say that. You misunderstood.
in my view
Fortunately your view is irrelevant in this case, the definition of what constitutes harm will be decided by a court.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised this hasn't already ended up in court. In Europe companies have an automatic duty of care towards users of their services, that's the basis of health and safety laws. Gross negligence can be prosecuted but civil action is also possible.
I've hardly ever seen more bovine manure concentrated in one sentence. That's wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that the family of someone who was convinced by social media that COVID-19 is a hoax and then died of it could sue them.
I haven't seen anyone saying that "COVID-19 is a hoax". Just that its lethality is greatly exaggerated, and that the measures taken supposedly to combat it are grotesquely disproportionate (and often illegal). It is often suggested (very plausibly) that the exaggeration and feverish propaganda designed to deceive people into thinking that it is as dangerous as the Black Death or the 1918 flu do constitute a deliberate hoax. Those propositions are obviously untrue, so it's hard to see how they could be advan
Orwellian.. (Score:2)
No sorry, you are completely wrong.
You are missing the 'who decides what is harmful'.
What this creates is an environment whereby the social media companies are advantaged by clamping down on anything they perceive the government as not liking..
Does that seem like a positive move for open discussion, which is the root of functioning democracy?
I'll give you a hint, Media (social and mainstream) companies in China are free to publish also, they only get punished when they public 'harmful' material....
The corre
Re: (Score:2)
No sorry, you are completely wrong. You are missing the 'who decides what is harmful'.
What this creates is an environment whereby the social media companies are advantaged by clamping down on anything they perceive the government as not liking..
Does that seem like a positive move for open discussion, which is the root of functioning democracy?
I'll give you a hint, Media (social and mainstream) companies in China are free to publish also, they only get punished when they public 'harmful' material....
The correct term here is 'Orwellian', but not for long, because there is already significant work being undertaken to paint Orwell as 'harmful'..
How am I wrong? I said exactly the same as you, that this is a means for government to prosecute social media companies -- NOT a means for them to prosecute end-users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the article, the answer is clearly A. Except it wouldn't stop people from saying dumb shit, just stop them being able to use social media as a platform for saying harmful shit..
And who, in your opinion, is to decide what is "harmful shit" and what is "dumb shit"? And, of course, what is Holy Writ?
In a free country, the answer is: nobody.
Re:That's what politicians call "true", right? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you haven't picked up on is that A quickly turns into B, depending on what mechanism there is for judging the "dumb shit". And that process might be just fine right now, but there's absolutely no way to make sure some future politician doesn't change that criteria. For example, today it could be used to stop someone from posting that Covid is just another cold and there's nothing to worry about. Who's to say in 10 years that it won't be used to suppress someone saying mean and hurtful things about the Prime Minister, or a particularly contested piece of legislation?
This is why the 9th and 10th amendments are so important in the US Constitution - they unequivocally state that the rights enumerated are not a complete list, and anything unstated automatically falls to the States or the People; and that the Federal government ONLY gets the powers enumerated, and anything unstated falls to the States of the People.
These existed because the guys that just won a war for independence saw future sleazebags coming and wanted to make sure they couldn't just grab power without a very arduous process to get it. And, moreover, wanted to restrict the new government they were creating to prevent it from exercising the kind of control they just threw off.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the results of the child-grooming gang investigations. Can't allow something that is bound to cause social unrest to be released to the public.
I suppose the next logical step is to suppress opinion that clashes with official narratives. Must save the people from themselves, you know.
Kinda crazy that we went from "saving the people from themselves" to saving the people from themselves. Anyone can stand on the corner naked wearing nothing but a sign board droning on about the end of days. THAT is free speech. The problems begin when the sources come from places that ordinary people perceive as a position of authority , or a trusted space. Then it becomes deception. We needn't stifle free speech, we need to better understand misinformation in the modern age. If you presume to be a "new
Re: They supress harmful truths pretty effectively (Score:2)
UK news media havenâ(TM)t done much factual reporting for a long time. Costs too much.
Easier to make stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
If you presume to be a "news agency" then you must present unbiased fact. If you are presenting "opinion" then you must be clearly labeled as such.
Oh, I see.
Maybe it would be a good start to get all existing mainstream "news agencies" to publish nothing but "unbiased fact".
Call me back after a few decades and several major wars when you have accomplished that.
Re: (Score:2)
child-grooming gang
Sorry, please stop using that term.
They're child rape gangs.
Re:They supress harmful truths pretty effectively (Score:5, Insightful)
nobody has ever heard of them because racists don't bleat about it constantly.
You could bleat about it now, by providing a citation to a comparable sex abuse ring of white guys.
Nobody is stopping you from doing what you are complaining about others not doing.
Funny how that works.
Indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Take your pick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:They supress harmful truths pretty effectively (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, so I just skimmed every link in that section of the wiki, it's quasi-chronological enough for even a blind man to feel out a trend; the first ~15% of those links span incidents from the 1880s-1980s, ~10% from the 80's to Y2K, and the rest from Y2K to current.
There were relatively few notable incidents in the one hundred and thirty some odd years prior to the year 2000 compared to after, and those incidents involved fewer numbers of offenders arrested / prosecuted and fewer number of victims. The overwhelming, vast majority of arrestees (where they aren't black-listed to protect the victims) in the following 20 years have Pakistani / ambiguously-Arabic / African names.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that's not the point you wanted to make. Do you really want people to draw their own conclusions from your facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be that it's hard to create a pedo ring when your means of communication are basically royal mail and your image material requires you to go to some store that will see the pictures?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, so I just skimmed every link in that section of the wiki,
You're falling into the trap that the left now uses whenever they are asked for evidence: they provide a single citation to a mountain of text, which may or may not have the evidence you asked for. This takes a few seconds of their time and keeps the skeptic busy for hours.
It's even worse when they point to a one-sided opinion piece on Wikipedia, because the cherry-picked facts are there, but now you gotta search elsewhere for the data that was used to do the cherry-picking.
Look at it like this:
Someone m
Re: (Score:2)
I call that tactic a research glue trap, but labelling a bit of text that can comfortably fit on one modern computer screen and takes 5~10min of research to read through as such is called intellectual laziness. And focusing on one crime that is, in the grander scheme of things, unremarkable simply due to the race of the perpetrators is called racism.
Re: (Score:2)
I call that tactic a research glue trap, but labelling a bit of text that can comfortably fit on one modern computer screen and takes 5~10min of research to read through as such is called intellectual laziness.
Call it what you want, but if the person making the claim can't be bothered to do the 5m-10m of research to find the paragraph they are citing, then why do you think that it is okay for everyone else to spend the time to find the paragraph that they are citing?
And focusing on one crime that is, in the grander scheme of things, unremarkable simply due to the race of the perpetrators is called racism.
I've no idea what you are trying to say here.
Re: (Score:2)
Child rape gangs need to be investigated and prosecuted, and their victims rescued and supported, whatever the skin colour of the perpetrators or their victims.
Only one group of child rapists avoided investigation because of their skin colour. It's not racist to point that out, it was fucking racism that let them continue for so long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it was from the report into a couple of UK based investigations into very active Paedophile rings. The investigation found that the Social Services were aware that there was a high degree of probability that particular groups were engaged in commercialised paedophilia, yet the investigations were prevented because the Social Services were afraid that they may appear racist if they were to investigate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I laud your knowledge of government approved talking points and obfuscation techniques.
Re: (Score:3)
The very idea of a Ministry of "Digital [Digital what?], Culture, Media, Sport" is straight out of Orwell.
Although I have taken to calling it by the slightly more expansive and accurate title "Digital, Culture, Brainwashing, Media, Sport".
The fun part would be seeing how many people even notice the middle word.
It's really funny how those people are congratulating themselves on their cleverness in brainwashing citizens. Edward Bernays was doing that most effectively over a century ago - but he didn't brag ab
Slander (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
America has food libel laws [wikipedia.org].
A few years back, Oprah Winfrey was sued for slandering meat.
Re: Slander (Score:2)
Total nonsense. 100% wrong. I'm one of those poor people and can criticise and even vulgarly abuse any person I like, famous or powerful or not. But if I *invent* or publish malicious falsehoods that damage a person (reputation, livelihood etc) then they can sue me. Truthfulness is *always* a valid defence, as is lack of intent. If I somehow *inadvertently* publish damaging falsehoods I can avoid penalty by withdrawing the remark(s).
Re: (Score:2)
"On 25 April 2013 the Defamation Act 2013 was enacted. Among other things, it requires plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. In addition, it includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm, which in the case of for-profit bodies is restricted to serious financial loss. It removes the current presumption in favour o
Re: (Score:2)
I have been reading an excellent book: "The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How it's Broken" by an anonymous English barrister. (The anonymity is necessary for obvious reasons).
It is full of horrifying stories and facts that most people never dream of. This, for instance, is a scenario from the criminal law:
"We thus have the theatrical pantomime of a private prosecutor falsely accusing an innocent person of a crime, bringing a case to trial, losing and walkig away financially restituted, while the
Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What, one can shoot lies away?
Nothing is surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course socialist acedemia, social students, "scientists" and what not will demand restricted speech - There can be lies! It can be hurtful! Quick change it so only our message can be heard!
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because that 2nd protected so many others in the US.
Warrantless search is unconstitutional! Well, unless it's "on a computer" (or a cellphone for that matter). Freedom of speech must be upheld. At least in free speech zones while you can't protest anywhere where it could actually be noticed. Speedy and fair trials are guaranteed by the constitution. Unless we consider you so bad that we put you in a special prison where you won't get any of that.
Yes, the 2nd was never touched by that. Because your lea
Re: (Score:2)
We often get this "I need my guns to protect me from my government [the one whose electoral model is promoted throughout the world]" yet does it work in reality?
Remember Waco? or the gun nuts complaining about National Parks? did their guns help against a heavily armed government?
The theoretical benefits don't occur - yet the drawback of over 330 mass shootings a year are sadly a reality.
I guess it's a question of perspective - how you value a theoretical freedom against a life. When more people get kille
Re: (Score:2)
We actually do have laws protecting freedom of speech. It's part of the Human Rights Act, which implements the European Convention on Human Rights. The list of exceptions is actually quite similar to those in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Informative)
Count Dankula would not have been prosecuted in the US for making a fucking joke.
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't have happened here and I hope his appeal to the European Court of Human Rights succeeds.
Unfortunately our current government does not believe in human rights and wants to repeal that law once we are out of the brexit transition period. Obviously we must resist that.
Philosophy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe they should have fretted more about government defining what a lie is.
"Harmful lies" is the mating call of (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment the government erodes free speech, everything will be screwed. All it would take is someone who believes the wrong things to get into power and classify everything they oppose as hate speech. Just boycott idiots who believe and say stupid things. Education, not censorship. Competition not oppression. Free speech makes things difficult, but not impossible. Restricting free speech will only grant a temporary high until it all crashes. That has happened to every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully there would be enough checks and balances that no one idiot or even one party can control the whole ship.
Speaking of checks and balances, federal prosecution should probably be a 4th branch in the US government, not under the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with checks and balances, a majority of government officials or people can be temporarily mistaken or fooled especially in a crisis. Only allowing free speech can correct that.
It's a paradox though (Score:2, Troll)
I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. Private Censorship of bad ideas would be best. But then it's not like we don't have some level of Government Censorship. I can't lie about the efficacy of a product, for example. Even in American we've got libel laws. There is a line, it's just about where we draw it.
One thing I do know, as people age their br
Re: It's a paradox though (Score:2)
The young are way more gullible than the old.
Itâ(TM)s notable that most of your common or garden fanatics are young.
It's not about being gullible (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The moment the government erodes free speech, everything will be screwed. All it would take is someone who believes the wrong things to get into power and classify everything they oppose as hate speech. Just boycott idiots who believe and say stupid things. Education, not censorship. Competition not oppression. Free speech makes things difficult, but not impossible. Restricting free speech will only grant a temporary high until it all crashes. That has happened to every time.
I was going to say "true" but this would be the point — human fallibility — I can't know if what you say is really true, or false, for that matter — which is why we need the free exchange of ideas.
There's an analogy with Covid-19. We tried to control it with lockdowns, but ultimately it is only our immune systems which can handle it. Same with information — if you are stupid enough to believe unquestioningly, then the problem isn't the material, it is education. There are countries w
Re: (Score:2)
We have been screwed for a very, very long time.
The real problem in the UK at the moment is the government lying. The gaslighting is unbelievable. It's taking too long for the media and opposition parties to adjust to it.
Profit by any other name. (Score:4, Insightful)
Harmful lies?
Oh, you mean those things Professional Narcissists on social media use to generate clicks and likes, also known as valid revenue streams?
Not sure why we felt a need to "study" that behavior when Greed embraced the shit out of it long ago. Hard to find a social media platform who will shun that behavior when they're too busy feeding it.
We definitely don't need or want regulated media (Score:2)
Lies are better.
Alternative Theory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Spreading lies is good for those who want to be in power, whatever it's for ideological reasons or economical ones. As is controlling people and thoughts. So they want to do it.
Re: Alternative Theory (Score:2)
Agreed.
That's why we need to strive for harmony, rather than truth.
A social score that measures your 'goodness' and is updated daily seems to be the perfect way forward!
P.S. /s
Horse / barn door (Score:2)
This is thinking about shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted, sabotaged your relationship with your neighbors leaving you to become an impoverished 3rd-world island, started a rash of hate crimes, and convinced a bunch of morons to set fire to 5G towers.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the horse/barn door analogy isn't the best because there might still be further conceivable future damage that could be prevented by taking action - like the rise of a British QAnon or, I don't know, some madman being convinced that he should fly a plane into a nuclear reactor so he can see them aliens - but it is a bit late...
"This is not a freedom of speech issue" (Score:5, Insightful)
No it absolutely is a freedom of speech issue.
Censorship is far more dangerous to society than having to expend constant effort countering BS in the market of ideas on equal terms.
Once government has the power to silence those regarded as dangerous to society (e.g. dangerous to those with power) government is corrupted and becomes a far greater danger than people having fun with Brexit, 5G, vaccines, covid cures and social distancing.
The problem with social media is intentionally poor governance in order to maximize profit not a lack of censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is far more dangerous to society than having to expend constant effort countering BS in the market of ideas on equal terms.
Citation needed. I see a western liberal democracy like Germany doing very well thank you with censorship. I see another western liberal democracy the UK doing very well thank you with no fundamental free-speech rights. I see Singapore doing very well thank you with government censorship.
There doesn't seem to be any slippery slope, either. If a fascist gets to power, they can enact censorship laws themselves. Their absence won't in any way impede a fascist.
Re: (Score:3)
Citation:
https://www.openrightsgroup.or... [openrightsgroup.org]
You obviously need to read more.
Re: (Score:2)
Wafflemonster claim: Censorship is far more dangerous to society than having to expend constant effort countering BS in the market of ideas on equal terms
ljw1004 response: citation needed
OYAHHH response: https://www.openrightsgroup.or... [openrightsgroup.org]
??? That's a non-sequitor. Wafflemonster claimed that censorship is far more dangerous to society than having to expend constant effort. OYAHHH's pdf made no evaluation of the danger of having to expend that constant effort, and so is unable to support the claim. It's doubly-non-sensical because OYAHHH's pdf is a set of practical advice on how censorship rules can be more fairly constructed and administered.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it takes far less time and effort to propagate bullshit than to debunk it. For reference, see Gish gallop [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is far more dangerous to society than having to expend constant effort countering BS in the market of ideas on equal terms.
On equal terms you will lose, or have your 5G towers burnt down and ISP workers assaulted.
Maybe the answer is not to censor speech but to provide a basic intelligence test to people before we allow them to be exposed to it. You need an IQ over 100 to read Facebook or Twitter or something like that.
Once government has the power to silence those regarded as dangerous to society (e.g. dangerous to those with power) government is corrupted and becomes a far greater danger than people having fun with Brexit, 5G, vaccines, covid cures and social distancing.
And yet absolute free speech is rare in countries, and those countries which do restrict speech are doing just fine thank you very much.
One interesting thing here as well is just having a right means absolutely no
That doesn't explain... (Score:2)
...why harmful lies spread easily EVERYWHERE, regardless of how heavy-handed a government's controls may be on communication.
Re: (Score:2)
In a heavily controlled environment, only the lies spread that the one controlling allows to spread. That's the difference.
Slashdot without comments (Score:2)
That's how everything looks like in my country after the law which made the web sites accountable for any added user content. It is too risky to have it or just too much effort to moderate it.
The BBC can lie because I can not censor them /s (Score:2)
Anyone can play this game.
I can say: People I disagree with can lie easily because I can not censor them.
We need to censor, permaban, deplatform, and deperson anyone who demands censorship.
I say let everyone who does not ask for censorship have their say.
Wait a sec, the *UK* lacks laws to regulate social (Score:2, Informative)
The UK has literally been tossing people in jail [thedailybeast.com] for some time now, for tweets they considered WrongThink!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it was the call for others to harass her that convinced police to act.
Six months does however feel excessive. But they're sensitive about religion up in Glasgow, because the fucking idiots (much like the Northern Irish) still fucking care about shit that happened in the 17th century.
Re: (Score:2)
WrongThink
Thought crimes and libelous hatespeech are not the same thing. If you're going to comment on the laws of another country you'd do well to understand them first.
It's the censoring, not who wields it (Score:2)
Harmful Lies Spread Easily in the UK Because the Nation Lacks a Law To Regulate Social Media, Study Concludes
Harmful wars spread easily in Europe because the continent lacks a law to stop government from censoring.
It's the censoring, not who wields it.
understand (Score:2)
...that as troublingly 1984 as "unmarked government officers grabbing people off the street in Portland" is, some of us feel the cheerful consensus toward ensuring even the most casual speech between private individuals is even more troublingly Brave New World.
In a free country, a racist, a communist, a feminist, a transgender, an anarchist, and a Trump supporter can all scream freely at each other, the government doesn't get to pick which is thinking the "right" thoughts.
People Do Not Think (Score:2)
Is not the government the People?
In the backstory to 1984, was it not the the People that demanded censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even mind if they bash each other's head in. Hell, I'd go around selling popcorn to the other onlookers.
Re: (Score:2)
Again: You can think what you like, you can say 99% of that without incurring problems (slander, etc.) but what you can't do is demand people let you say that on their platform.
And, to be honest, anything that incites hatred, threatens or condones violence is outside the bounds of free speech.
Let those people yell at each other. Elsewhere. If someone wants to find the place where they all yell at each other, so be it. But letting it spread over social media that kids are using, unchecked, isn't a good t
Only authorised lies allowed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty obvious, isn't it.
Wrong approach (Score:3)
Lies can only work if people want to believe them. And that in turn requires people who are not capable of telling reality from bullshit.
The reason we have such people is the way our education system works, where rote learning and accepting what you're being told is key while critical thinking and asking "uncomfortable" questions is discouraged. In such a climate, you end up with people who can only believe but not know. They have to believe something, and as soon as they notice in one aspect that they were bullshitted by the people they trusted, they will dump everything they were told by those people and start looking for others they could believe instead.
What's going on here is that these people noticed that they were being bullshitted and are now looking for others to believe, and they become prey to those con men. They offer easy answers to very complex problems, and while easy answers usually have the drawback that they're false (duh, they're easy, someone else might have had them first if they worked), they are easy to understand and accept.
You cannot suppress something like that. You could only give people the ability to see that what they're told is bullshit. This in turn, though, would require people to have the ability to question what they're being told.
Unfortunately, nobody who could give these people that ability has any interest in doing so. Because until now, it was very useful and comfortable to have people who simply believe what you told them.
Re: (Score:2)
Very keen observation! Most of it is obvious, main stream media is bullshitting people, people go to the alternative media, main stream media starts attacking alternative media. So far so good.
What I did not really realized was that the alternative media sources are not necessarily better sources. Some people are not really picky what the alternative is when the main goal is to get away from the main stream media.
Censorship is unnecessary (Score:2)
No censorship is needed. Twitter could put a COVID-19 information mesage on messages about the subject which provides a link to WHO-based information. This does the job quite well. The arguments for censorship have long been discredited. Its better to respond to disinformation with accurate information and can be done without censorship. Furthermore social media has not really lead to this. Consider many of the untruths about HIV way back when that spread by word of mouth before social media existed. Social
Take some responsibility (Score:2)
Jesus H fucking Christ, why is it always with the whining... the government wont do this... the government isnt doing enough... the government.. the government. Since when is your entire existence predicated on what the government tells you to do? Stop sucking on the government tit and take some fucking responsibility for yourselves. Since when is it the governments job to make sure you know right from wrong? If some asshat makes up some BS about 5g, ask around, find some smart people. Ask someone who has
Re: (Score:2)
Quote from George R. R. Martin (please include the one you're quoting when you quote to save us the time to look it up).
Dunno if I want to take advice from someone who has his protagonists croak like flies, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe when quoting from fiction you cite the character and the author.
I'm not sure on this though, and I can't be arsed to search down a definitive guide.
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you do about actual harmful lies that can lead to deaths? Or the harmful shit-stirring that exacerbates racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry. How many have died now because of the lies told by anti-vaxxers?
It's not censorship to flag fallacious crap articles as not being fact if they are not fact. You could say it's censorship if you allow lies to block out truth as in a sense Facebook does by being in bed with scumbag news organisations that continuously misrepresent the truth.
Right now Facebo
Re: (Score:2)
The media does not like the fact that someone other than them now have a voice that can actually be heard by more than a handful of people.
The true answer is education, teach people to question what they hear and do their own due diligence research to check the facts and come to their own conclusion. However governments and big media will never go for this approach, because a well educated populace is going to fact check what the government/media tells them too.