UK Waters Down Internet Rules Plan After Free Speech Outcry (apnews.com) 36
The British government has abandoned a plan to force tech firms to remove internet content that is harmful but legal, after the proposal drew strong criticism from lawmakers and civil liberties groups. From a report: The U.K. on Tuesday defended its decision to water down the Online Safety Bill, an ambitious but controversial attempt to crack down on online racism, sexual abuse, bullying, fraud and other harmful material. Similar efforts are underway in the European Union and the United States, but the U.K.'s was one of the most sweeping. In its original form, the bill gave regulators wide-ranging powers to sanction digital and social media companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and TikTok.
Critics had expressed concern that a requirement for the biggest platforms to remove "legal but harmful" content could lead to censorship and undermine free speech. The Conservative government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who took office last month, has now dropped that part of the bill, saying it could "over-criminalize" online content. The government hopes the change will be enough to get the bill through Parliament, where it has languished for 18 months, by mid-2023. Digital Secretary Michelle Donelan said the change removed the risk that "tech firms or future governments could use the laws as a license to censor legitimate views."
Critics had expressed concern that a requirement for the biggest platforms to remove "legal but harmful" content could lead to censorship and undermine free speech. The Conservative government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who took office last month, has now dropped that part of the bill, saying it could "over-criminalize" online content. The government hopes the change will be enough to get the bill through Parliament, where it has languished for 18 months, by mid-2023. Digital Secretary Michelle Donelan said the change removed the risk that "tech firms or future governments could use the laws as a license to censor legitimate views."
Harmful but legal (Score:4, Funny)
Probably they realized that they'd essentially outlaw the current government.
Side Effects (Score:2)
You can drive a bus through those terms (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Legal but harmful" would have meant helping people avoid seeing content such as the glorification of eating disorders, misogyny and some other forms of abuse — through warnings, content moderation or other means.
I don't know who the first person it was who decided that what the tech world needed was official government hall monitors walking around with rulers ready to slap unruly people on the wrists. I'm pretty sure there are quite a number of government employees would would rather do that than hav
Re: You can drive a bus through those terms (Score:3, Insightful)
Only racists want free speech. Everybody knows that, it has no other purpose.
Re: (Score:1)
"Legal but harmful" would have meant helping people avoid seeing content such as the glorification of eating disorders, misogyny and some other forms of abuse — through warnings, content moderation or other means.
Just curious - I noticd that you do not include misandry. Do you believe the active promotion of hatred of men? Should a woman who posts a tiktok video and directly saying that she hates men be prosecuted? Just asking because a lot of that comes from the British Isles. I mean saying that isn't as criminal and misogynistic as disagreeing with a woman,but is misandry protected speech?
I don't know who the first person it was who decided that what the tech world needed was official government hall monitors walking around with rulers ready to slap unruly people on the wrists. I'm pretty sure there are quite a number of government employees would would rather do that than have to produce actual work.
Are you serious? There are a lot of people out there who want to control every utterance by others. And they are willing to u
Duplicate from yesterday. (Score:3, Informative)
Different articles linked (AP vs. Reuters) but the same basic story.
Re:Duplicate from yesterday. (Score:5, Funny)
This is a duplicate of https://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org] posted yesterday by BeauHD.
Well, dupes are harmful, but they're legal.
Re: (Score:3)
"This is a duplicate of https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] posted yesterday by BeauHD.
Different articles linked (AP vs. Reuters) but the same basic story."
Editors give zero fucks and they still get paid for turning Slashdot to shit. (Those not familiar with what was lost should learn. The tech world needs a site like the original Slashdot but does not have it.)
Re: (Score:3)
Do they get paid? Are there even actually multiple editors? I've never seen one :)
Seriously though, assuming they are humans I would further tend to assume that this is not their primary job, because clearly none of them spend any time at it.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I like to believe they do it intentionally to torment us. It's somehow more comforting to believe we live in a world with that kind of casual, but malicious cruelty rather than one w
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I like to believe they do it intentionally to torment us. It's somehow more comforting to believe we live in a world with that kind of casual, but malicious cruelty rather than one where a missing safety label on a mattress might mean one fewer editor.
You see, it all started as a joke with “now go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.” And when they did not go away, the current editor(s) took over. It was pretty funny at first, until the paychecks rolled in; the shock of actually writing the code that puts yourself out of a job forever in under ten minutes was almost enough to kill, but the money soothed those wounds and some say he still sips margaritas on the beach to this very day.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but Hanlon's Razor probably applies here too.
DUPE (Score:2, Troll)
One again Slashdot editors act like morons and post a dupe. Which is harmful-but-legal if ever I saw it!
"legal"? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to 'crack down' on something suck it up and admit that you are illegalizing it. If you know that you can't criminalize something then you should also know that you can't justify banning it on pain of legal sanction, because that's what criminalizing something is.
Dupe dupity dupe (Score:3)
Both on the same page right now.
Re: (Score:2)
No it can't be. The Dropbox Acquires Boxcryptor articles were today's dupe, both on the front page. Has Slahsdot gotten so meta that they are even duping the process of duping articles now?
Anyone who conflates Free Speech (Score:2)
With Racism is no centrist. They are either a fool who is willing to point out the best ways to put them in chains or an even greater fool that thinks once everyone is chained they will be calling the shots.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether not hiring a Chinese guy because he is Chinese and male, or choosing a latino lesbian for a moon trip because she is latino and a lesbian, or picking a vice president shortlist of black women - all stupid, hateful discrimination.
I also oppose letting what is racist or sexist or any other now-forbidden speech be decided by hateful woke politicians looking for votes or deluded woke students looking for popularity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So no wokeist left government is ever going to pass any (more) laws against calling a man an man, against complimenting strangers, against films calling Red Indians "Red Indians" ?
Re: (Score:1)
> If you aren't a centrist, you're an idiot.
Angry centrists are what we need to counter angry extremists. At least I think it works that way. I've yet to see large groups of centrists riot and burn shit down. SNL should skit that up.
EDITORS READ YOUR OWN SITE FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
Canada's government want to re-rank content also (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
this is patently false.
C-11 brings so called "cancon" rules that media companies must follow to social media outlets. In Canada, radio/tv are required to show a certain percentage of content from Canadian-made sources. Now, one can argue what "cancon" actually means. For example, Battlestar Galactica's cast and crew were mostly Canadian and was filmed mostly in Canada. Should BSG be considered "cancon" or not?
There is no censorship, only algo adjustments to promote Canadian content over American content. An
Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
But but but (Score:2)
Won't somebody please think of the children
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
It could lead to censorship? (Score:2)
The bill literally is censorship.