I see this as a catch-22. I don't trust ANY entity to police speech, but I also think it's easy to prove that lies spread more easily than truth and cause real harm. Real people lost their livelihoods over Pizza Gate for example even though it was so obviously made up bullshit. Cyberbullying gets real kids killed, etc. COVID denialism also got a lot of people killed and could be worse if the new bird flu pandemic spreads.
I don't think there is anything wrong with what you said. You're entitled to your opinion, but always have to be prepared for people to disagree with you. I don't even totally disagree with you... I'm sympathetic to your view, but also see absolute speech as deeply dangerous.
Please explain to me how the new law will affect anyone outside the UK who doesn't have a direct financial interest in the matter.
What similarity do you see? I remember the cod wars, too. They were disputes about whether British trawlers should be able to fish in what Iceland regarded as Icelandic waters and the UK regarded as international waters. What does that have in common with this situation?
I can't speak for WeFloss of course but my comments were intentionally more broad than just the UK. I think there is a concern that censorship anywhere might have a chilling effect on speech in allied countries as well. The UK is a big market so corporations care about upsetting the government there. There is an interesting discussion to be had in every country about whether or not absolute "free speech" is worth it.
/me gets dragged back into the room?
I mostly agree with you. I am very much for strong lustration laws everywhere in regard to certain political ideologies that somewhat negate concept of absolute free speech. But mostly I favor people being able to say what they want, although at the same time I'm sure I've already overstepped with sharing my own opinion and should problem be moving on along to do something else. I probably can't mess up watching funny cat videos. That's almost always a safe bet.
We’re seeing what private interests do with it, like the recent switch to deemphasising negative comments and promoting positive in Xitter with the impending change in government in the US. Also the alterations in the formula to promote far right parties with more visibility. I argue that private companies are far worse speech regulators than government.
Agreed. Musk in particular can't even pretend to hide his ulterior motives while preaching "absolute free speech!"
The only way corporations can upset the British government is by failing to comply with British law as it applies to material delivered to the UK. I frequently see notices on YouTube that I can't view a particular video because it's not available in my country for copyright reasons, or that I can't access particular US news sites because of the EU''s GDPR (which UK legislation mirrors).
What our objections seem to be is with authoritarian structures controlling what can be said. The wording in my head feels like mud but “accountable to whom?” comes to mind. In a properly representative government the right people will be in place to see to it the best outcomes for the majority of people.
It's a troubling increase of state-sponsored censorship that I hope other countries will not follow and will refuse to accommodate.
I think Goblin put it pretty well here and this bit kind of sums up some of my concerns about censorship in regard to the big picture.
Other countries can pass, or not pass, whatever legislation seems good to them. The UK is not asking them to do anything. It's saying that if internet content providers don't comply with UK law as it applies to their services delivered in the UK, they'll face heavy fines, and may find the UK ISPs are forced to block them. Nothing there for other countries to accommodate.
I think Goblin put it pretty well here and this bit kind of sums up some of my concerns about censorship in regard to the big picture.
Other restrictions apply to online bullying, harassment and non-consensually sharing intimate images, and to sites encouraging suicide or serious self-harm, and to algorithms promoting particular types of content to vulnerable users (e.g. promoting anorexia).
My sentiments entirely. Except... The reason why I'd never actually support or advocate this is that such a power given to the State makes the State extremely vulnerable to being abused by a nascent tyrant.
I want to also point out that the thread title makes it sound like this thread is about the greater issue and not just UK law. I think that is part of the disconnect between some of the comments and your possible original intention for this thread.
If the British are threatening to fine companies for not complying with their laws, then you are going to have a very hard time convincing me that the British are not trying to force companies into complying with them. This is because it resembles arm-twisting to me.
I'm in favor of removing all of it, I agree with you on that. But I am not in favor of the way the British are going about it. And I am concerned about a massive increase in censorship and how it will be abused.
No, the U.K. is a democracy. I don't know what we have here in the U.S., but the politicians we have are more responsible to business and to ideologues than they are to the people, especially to people who need protection from the encroachments of greed, power-lust, and outright lies. The U.K. is doing the responsible thing for it's citizens, since we don't seem to give a damn about our own anymore.
Especially when it turns into ab$olute free $peech, which is what we've been seeing.
Just because I disagree with one thing doesn't mean I embrace the exact opposite. I would have Musk jailed and tried for treason and interference with an American ally during a time of war for cutting off Ukrainian access to Starlink while Ukrainian forces were conducting a dangerous ground operation in Crimea. The French even went so far as to arrest Durov due to how much they disliked the way he managed Telegram and VKontakte. I highly approve of acting against the leaders of these companies in that way instead passing laws that could be used as a smokescreen to restrict what people can say.
How do you suggest the UK, or the EU, should go about getting Zuckerberg or Musk to remove this kind of content, if not through force of law? Ask them nicely?
