It could also be the reverse (see authoritarian countries), with international players leaving the market and local ones filling the space.
This horribly written law can easily be interpreted to apply to ISP's as well - so if the ISP is allowing these peer-to-peer systems that allow "unsafe" content to be shared, they're liable for it too, or they have to shut down the peer-to-peer systems.
Which again, is the point - to turn the internet into the easily regulable cable TV that they already understand.
Unless the UK significantly increases its military capacity and sets up world government, they will not be able to shut down the internet. The internet will still exist. The best they can hope for is a great firewall / North Korea type situation which would require a much more authoritarian (moreover functioning) government than even the UK can muster.
It's a tad more nefarious. Say what you want about cable tv, but it doesn't track your every move.
Where is the law vague? Your ISP is not a platform. I feel like this is a scare tactic.
China has done it already and it's very effective:
* Force every service provider to register their IPs and domains (for CDN use)
* Force every ISP to do stateful firewalling and block every attempt to establish a new connection unless the destination IP is on a whilelist maintained by the government.
Problem solved.
This is their attitude.
They will legislate to achieve the outcome they want. If that means making it criminal to use encryption without backdoors, they will do that. If it means making it criminal to use P2P technology, they will do that.
They have and will use control over mainstream infrastructure (Internet traffic, software distribution channels, etc.). Use of non-mainstream infrastructure will be made increasingly difficult and used as an indicator of guilt.
The more sophisticated the technical workarounds required, the fewer people will be capable of using those workarounds, and even fewer people will be capable of building those workarounds. Fewer people are easier to control.
TrueCrypt, Lavabit, etc.
This too will remain constant.
don't think this is a bridge too far, covering your face in the presence of public CCTV got you fined/arrested the week before covering your face with feel-good masks was compulsory
don't @ me telling me it's stupid, I know it is, but this govt doesn't believe in free and private communications and it's working hard in progressively eradicating what's already out there, with full support from the main opposition party
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209044791...
Why is obeying idiotic unenforceable laws any different to this when it comes to technology, aside from the obvious of the stakes being much lower? Although the way the world is going, that may not be a given in the future.
I'd argue it may even be worse when it comes to cases of governments who are nominally democracies making idiotic laws for their populaces, because at least theoretically, those populaces could have voted in such a way that said idiotic laws would never come to be, and thus their misery, the stupid laws that they're subject to, etc, are somewhat self inflicted, and for those that do dissent it makes even more sense to feel zero obligation to the greater populace given that. I personally don't really buy this because in my experience, what people want in a democracy has very little with what they end up getting, and the same people that will scream blue murder about the right to self rule when it comes to a national group, will scream just as loud when it comes to an individual in the exact opposite direction.
No, the only strategy is to create realities just like the internet did with its inception, just like encryption was established. We would never have it if we tried to legislate it into reality.
Additionally legislation is completely ignored by state actors that put the population under surveillance. The battle for legislation was lost.
Consider how hard it is in the United States to lay new fiber (and this is an imperfect metaphor). The ideal solution would be to get legislative branches to solve the telcos oligopoly problem. That has not and is not working. So what's happening? Wireless internet over LTE, and 5G being deployed everywhere. Route around.
You mean like what the Pirate Parties, FSF, EFF, Mozilla, and countless others are trying to and failing? I never thought I'd see "well we have no political power to change things, but as disastrous as these laws are, for us specifically, maybe we can evade them for a little while longer if we're clever" described as "privileged".
Simple, because if that because popular, new laws will be drafted to ban all of that from all app stores for circumventing this or some other reason.
Napster took off because it meant not spending 10 or 15 pounds or dollars or euros on a CD. THhe DRM came later, and what really killed DRM was the change in business model to iTunes with individual songs, the transformation of the 'star' from a face on a CD to a bigger product.
Yes there were risks, but zero oversight is how we built the internet byte by byte.
Anyone know if that “two computers talking directly to each other” patent has expired yet? Hard for companies to make those apps while patent-encumbered
The truth is that we already are all violating laws, every day we live, mostly without being aware of them. That is exactly why there are so many of them. The only thing more draconian laws do is make people decide actively that they commit them.
TL;DR for the article: 1. Any technical solution will be imperfect and can potentially lead to hundreds if not thousands of cases being raised 2. Difficulties in clearing your name in the case of false flags (not to mention how this would actually be implemented) 3. No clear guidance on how such a system would work 4. A death to encryption services since any system that would entail some for of media transfer would be in scope 5. A grey/dark market place for custom software that will still allow encrypted communications run on VPSes/servers that might restrict UK access but could be accessible through VPNs that exit outside of the UK and thus wouldn't fall under the legislation (I think, feel free to correct me on any of these points ofc). 6. A host of other issues from overworked law enforcement trying to deal with the flood to the migration of individuals involved in any illegal activities far far deeper and thus more difficult to detect.
This is a clear as day example of what happens when people with no understanding of these topics (and many others, I'm sure economy, education and law enforcement is managed by people with no real world experience in said fields...) are allowed to legislate.
The only way protect children online is to ban them from Internet. Children should not have access to normal laptops and smartphones, instead they should use "kid phones". Such phones would allow children to communicate only with people approved by parents or teachers and visit only approved sites. This way they will enjoy perfect safety which this Bill fails to provide.
Every site which wants to become approved, must fulfill all the requirements from the Bill and indicate this with a HTTP header. Kid phones and laptops should allow only to visit such compliant sites.
Kid-oriented phones and laptops must be visually distinctive: for example, have a shape of a cute animal. In this case teachers, parents or police will be able to instantly spot and confiscate illegal devices.
This is a win-win plan: kids would be safe and adults would be safe from government overreach. Obviously no government will agree to such plan.
The funny thing is that if I created a phone that had a kids mode lock-down (with kids friendly appstore, social media, browser and education content) with a monthly fee and no-ads. The government would scream that I was harming competition and locking people out by daring to charge for a product that would be expensive to operate.
The great triple fallacy. Never wants you to stop for even a moment to think if doing something is a good idea if the some * we must do* is the wrong thing, if children be used for exploitation, and if not doing something could “save” more people long term than the feel good initial change”.
We've crossed this line already, the internet is out there and everyone can access everything. Instead of being regressive and focusing on futile efforts like banning children from the internet (hint: never going to work), we need to embrace the new age we live in and adapt. I don't claim to know the answer, it is a difficult question on how to properly raise children in the globally interconnected world we live in, but I don't think simply closing our eyes and pretending the internet doesn't exist will solve anything.
I was born in the 90s, had access to dialup internet from since I was 5 years old, have seen all the horrors the internet has to offer and still turned out fine. I'm sure there is a way without censorship.
I propose to make it illegal to help kids to obtain access to adult Internet the same way as it is illegal to help them to buy alcohol.
What about a fourteen year old that is feeling confused about their gender identity or sexuality. Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities?
I've never blocked, monitored, or filtered my childrens' access to the web. I just parent properly, and try to make sure they are responsible users. You can't regulate your way around this type of problem. Kids will find a way around any barriers that are put in place, and to be honest, good luck to them.
Not quite. It's 16 unless with someone in a position of trust, e.g. your school teacher, social worker, doctor or care worker. A person under 18 cannot legally consent to that in UK.
At least 18, or more if local government considers it reasonable to raise the age.
> Are they not permitted to do some research or reach out to supportive online communities?
They are permitted as long as they use only compliant sites. Talking to random strangers about this is not a good idea.
And yeah on AOL there were people that "lived near by and could hang out some time" but I already knew what a creep was... so.. why are kids these days so stupid? Is it because we treat them so?
I'm certainly biased as a more technical parent than most, but I don't think the average layperson knows that much less about the risks. If anything it's shouted from the news any time something remotely internet related happens, and people notice, because it plays on a pretty fundamental fear. I think awareness is up (not always in a good way) more than anything. There's a balance to strike between trying to make things safer and just teaching kids to navigate dangers that will always be there (and always be changing) and I tend to think these laws are a step or so too far into diminishing returns on making things safer. Even then, that's assuming we can even agree what safer means.
Should kids have the right to "ruin" their future by gaming instead of studying? Yes, and I think the solution should instead be to make it harder for anyone, kid or adult, to "ruin" their future by making it easier to get back on track at any point in life.
I bought a BB gun at school, even a butterfly knife. I feel that it's education on how to use the internet that's missing. As well as finance.
Like not allowing them to get off essentially scot free just by apologizing? https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/870-sex-...
(ironically, cant actually read that article atm because of the company firewall)
I personally think MOST legislative to do x to protect children is just BS reasoning to intrude on privacy.
It appears the OSB has become a victim of incoherent requirements specifications. It's grown enormously during its gestation period and is now trying to do way too much, including things that are self-contradictory. Some politicians recognize this, for example Kemi Badenoch:
https://order-order.com/2022/07/11/watch-badenoch-slams-onli...
but I recall others saying similar things. I just can't find the references right now.
I mean realistically if it became a problem I'd just IP-block all of the UK because they're small, but I don't understand what the legal framework for "extraterritorial enforcement" even is.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/100739/response/25520...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9237663/No-America...
Another case of myopic, joyless stodges ruining what they don't understand.
I've paid enough taxes to this worthless, bloated institution that claims to 'protect my liberties' - is it too late to get a refund? Don't they owe me something for clear breach of contract? The 'social contract' isn't what it was when I was born!
So, instead of a 'right to' free speech, rather we _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted). This was the understanding that would've permeated Parliament, the courts, the palace, and the hearts and minds of everyone who understood it.
More or less, until 1997.
Everything else aside, if MPs don't show up for a scheduled meeting they should just be sacked.
How many of us can just blow off meetings like that with no consequence?
I wouldn't be so quick to judge in this case. I think the extremely high expectations and little room for error ("they should just be sacked") is part of the problem. If you bollock a child every time they do something slightly wrong they will learn to lie and hide things very quickly.
I mean that's even more explicit in a parliamentary system, where members are nearly always expected to vote the party line or face consequences.
yes, that is a feature (not a bug) of a parliamentary system. A complementary feature is that parliamentary systems tend to have representational seat distribution. So a party that wins 35% of the vote gets 35% of the seats. And those seats are expected to vote as a block unless there is an extreme question of conscience.
You could contrast with for example the US system, where the original intent was that the senators/representatives would represent their state, not the party. Worked well for a while. Now, however, they also follow party line or face consequences. But there are realistically only two parties, and the the "first past the post" system locks us into 2 parties.
Reason #2458729349 why political parties should be banned everywhere.
Parliamentarians aren't employees, they're elected officials and this meeting is a lobbying effort (the author being 'head of policy' for some web3/crypto startup) and representatives are accountable only to their constituents, who can 'sack them' in elections.
Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading them. This is stuff from the first week of 1990s computer class in elementary school.
If you get in an argument with someone and they start saying nasty things, then it's simple to disengage. You just stop replying and you don't go back to the thread. In this scenario, your comment makes sense, but you should count yourself very lucky if this is the worst you've experienced.
Personally, I pissed off a cult leader and she sent her followers to harass me. They used email and social networks, among other methods, to send me regular messages accusing me of all sorts of horrible things. If I followed your suggestion of "stop reading them" it would mean I no longer check my email or social networks...
For those inexperienced with these matters, it may seem like I can just block the messages, but in many cases that's near impossible. A "professional" abuser knows all about VPNs and will just keep creating new email addresses.
also, learn not to overexpose yourself with your real id online, also from 1990s internet 101
the idiotic model of the 2020s with everybody posting their entire private lives with their real names and profiles that have their mugs in circles, and then proceed to broadcast hot takes they're afraid to get feedback on - it doesn't work and it's stupid
A "professional" abuser knows all about VPNs and will just keep creating new email addresses.
You had no luck with keyword filters? You have my sympathy.
I spend time with people in person or on the phone usually. We, gasp, _do things_ like go to restaurants or go camping. Sometimes we all sit on the sofa in a big pile and share snacks and watch movies or talk about life.
It's nice. Sometimes I'm even alone and get to read a dead tree book or just enjoy nature.
What happens "on the internet" is of very low importance, slightly below my choice of socks or what brand of snack to get.
In school we teach kids how to be responsible with alcohol and drugs. But some still become addicted. The same applies to social media.
The difference is that instead of the pusher being some shady character at the back of the school bus, it's a massive company with marketing, public relations, and lobbying teams.
This analogy is broken on quite a few levels. When did the internet become a hot burner?
The internet is not designed to get hot - it's not a cooking device. If your laptop consistently got so hot it burned your lap, you'd try to fix it, not say "of course it does that".
> If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading them
There are laws governing abusive behaviour in person. Our society does not just advice people to "just not listen".
Why would you expect different principles to apply to online and in-person behaviour?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/verbal-abuse-and-harassmen...
Because you can't instantly erase someone from your perception in person to person interaction. Online you can even proactively protect yourself, such as by adding words and phrases you don't like to your blocklist. Suppose I decide I don't ever want to interact with someone who still uses the word "retard". My computer can preemptively block those people on my Twitter, my email, even pages containing the word on my browser. It takes only seconds to wipe entire categories of people and opinion from every facet of your online experience.
Not if the fix isn't worth the price and will be abused to stiffle competition and for governments and companies to get control over interpersonal communication.
People saying things about you can affect you even if you don't read them.
This creates a barrier to entry that allows ONLY big tech access to the playing field.
These types of barriers to entry already exist in other areas like the pharmaceutical business and finance. Now we're getting artificial barriers created in IT.
Or - you take a leaf from the pirate's book and throw caution to the wind. Which will be pretty much the only way to get the growth that investors expect, even as investors will refuse to invest without at least the appearance of legal certainty of the first option.
This article doesn't really apply to anything I'm doing (at present), but I enjoyed the read.
I wish it was more widely recognized and understood by more folks.
Which law in particular?
Seems incorrect, no? The visit is more important than just typing URL. Worst-case scenario I will check your IP and if its in UK/GB scope, you will see "Unable to browse this site due to your-stupid-anti-blah-blah-UK-policy"
Then, moving forward, whenever you changed any (unrelated) business process, you'd need to re-up your business process certifications.
> [A pretty reasonable set of questions that companies must consider regarding how children might be harmed on their service]
> "you’re probably curled up in a ball crying"
No actually, I wasn't.
Filtering out the breathless commentary, the actual proposals don't seem that bad...? Certainly no worse than GDPR obligations and nowhere near the kind of regulatory compliance industries like Manufacturing, Construction and Medicine have to meet.
Admittedly I didn't make it to the end of the article because the tone was beginning to grate too much.
It's fine if you don't like the flourishes in her writing, but this is the correct way to read proposed legislation.
If the uncharitable reading describes the law enabling/preventing things in a way the authors don't intend, all they have to do is clarify the scope in the text of the bill.
The light least favorable to the drafting party is needed now. In 5 years when there are legal cases over the bounds of the law, the courts will use the text of the law rather that call in the authors and politicians that voted for it and check what they intended for the law to mean. Or maybe they would, I don't know how British courts work.
The cost of entry into this space is really low compared to most other industries. You can very cheaply provide a reasonably competitive product.
One of the aspects of this bill that I do find worrying is that there are clear costs being added on that we're obligated to pay likely before we've validated the business works.
I do feel a lot of side-projects that could have gone to become viable businesses will never be released with this bill in place. Who wants to expose themselves to costs to try out a fun idea?
A lot of what she's arguing for could have been covered similarly to GDPR if there were carve outs for smaller entities, which would have been easy to mention, the absence of them lends weight to her assertion that the goal of this bill as it stands is to generally increase political control of the tech sphere.
Even if that control only extends to and harms UK businesses...
Makes me wonder what a site like HN would have to do in order to stay in compliance. While on the one hand HN could make the argument that the site is not geared towards children so this kind of stuff is not a concern, regulations will say: well TECHNICALLY a child could use HN, and TECHNICALLY a predator could message with them, and therefore there is TECHNICALLY a risk, so please pay up $20k/yr for compliance costs.
I use HN as a stand in example for many many sites and services out there. IMO, I don't think it will be that enforceable. Sure the big tech companies will comply, anyone that runs a smaller service outside the UK will just tell the UK govt to kick rocks if they come knocking (what can they do besides blocking the site in the UK).
If this bill gets passed were going to get the following:
- Big tech company scandal over CSAM.
- A heartbreaking story over some small time website owner facing prison time over non-compliance.
- Opinion pieces from the tech community about how it's a terrible idea all around.
- Puff pieces from non-tech outlets that praise the legislation without fully understanding the technical ramifications.
- Flame war between techies and non-techies over competing puff pieces.
Just like what we see with the DMCA. Cheaper toner cartridges? Think of the creatives!
If that was possible, wouldn't CCP or Russia be ordering websites all over the world to shutdown to control information they don't like be visible?
this will set a massive barrier for all but a few whitelisted giant entities to host user-generated content, and then it will be massively censored and used to prosecute people
Easy answer: geoblock the UK.
And it covers Stack Overflow.
And Mumsnet.
And basically any site that takes user generated content of any kind.
Prevent people being able to communicate except through a handful of controlled middle men who can spy on or block content the government dislikes. The end goal is complete control of the communication of its citizens.
"Is it possible for your site, service, or app, which allows content to be shared and/or people to communicate with each other, to be accessed by any adult or any child within the UK?
Then you’re in scope.
NB “accessed” doesn’t necessarily mean that a user can set up an active account on your service. If a British adult can merely download your app on the app store, the app is in scope."
However, the draft bill doesn't seem to say that. I found the draft here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... (and note that the article doesn't seem to link it, which seems odd).
The bill says:
"In this Act “user-to-user service” means an internet service by means of which content that is generated by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service.
That seems reasonable to me. There are more details, but as far as I can see, the ability to merely download an app does not put it in scope contrary to the claim in TFA.
I now find myself doubting the the other claims made by this author.
A site or app that doesn't allow user content isn't in scope. But just add a comment section and suddenly you have this world of regulatory requirements with mandates to age-verify all users, which bars anonymity.
In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance.
I agree, but the article's author's phrasing, IMHO, claims the opposite.
> In practice this will end discussion and comment sections from all but the largest sites that can afford all the regulatory compliance.
My possibly contrarian (for HN) opinion is that the Internet's "wild west" approach of disclaiming liability when republishing and algorithmically editorializing content on a platform isn't acceptable, so I'm actually in favour of this. Otherwise we have people being harmed with nobody to hold to account.
If when tracking down an offender the offender cannot be found, then they're effectively being shielded by the platform, and the platform should be held liable. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
I don't think this would necessarily exclude all discussion or comment sections because I'm only talking about (my definition) a "platform". I would exclude "mere conduit" direct communication apps. This bill probably doesn't achieve the distinction and exception I want though.
You're linking to the draft bill. Burns has linked to the actual bill as amended in the Commons: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121... (it's linked under the heading of "How to read this post")
However, I looked at the definitions in there and they remain essentially the same. My concerns still stand.
If an app is available in an app store are the users who can access it not a target market?
I'm not really sure what "material risk of significant harm" means for the second qualifier but if it means "users can potentially post bad things" then that seems very broad too.
I feel it's telling that they had a need to make exceptions explicitly for email/voip/sms texting.
The GDPR has teeth only because the EU is big enough to make companies care. It is a watered down version from some privacy rights compared to the old laws in my country. But the old laws were ignorde by US tech because why wouldn't they.
So as the UK left the EU, they are now a small country in the computer world. I'll ignore its laws just as I ignore Afghan laws requiring women to stay at home or whatever country's laws to forbif gays from existing.
Wow, does that suck. I see about 20% of the "cookie track consent" popups Stateside that I saw browsing from the EU.
Also your example of ignoring Afghan laws on women doesn't work. If you tried to setup a business in Afghanistan that was say an online tutoring programme tailored for Aghan women. How quickly do you think your DNS will get pointed to 0.0.0.0 on the Afghan internet? And how quickly will they seek to prosecute you as a director of that business? As a foreigner living abroad, you'll probably be fine but you won't be making money from your target market. So you're finished. The law worked and you didn't ignore it.
Posting to say you live somewhere else and don't care about the article doesn't contribute to any intelligent conversation, and usually means you do care about something involved, strongly, but aren't willing to say so.
So as a person, I of course do care. The UK used to be fairly good concerning human rights, privacy, cooperation, ... This represents another step back. So the best thing to do is ignore this insanity as good as possible.
Umm yeah no. Perhaps regulation wise but no, the uk is not a “small” country in the “computer world”.
1. https://www.statista.com/topics/7208/digital-economy-in-the-...
With this legalization I would IP ban the UK, then grow the service and look into opening up for the UK when my service was big and the lawyers didn't matter.
The answer is we demanded it.
Instead of parents taking responsibility for what their children see on their phone, we tried to push a parental responsibility into the service provider, that they're simply unable to logistically comply with.
This is the end result of trying to solve a problem in meat space with legislation. Everyone that sat around going "Hurr hurr XKCD! Slippery slope! Seat belts and road safety!" are complicit.
I consider them conceptually similar because in both cases it means that permission-less publishing will ultimately die. Right now the consensus is to allow publication, after which a reasonable effort is made to moderate, including the typical "report" function where you correct after publication.
It looks like we're swinging in the direction where whatever you publish (by means of your users) makes you fully accountable hence the only way to dodge that legal liability is to pre-check instead of post-check.
There's some hope in the sense that none of this can actually work nor is it enforceable. GDPR is a fine example of that. In my country, privacy authorities are a few hundred in staff only. When you report a violation to them, absolutely nothing will happen. They're 2 years behind and the cases they do handle almost never lead to any kind of verdict. No government is going to add thousands in staff just to regulate cookies, as surely they have better things to do with a budget. As such, the strategy seems to be to occasionally make an example out of a few by applying severe fines, just to scare everybody else and remind them that this legislation is a thing.
Let's also not underestimate the ability for people to revolt. If memory serves me well, article 13 had a modification so that people can continue to meme, lol.
So everybody around the world could and should register with them and basically perform a DoS at that very first step of the process?
This is insane - and worse the UK is just, just small enough that you could if you wanted, turn off the service to those geo-IPs and carry on.
I wonder. If any non-English speaking country tried it, it would almost be guaranteed
Ultimately the only people who benefit as the internet gets more and more locked down and more and more regulated is the people at the top who are able to reassert control of the information those unwashed masses receive.
From the American point of view, the entire EU has bought into something very heavy-handed in terms of the GDPR, but IIUC the GDPR is pretty popular in the UK (though full compliance with it technically requires one not even run a default-configured Apache server).
There definitely is.
They want their cut. At least about their own cattle, I mean, they surely see British people as.. people?
The total size of legislation should be constitutionally limited. So that if someone wants to add 230 pages of new legislation, he should point to other 230 pages of the older legislation that should be eliminated.
So I think.
As an American, I rarely see young people able to write like this anymore.
On the topic: are they trying to kill their startups? Because this is how you drive startups out of the UK.
Like the Chinese, they propose to put executives of ISPs and websites in jail if they fail to assist the government in the creation of this police state.
Unlike the Chinese, part of the plan is to make a few companies [more] fabulously wealthy: Namely the biggest tech giants like Alphabet and Meta who can afford the enormous costs of compliance, as well as certain homegrown British companies who specialize in estimating a user's age by using AI to analyze the size of a user's head in a webcam image.
Super-important points:
1. This is not about "adult content" websites. It covers just about any website that uses technology more advanced that static HTML files, regardless of content.
2. The provisions apply to any website worldwide that can be accessed in Britain.
3. The provisions make it effectively impossible to browse the Internet anonymously in Britain. The government also wants browser makers to make special British versions of browsers to assist them in deanonymizing users.
4. The cost of compliance for any small business will be so astronomical that GDPR compliance will seem trivial by comparison.
This is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230. It takes politics back to the simpler age where there were just a few entities deciding what the public were talking about, and they could be reached with either a bribe or an arrest warrant.
For a lot of politicians, who don't understand social media and mostly receive criticism on it, I can imagine them not caring if the costs of pre-screening all content ended up making social media accounts require annual payments. That would have the immediate effect of removing anonymity from users, and limiting online comments to people with disposable income (who could be profitably sued for insulting politicians).
--
and arguably there is also some interaction with tech companies doing malicious compliance as well which generally means that the original intent of the legislation gets lost and user experience further degrades (cookie popups anyone?)
--
I think it's too simplistic to make this a "politicians want to control the discourse" - there's always a bunch of tradeoffs in these things, and arguably the edge cases /are/ the base case (anyone that has done content moderation for a reasonably large community knows that it is very hard to make any sort of blanket rule, even if you have blanket rules)
They do sometimes, mostly by chance, coincide.
The advanced level of this is to be aware this applies even to your own actions.
This must be what they meant by "Singapore on Thames" coz it's certainly not about good economic policy or building enough social housing.
Western Governments are looking to control the discourse and are following the footsteps of China.
Honestly sad to see the web move in this direction :/
There is definitely some change to do to section 230. I do not think it needs a repeal, but i do think it needs some rethinking and probably some more regulation on privacy and safety.
So, an end to social media companies that are actively hostile to their users? No more psychologically deceptive tactics to force engagement at any cost? No more ad tracking? An end to foreign spam accounts?
Looks like quarterly ARPU is about $12 per US user per month. So a $5 a month subscription would destroy their business model. However go back 6 years and $5 a month was what they were bringing in from ads, and Facebook wasn't exactly suffering as a business 6 years ago.
In Europe, ARPU is just $6 per month right now, though I'd presume UK is higher, since EU is very diverse in terms of country economies.
Of course most people would leave Facebook if it was $5 a month.
We pay for TVs (the physical objects), and most of them are still riddled with ads. They will double dip if they can. The reasoning won’t be “if we charge them this much we can drop ads and not lose money”, it will be “if we charge them this much we can have it on top of however much we are doing with ads”.
And if they judge you broke a rule that will be an extra $50. But you can appeal for $200?
What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?
