UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”

Post by timomax » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

bArray wrote: post #16

Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.

Post by gnode » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

bArray wrote: post #16

Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.

Post by Throwway32 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

ilovecaching wrote: post #21

America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending individual liberties are paramount to a moral society. But now it seems we’re taking our new digital plane of existence and giving up a lot of that self determination for convienience and protection from exposure to things we don’t like. I’m not sure how this will shake out in America versus Europe, but this seems as paradigm shifting as the civ…

Post by rgbrenner » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

zyxzevn wrote: post #10

luiscleto wrote: post #2

> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and disinformation. So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at the official's discretion.

This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they n…

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #28

zyxzevn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter. While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous hosts was a child molester. Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is published by the government media. Will they n…

Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.