I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are taking towards the internet.
Not really. It's not the same ideology. It's the same tool.
[dead]
UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
41–50 of 91 posts
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after the fact. What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-package it as intelligence before too[1]. We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War [1] ht…
>100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]
>[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
These just seem to be anti-war protests. I'm not seeing anything that suggests they knew it was false, or that that was the reason for the protests
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#43This looks like negative news for the Facebooks & Youtubes, but I think it's the opposite. Whenever the law, Facebook & Youtube will adapt - they have the resources to do so. Smaller players, and potential future competitors, will not be able to adapt. This just draws a moat around existing behemoths that will protect them against future disruption.
Yes, it's called regulatory capture and it's the reason big players push for regulation and government involvement.
This is indeed favors FB and YT. They will censor and blame it on the government, and they won’t take any responsibility.
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#44I hate to say it, but large online social platforms are really giving governments way too much ammunition to start regulating and censoring the now largely centralized Internet. Very, very scary but interesting times ahead.
Because of the internet, a lot of people are becoming aware of stories like how the CIA watched over the "get Gary Webb team" of industry experts who said "we're going to take away his Pulitzer," before Webb died by "suicide" by two gunshot wounds to the head.(1) Just one of thousands of outrageous stories questioning where global power lies and what those who have it are doing with it.
Iraq lies were territory of "fake news" and conspiracy theories, same as a lot of what Tulsi Gabbard is saying about the US military industrial complex.
Every group of individuals will always have psychopaths whom try to cheat to exert control over others. Obviously many powerful people in the world dont want a democracy of individuals sharing ideas freely.
https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-m...
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#45Jeremy Wright, "Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK" penned an op-ed in CNN about this. [0] The closing line is particularly infuriating to me: "That is an objective on which the British Government, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Zuckerberg would all agree." No, I don't think TBL would agree on this. The cited organization started by him explicitly calls for the opposite [1]: - Ensure eve…
>without fear.
Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it out.
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#46Theresa May did an Op Ed[0] in the metro[1][2].
[0] https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leadi...
[1] pdf about audience - https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/201...
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#47Jeremy Wright, "Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the UK" penned an op-ed in CNN about this. [0] The closing line is particularly infuriating to me: "That is an objective on which the British Government, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Zuckerberg would all agree." No, I don't think TBL would agree on this. The cited organization started by him explicitly calls for the opposite [1]: - Ensure eve…
>without fear. Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it out.
> A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this ungood content
That's one way to generally interpret "fear" but not in its context of a right to privacy. "Without fear" in this context must mean fear of what happens when you don't have privacy, that is chiefly: embarrassment and persecution.
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#48I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are taking towards the internet.
It's only baffling if you assume that the people in government are smart.
Somewhat less glibly, it's compartmentalization, basically. Take an ordinary, not-especially-intelligent person who has basically authoritarian intuitions, teach them liberal principles, and you'll get a person who espouses the liberal way only in the particular examples you taught them. (Or in other examples that someone else explicitly connects to those principles.) Most people are just really terrible at applying things they notionally believe outside the specific contexts they associate them with.
Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#49Re: UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms”
#50Would that include the Daily mails website :-)