Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
1–10 of 480 posts
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#2> Or it would have, if the nine MPs across three parties who were scheduled to attend actually showed up. Only one did.
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?
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#3> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors
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).
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#4> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors 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 d…
>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).
This must be what they meant by "Singapore on Thames" coz it's certainly not about good economic policy or building enough social housing.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#5It seems to me that the solution to all the woes of this bill is to just not allow any content to be shared. That basically eliminates this being a problem for 95% of all companies.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#6Good example of why you need to fight even for big tech rights.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#7> Or it would have, if the nine MPs across three parties who were scheduled to attend actually showed up. Only one did. 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?
It just underlines what should be fairly obvious: that such official meetings are not how things are actually decided in representative democracies.
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.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#8> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors 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 d…
I don't know about intentions, seems like the intention behind a ton of this stuff is to "protect the children", or "fix a problem" etc etc, but there just isn't enough awareness of possible side effects - not unique to tech legislation - just look at the policy ratchet of "you can always run by being tougher on crime, very hard to run on being not as tough"
--
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)
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#9> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors 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 d…
I don't know about intentions, seems like the intention behind a ton of this stuff is to "protect the children", or "fix a problem" etc etc, but there just isn't enough awareness of possible side effects - not unique to tech legislation - just look at the policy ratchet of "you can always run by being tougher on crime, very hard to run on being not as tough" -- and arguably there is also some interaction with tech co…
It's a good mental practice to always be aware that stated intentions and actual reasons are entirely separate things.
They do sometimes, mostly by chance, coincide.
The advanced level of this is to be aware this applies even to your own actions.
Re: Your compliance obligations under the UK’s Online Safety Bill
#10> What I’ve come to realise since then is it’s not a joke. That’s the intention. Make it too prohibitive, risky, or impossible for public discourse to flow on smaller platforms and services; require the larger ones to become speech police and societal monitors 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 d…
> [Preventing public discourse] is, I believe, also the intention behind the calls to repeal Section 230
What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect?