The UK’s new Online Safety Bill is a massive change, heralding a new digital age that is safer for users. Tech giants and websites will be held to account, and they don’t have to be UK based to face the enormous consequences. This will affect photographers and photography websites around the world.
The UK is putting through Parliament a new bill that will completely change the way the internet works, making it safer for everyone, especially for children and vulnerable people. It looks as if this won’t just affect websites hosted in the UK, but all those that allow their content to be viewable there.
Governments around the world are watching to see how this will work, and the adoption of similar laws in other countries is likely to follow. The new laws written into the bill will put the onus on website owners to have effective controls in place that restrict harmful content, including hate speech, pornography, and violence, and limit people’s exposure to it. At the same time, it is designed to protect freedom of speech.
The government say that the bill has five policy objectives:
- to increase user safety online
- to preserve and enhance freedom of speech online
- to improve law enforcement’s ability to tackle illegal content online
- to improve users’ ability to keep themselves safe online
- to improve society’s understanding of the harm landscape
It will be the service providers’ responsibility to protect the public, and they can be fined up to 10% of their global revenue, or up to £18 million GBP (approximately $23.5 million USD) for failing in their duty of care to their users. Senior managers of the companies will also be criminally liable if their businesses fail to meet the requirements of the bill.
Those punishments are significant deterrents. Consequently, one can expect the big tech companies that recognize that other governments will soon follow suit are already looking at how they can comply with the new regulations when they are launched.
This is, of course, aimed mainly at the big players like Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, etc), Alphabet (Google and its subsidiaries), and ByteDance (TikTok). But it looks as if it will also apply to smaller websites too, including 500px, Only Fans, Twitter, Reddit, Gala, VSCO, Petapixel, and Fstoppers. It may even apply to your blog and maybe Squarespace or WordPress too if they host your site.
Because the Internet evolves so rapidly, the bill’s framework is designed to be quickly adapted to meet new threats. It has been constantly added to since its inception; when it was first drafted, TikTok did not exist. Even now, as the metaverse rapidly grows, discussions are underway for that to be included in the law. I have written to my member of Parliament to lobby the inclusion of certain deep fake images that are used to undermine democracy or cause harm to individuals, such as using AI to superimpose victims' faces onto pornography.
If website owners are hosting harmful content and not putting controls in place, such as age verification for accessing pornography, then they will be committing a criminal offense and subject to punitive action. The law also forbids having breadcrumbs that lead to harmful or illegal content.
This bill is also making it a criminal offense for businesses to destroy evidence and for obstructing the UK’s regulator, Ofcom.
I realize that in America, this will shock some. Freedom of speech to many there seems to mean the freedom to say anything. On the other side of the Atlantic, there is a different approach, and the laws in the UK and Europe on hate speech are much tougher. Protection of other human rights and personal safety outdoes freedom of speech; just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should.
Verbally abusing or discriminating against those with protected status, (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation) is a criminal offense in the UK and European countries. Under this new law, instead of it being only the people making hateful comments that are committing a crime, those websites that allow it in posts or comments will be liable. The new law goes beyond that. Content that is harmful but not illegal, such as promoting suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders, will be criminalized too.
The internet has transformed our lives for the better. It’s connected us and empowered us. But on the other side, tech firms haven’t been held to account when harm, abuse and criminal behaviour have run riot on their platforms. Instead, they have been left to mark their own homework.We don’t give it a second’s thought when we buckle our seat belts to protect ourselves when driving. Given all the risks online, it’s only sensible we ensure similar basic protections for the digital age. If we fail to act, we risk sacrificing the wellbeing and innocence of countless generations of children to the power of unchecked algorithms.
- Nadine Dorries, Digital Secretary
Consequently, we can expect sites accessible in the UK that allow individuals to post comments that include misogyny and racism, something that happens in the comments sections of some photographic sites, to suffer the force of the law.
No doubt, there are a small number of the worst offenders thinking that they are not in the UK and that they will be protected by their nation. Indeed, there are currently no reciprocal enforcement agreements between the US and the UK. However, there are extradition agreements with most other countries in the world. So, in effect, offenders in the USA will be imprisoned in their own country for fear of extradition to face trial in the UK if they leave it. Furthermore, as other countries adopt similar laws, greater pressure will be placed on the US to impose parallel restrictions to protect their citizens too.
There's no escape from the law for trolls or squirrels.
Larger companies will also be looking at the sanctions placed on Putin and his oligarch supporters following the ongoing illegal war in Ukraine and the atrocities being inflicted on the people there. These sanctions have included the confiscation and freezing of assets. One can assume that similar sanctions will be put in place for tech companies that fail to comply. In the long-term, one can expect that countries that shelter and permit offenders to post such content will also be sanctioned.
The new measures also clamp down on anonymous trolls. In the UK recently, one anonymous troll attacked a TV presenter on Twitter, was caught, and had to pay the victim a six-figure sum. That troll, despite hiding behind a false ID, was found out. The latest forensic investigative methods mean that cowardly trolls can no longer hide behind fake personas, and civil actions for defamation will now be backed up by criminal law.
The bill hopes to balance these restrictions by strengthening people’s rights and allowing freedom of expression online too. It will make sure that social media companies are not removing legal free speech. UK users here will have a right of appeal if they believe a post was unfairly removed. Social media firms must also both protect journalism and democratic political debate that takes place on their platforms.
An exemption from the law will be in place for genuine news content. However, most photography sites will probably not fall into the news category.
Content providers may need to use more effective tools for content moderation, and learning algorithms are able to filter out offending content. It does require content hosts to do more than rely on users to report abuse. However, that doesn’t mean supporters of online communities should stop helping moderate content as you hopefully do now.
So, how does this affect the individual photographer? Firstly, most photographers are good, kind, honest people who object to the kind of behavior that this law will criminalize, so it will be welcomed. Here in the UK, where I am based, we will benefit by having a safer environment in which to work. With luck, that will have a knock-on effect in other countries that will be strengthened when others adopt similar laws. Life is going to become more difficult for the trolls that have found a haven on photography websites, which is a good thing. Finally, attacking people from behind fake identities will hopefully become a thing of the past.
For the last time, its not about being offended, or triggered, or any other buzzword you want throw around.... its about the basics of decency and the difference between right and wrong, amazingly there are basic human principles that any decent human being will live by and understand and those who make a habit of going outside of those principles should have their ability removed to carry on.
Take this as an example, in the UK, Football is a huge sport, there are videos posted by Sky Sports (the largest provider of sports coverage) and they might include a black female as a pundit, every single time a video is posted there are people in the comments saying something similar to this "Only on there because she is box ticking" or "2 guesses why she is given the job".... if you cant see that everything about these comments is just wrong, and nothing to do with being offended or not, then I cant help you, and I would suggest that you cant be helped.
Now, do me a favour, show us some of your photography or kindly F--k off and stop replying to me, is that offensive enough for you?
Just saw your reply today. How can you be so easily offended by comments that are not even directed towards you? I would say if anyone needed help it is you. You want to upset over what someone says about another person that has absolutely nothing to do with you. Be upset about child trafficking, forced labor in China, the lack of baby food for infants, elderly abuse, I could on, but pissy ass comments on a website? Time to re access your priorities.
Yes, there's all sorts of rude, dumb, irritating and angering behavior on the net. But we can't just make it illegal to be a jerk.
I agree on that, but platforms like YouTube should at least be employing people to scroll through and remove any Spam/Troll accounts, if they keep deleting them the troll will get bored before they do.
Take the average DPreview video for example, it would take literally 15 minutes of someones time to blaze through that comment section and remove any of the usual suspects who taint every video.
Edit: or even the channel creators could do more, the BBC etc, it wouldn't take much for them to have a couple of people just to curate their social channels and remove the scum.
Those people may be just obnoxious fools to you, but to DPReview they're eyeballs who might click on ads.
Hahaha yep, you got it Jim. I said the same about Fujirumors, lots of the ‘usual suspect’ trolls started being openly racist recently and not one has been banned, my guess, the admin prefers the traffic to integrity.
There are, and should be, some lines that can't be crossed. But I don't think we need any new ones just because of the internet.
People should be free to express negative feelings just as they are free to express positive feelings toward things. We don't need "happiness police".
So everything that would be considered wrong when it comes to comments on the internet can be categorised as 'negative feelings'? It must be great living in your little bubble.
I dont know which comment you are specifically responding to, but im copying my reply to another user where i give an example of exactly the type of behaviour that should be eradicated... if you cant see the issue with this type of comment then i cant help that.
"For the last time, its not about being offended, or triggered, or any other buzzword you want throw around.... its about the basics of decency and the difference between right and wrong, amazingly there are basic human principles that any decent human being will live by and understand and those who make a habit of going outside of those principles should have their ability removed to carry on.
Take this as an example, in the UK, Football is a huge sport, there are videos posted by Sky Sports (the largest provider of sports coverage) and they might include a black female as a pundit, every single time a video is posted there are people in the comments saying something similar to this "Only on there because she is box ticking" or "2 guesses why she is given the job".... if you cant see that everything about these comments is just wrong, and nothing to do with being offended or not, then I cant help you, and I would suggest that you cant be helped."
Stuart, when I wrote that reply to you, I thought that we were in agreement. I was responding with the thought that you and I were seeing this the same way. And I thought that was great because normally we are on opposite sides of most of the issues that are discussed here on Fstoppers. I guess that either I mis-interpreted your comment, or you mis-interpreted mine.
With regard to the Sky Sports example you used, I agree that the type of comment you quoted is wrong. But I do not think that there should be rules and laws that prohibit all morally wrong things from being done or said. People should be free to do morally right things, and morally wrong things, without laws interfering with them.
Apologies ive answered you in reply to your comment above.
I originally said
"Not much offends me, I do however hate trolls, and unfortunately most social platforms are littered with them. People who dig deep to find the most obscure things to be negative about with regards to anything they can lay their hands on. It’s pathetic and needs stamping out"
And in that respect, im not trying to Police people, or stop someone from being underwhelmed by something. The point i was making was around people who's sole purpose for creating an account on a website and logging into that account is to provide negativity.
By negativity im not talking about someone who just says they dont like something in a polite and respectable manner, im talking about those who make derogatory or inflammatory comments purely for the purpose of getting a reaction or angering people. These people are easily ignored in real life, you just dont associate with them, on the internet however they are much harder to avoid, especially on sites where you cant mute or block that person.
As an actual example, this is a screen shot of a Youtube comment. In itself there seems nothing untoward, but when you factor in that every single video posted on Youtube about Nikon equipment, within 30 minutes of the video uploading this guy has jumped in making a derogatory comment about the brand (I dont use Nikon so i dont care about that bit) it starts getting into the realms of attention seeking/mentally ill/pathetic trolling, and in my eyes the account should just be removed and banned, its weird obsessive behaviour that would be considered criminal if they were focusing that much attention on another person.
I like watching camera and lens reviews, i like to read the comments on those reviews, why should that experience be tarnished by these sad, pathetic individuals with nothing better to do in life than stuff like this.
when I was in kindergarten - we used to say: 'sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me' - - just sayin
People seem to have forgotten that.
This is more than just names though. It is addressing incitement to violence, child pornography, terrorism, the illegal drug trade, selling illegal arms, undermining the democratic process, and so on. At the moment people can publish such stuff in Russia and it is republished into other nations who have no control over it. By putting the onus on the legitimate platforms to control it, who are making money from it, helps undermine he criminal organizations and aggressive governments that are behind it.
But if those words were making threats of violence against you, or your family, wouldn't you want the law to act to prevent it. If you read those threats because they were were published in your local newspaper, wouldn't you want the newspaper to be held accountable?
There's a big difference between what offends and what causes harm. This bill is designed to stamp out the latter. The British democracy is the oldest in the world and probably the most robust. I can't claim to be a supporter of our current government, but this is one thing I think they are getting right, having seen first-hand the real and permanent damage that some internet activity has on vulnerable people.
UK democracy only goes back as far as 1969. Not a great example to the world.
The problem with that is that some buffoons will say things like, "things that are offensive can cause psychological harm" ... and they will seek to eliminate any offensive speech from society. They will literally try to make it unlawful to hurt someone's feelings.
If someone isn't emotionally and mentally strong enough to withstand offensive comments being thrown their way, that is their problem for not being mentally tough and thick-skinned. Yet many modern laws and policies seem to be saying that the problem is with the person who says the offensive things.
A society that continually caters to the weak, poor, etc., will get weaker, and eventually be taken over by a power that extolls ruggedness and strength and power and wealth.
Re: "The problem with that is that some buffoons will say things like, "things that are offensive can cause psychological harm" ... and they will seek to eliminate any offensive speech from society. They will literally try to make it unlawful to hurt someone's feelings. If someone isn't emotionally and mentally strong enough to withstand offensive comments being thrown their way, that is their problem for not being mentally tough and thick-skinned. Yet many modern laws and policies seem to be saying that the problem is with the person who says the offensive things. A society that continually caters to the weak, poor, etc., will get weaker, and eventually be taken over by a power that extolls ruggedness and strength and power and wealth"
State-licensed psychologists are "buffoons", eh?
I see a proposal for an official list of "buffoon/non-buffoon", "them/us" list of "target/not-target", like "black/white".
"hurt someone's feelings"?
But, "darkies never dream" ( quote from a 1934 Ethel Waters song ), so they have no feelings, so why not go ahead and hurt 'em?
More to the point of a healthy society of healthy individuals:
- why would anyone want to hurt other people's feelings?
Can anyone explain it to me, explain it like I was a child?
Maybe this is just the reaction of those of us who are in a protected majoritarian experience, a 'bubble', and we feel invulnerable.
Maybe this is just a reaction enabled by never being vulnerable, never subjected to violent hate crimes, murder, as a cascade on down from being ridiculed and denigrated, denied education, housing, medical care, employment, even denied family, because of being perceived as 'other'.
And that's just individually.
What about whole groups of people being driven from their homes, that is, if they can get out fast enough before their homes are bombed and burned, with them inside, all a cascade on down from being ridiculed and denigrated?
I'll ask again, why would anyone want to hurt other people's feelings?
Can anyone explain it to me, explain it like I was a child?
Are the supposedly 'weak' not legally equal members of the society, as if their value is not legally equal?
That seems to be saying, "lose the weak among us, or else, the strong among us will get trampled by someone even stronger".
The 'strong" are the only important members of society?
"strong" by what criteria - beating up on others in their own society?
What's a society for, if not to care for the 'weak', if not to include the 'weak' - we all are 'weak' at some point, from birth.
I am weak compared to a tree falling on my car, or a fire, I need others to help.
I am weak compared to someone, or more than one, with a gun pointed at me, I need others to help.
A storm, a flood, disease?
"Let 'em die"?
Is that the slogan of a healthy society?
"Let 'em die"?
I'm trying to think of what society has built such self-governance, and what that society looks like, where someone has declared a 'weak' status to be excluded from their own society, and a society that permits and even encourages the annihilation of their own members from within.
As if self-annihilation of our own 'weak' somehow makes the surviving individuals, the individuals who perpetuate the violence, in any society more worthy of survival.
Versus inclusive legal equality under equal law for everyone, all included, no exceptions.
I'm going to re-read our founding and definitive documents and principles to look for whether "loose the weak, let 'em die" is the organizing principle or not.
Oh, here it is for the country I happen to have been born in:
- "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,--
That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
What?
"to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted"
We instituted government to secure our ( inborn individual equal ) rights ... to ( among other things ) the pursuit of happiness?
Happiness is "feelings", right?
And even had a revolution over happiness and "feelings"?
My my.
I'll keep reading our founding and fedinign documents and principles, there's always more to learn, in this case, re-learn.
Thanks for letting us explore this and share.
.
When you say, "lose the weak, let 'em die", you are the one saying that. But you say it as if that is the mantra of a segment of society. The way you say that, yet appear to attribute it to others, who have not said it, is a classic example of a straw man.
And just in case you have not thought of it this way ...
Homo sapiens is a mammalian species. To be consistent, we should manage our own population the same way we manage the populations of other mammals. To handle one species of mammals one way, and then handle other species of mammals in an entirely different way, is not only inconsistent, but morally wrong.
We are doing ourselves and the other mammals a great disservice when we treat weak and diseased humans so differently than we treat the weak diseased of other mammalian species. All species categorized as a "species of least concern" (look it up) should be treated under the same system of values and priorities.
Re: "When you say, "lose the weak, let 'em die", you are the one saying that. But you say it as if that is the mantra of a segment of society. The way you say that, yet appear to attribute it to others, who have not said it, is a classic example of a straw man"
It's not my invention, it's a quote yelled from T-Rump's audience whenever Obamacare is mentioned regarding dealing with the uninsured:
- "Let 'em die, let 'em die."
- - - - - -
"Let 'em die, let 'em die" also corresponds one-to-one with the rest of your post, quoted below:
Re: "And just in case you have not thought of it this way ... Homo sapiens is a mammalian species. To be consistent, we should manage our own population the same way we manage the populations of other mammals. To handle one species of mammals one way, and then handle other species of mammals in an entirely different way, is not only inconsistent, but morally wrong. We are doing ourselves and the other mammals a great disservice when we treat weak and diseased humans so differently than we treat the weak diseased of other mammalian species. All species categorized as a "species of least concern" (look it up) should be treated under the same system of values and priorities"
"should"?
Where does "should" come from?
Did you just "should" on everyone?
"manage our own population"?
Who "manages" a population of humans?
Slave masters?
Dictators?
Totalitarians?
Yes, to Putin and T-Rump, every one of us, we, including you, too, are cannon fodder, pawns to play and loose, in supposedly 'bigger' battles.
It's called greed.
Insatiable greed.
As I already mentioned, we're all comparatively weak by some measure at some time in our lives, and we need each other, even the supposedly strong needing the supposedly weak.
Further, being physically similar to any other 'species' with whom we can not reproduce is an observation, not a dictate.
'Morals' are our choices, not some dictate that all animals in any observed "schema" must be treated equally, as if when a male lion kills the babies of another male lion and then takes over reproducing with the females, then it must be OK for a male human to kill the babies of other male humans and take over reproducing with the females, too.
History, and nature, are full of killing - eat or be eaten, and humans and hyenas - and lions - at least, do it for more than food.
Are you proposing a return of the slave market, genocide, and eugenics, where someone in power decides who's birth is good, and who's birth is bad?
As if any one of us 'owns' any other of us?
We do not 'own' another individual, even though you propose or observe some people acting as if they do, those who 'cull' animals, for example.
Yet, as even we photographers know,
- deer do not cross the road,
- the road crosses the forest.
We are the invader, out of place, with our road.
Not the deer.
There are people who propose that humans are consumers of the natural world, including consumers of each other, as Putin is by selling Russia's natural resources and murdering and consuming anyone in his way to building a new Holy Russian Empire before he dies.
There are people who propose that humans are proprietors, caretakers, of the natural world, including each other, as the UK law under discussion is by taking and insisting on responsibility to reduce harm.
There are people who propose that humans are residents, even visitors, in the natural world, including toward each other, and ought to leave no footprint that compromises others.
- - - - -
I read your viewpoint presentation as rationalizations - justification after the fact - perhaps like self-labeled 'libertarians', who seem to dance whenever it is convenient for them across all of the above conditionally, being consumers when they can get away with it, being proprietors and caretakers of their own, and being residents and visitors, especially as photographers, when exploring what is new to them, especially if they plan to return to photograph again.
On the one hand, I'd like to think that the "let 'em die" folks aren't serious.
On the other hand, apparently, unless it's themselves and their own, yes, they take no responsibility for supporting T-Rump, who takes no responsibility for letting a million US residents die, so far, from CoViD, the greatest rate of death of any industrialized nation.
And you seem to think that "Let 'em die, let 'em die" Makes America Great Again, to let the supposedly weak die, and you even suggest culling them.
THAT is calling for harm to others.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
I never said, "let 'em die". You are putting words in my mouth. And that is an evil thing to do. I will say my words - and you will not say them for me. I sure as hell do not need you to tell me what I meant - I can say exactly what I mean for myself. Your interpretations are misguided and unnecessary and inaccurate, for my words do not need to be interpreted, because I already said exactly what I meant to say. Taking someone's carefully thought out words and changing them into what you think someone meant is going to make you a lot of enemies. Show some respect for people and what they say.
Re: "... I never said, "let 'em die". You are putting words in my mouth. And that is an evil thing to do. I will say my words - and you will not say them for me. I sure as hell do not need you to tell me what I meant - I can say exactly what I mean for myself. Your interpretations are misguided and unnecessary and inaccurate, for my words do not need to be interpreted, because I already said exactly what I meant to say. Taking someone's carefully thought out words and changing them into what you think someone meant is going to make you a lot of enemies. Show some respect for people and what they say ..."
Correct.
-ish.
On the topic:
- "How the United Kingdom’s New Online Safety Bill Will Affect Photographers Worldwide"
On the leading comment:
- "... Ivor Rackham to jim hughes April 29, 2022 There's a big difference between what offends and what causes harm. This bill is designed to stamp out the latter [ harm ]. The British democracy [ culture maybe ? ] is the oldest in the world [ hardly, "According to the Democracy Index, Norway was deemed the most democratic country in 2020" and 16 other countries before the UK ] and probably the most robust [ oops, there's probably no need for comparative assessment ]. I can't claim to be a supporter of our current government, but this is one thing I think they are getting right, having seen first-hand the real and permanent damage that some internet activity has on vulnerable people ..."
Your comment, Tom Reichner to Ivor Rackham May 3, 2022 in reply was [ snipped ] "...If someone isn't emotionally and mentally strong enough to withstand offensive comments being thrown their way, that is their problem for not being mentally tough and thick-skinned ... A society that continually caters to the weak, poor, etc., will get weaker, and eventually be taken over by a power that extolls ruggedness and strength and power and wealth ..."
So, what is your proposal for:
- assessing who is 'weak'?
- then, what treatment for the 'weak'?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
- - - - -
I'll not comment on "... withstand[ing] offensive comments being thrown their way ..." being "... their problem for not being mentally tough and thick-skinned ..." - oops, I just did!
;-)
.
Peter Blaise asked,
So, what is your proposal for:
- assessing who is 'weak'?
- then, what treatment for the 'weak'?
I don't propose that we spend any time or effort on trying to define or categorize the weak. Nor with coming up with any other categories to put people into.
I don't propose that we institute any prescribed way to treat the weak ... any differently than we treat the average, or the strong, the beautiful, the ugly, etc. Society as a whole shouldn't have any prescribed way of treating any particular category of people. Each individual can treat others any way they like, based on anything they want to base it on ...
... but for collective society to say, "we're going to treat this group of people this way, and that group of people that way, etc." is discriminatory in an unacceptable way, because it forces those who may differ to go along with one way of acting, whether they want to or not.
Let 'em live! By that I mean to let each human live according to whatever their strengths, weaknesses, life situation, and "luck" may bring their way, and do not interfere to average things out or to favor one type of person over another. You know, the same way it works in the world of other mammalian species here on Earth.
In response to "... Tom Reichner tp Peter Blaise - May 31, 2022
Peter Blaise asked, "... So, what is your proposal for: - assessing who is 'weak'? - then, what treatment for the 'weak'? ..." I don't propose that we spend any time or effort on trying to define or categorize the weak. Nor with coming up with any other categories to put people into. I don't propose that we institute any prescribed way to treat the weak ... any differently than we treat the average, or the strong, the beautiful, the ugly, etc. Society as a whole shouldn't have any prescribed way of treating any particular category of people. Each individual can treat others any way they like, based on anything they want to base it on ... ... but for collective society to say, "we're going to treat this group of people this way, and that group of people that way, etc." is discriminatory in an unacceptable way, because it forces those who may differ to go along with one way of acting, whether they want to or not. Let 'em live! By that I mean to let each human live according to whatever their strengths, weaknesses, life situation, and "luck" may bring their way, and do not interfere to average things out or to favor one type of person over another. You know, the same way it works in the world of other mammalian species here on Earth ..."
We instituted government to secure our rights as individuals.
I'll add a response to your prior comment "... Tom Reichner to Ivor Rackham - May 3, 2022 [ snipped ] ... A society that continually caters to the weak, poor, etc., will get weaker, and eventually be taken over by a power that extolls ruggedness and strength and power and wealth ..."
Your proposal reads as:
Why let an enemy attack the weak among us,
when we can do it ourselves?
So much for government securing our rights as individuals.
With fellow residents who consider 'the weak' among us to be expendable, who needs enemies?
- - - - - - - - - -
It's probably time to review the legislation directly, and read other analyses of it:
https://www.google.com/search?&q=UK’s+new+Online+Safety+Bill
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
You keep putting words in my mouth. You take what I say and then you turn it into something different - different words, different phrasing, different meaning. Please stop that.
I only mean what I actually write, not what you think I probably mean.
In resposne to: "... Tom Reichner to Peter Blaise - August 24, 2022 You keep putting words in my mouth. You take what I say and then you turn it into something different - different words, different phrasing, different meaning. Please stop that. I only mean what I actually write, not what you think I probably mean ..."
Correct.
When someone writes: "... Tom Reichner to Ivor Rackham - May 3, 2022 The problem with that is that some buffoons will say things like, "things that are offensive can cause psychological harm" ... and they will seek to eliminate any offensive speech from society. They will literally try to make it unlawful to hurt someone's feelings. If someone isn't emotionally and mentally strong enough to withstand offensive comments being thrown their way, that is their problem for not being mentally tough and thick-skinned. Yet many modern laws and policies seem to be saying that the problem is with the person who says the offensive things. A society that continually caters to the weak, poor, etc., will get weaker, and eventually be taken over by a power that extolls ruggedness and strength and power and wealth ..."
Appropriate responses in dialogue may include:
- Oh? Tell us more.
- Do you mean the way Hitler's / Putin's / China's / Irans's / T-Rump's propaganda - just 'words' after all - causes actual harm?
- When you say 'cater', and to the 'weak', who decides what's 'catering' and who's 'weak'?
- If 'we' do not 'cater', is that a way of letting the 'weak' die' of exclusion and neglect?
It's called dialogue.
In discussion.
It's what discussion threads are all about.
Appropriate responses might include:
- "... No, what I mean is ... ..."
And then you put more words in your own mouth. so to speak, so to speak.
Or:
- "... Yes, that's exactly what I mean, the weak fend for themselves, only the strong get all the help from society, and though I did not say 'let 'em die', who cares if they die? They were just dragging the rest of us down anyway, making us vulnerable to a stronger outside enemy ..."
- - - - -
On the topic, the bill sets standards and assesses actual harm, and assigns responsibility to the publishers and presenters of that harm.
Assigning responsibility for harm, and prosecuting appropriately.
Again, you seem to claim that some harm - what, psychological? - is acceptable and should not be legally actionable?
Why?
Because you think some harm is not real?
That some harm is not the responsibility of the ones who cause the harm?
That some harm is acceptable if perpetrated on or experienced by the 'weak'?
I'm only asking follow-up questions in a discussion dialogue.
Anyone can pitch in and clarify, redirect, or accept the questions as posed.
- - - - -
I'm pursuing this for more than general society or 'the weak'.
I'm pursuing this for photographers.
Photographers are often considered 'weak'.
I was assaulted and battered when I was taking photographs of someone assaulting and battering someone else.
And the assaulter and batterer turned on me.
Assaulters and batterers, especially the police, turn on photographers.
Are you saying, "... hey, carry a gun with that camera, otherwise, as the weaker one in any conflict, you get what you deserve, and we as a society will not, should not, come to your aid ..."
Is that what you are saying?
It's up to you to fill your mouth with clarifying words, or let my words stand, my words that describe a cascade on down from your prior words, my words based on my own personal experience and knowledge of what happens when someone feels empowered to asses who is 'weak', and tries get away with it.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
You do not get to set the rules about how I respond to you. I, and I alone, get to decide how I respond to you. I mean only the actual words that I typed. I do not mean any thing that you or anyone else extrapolate from those words. If I typed it, I meant precisely what I typed, not a word less and not a word more, and certainly not a word with a slightly different shade of meaning.
The UK is going to pass laws in their country and then try to enforce those laws on the rest of the world? Yeah good luck with that. If the UK decides they don't want any pornography coming into their country via the Internet, for example, then they need to block it instead of trying fine a company that's on the other side of the planet and arrest that company's employees. Maybe the UK lawmakers have forgotten about a little thing called jurisdiction? Their laws will have no jurisdiction in other countries. UK: "You have violated our Internet laws. Give us 50% of all your global revenue as a fine." Company xyz in other country: "No." End of story.
The thing is, the companies, such as Google and Facebook, are enabling harmful and illegal content to be published in the UK. If someone wrote a book about how to blow up a British school and encouraged people to do it, then published it in the UK, then the publisher here would be a party to incitement to violence.
It is exactly the same with Google and Facebook, who are here in the UK as well, by the way. If they publish that information in the UK, then they will be committing a criminal offence. The EU is also bringing out a similar law and other democracies will follow.
If someone travelled to a country that has an extradition treaty with the UK after publishing here, say images of sexual violence, then they may well get arrested and tried. Although they were overseas when they committed the crime, they allowed the crime to be perpetrated here.
It's no different from the CIA wanting to extradite the British citizen for hacking into their system for trial in the USA
Blocking websites is exactly what the UK government intends to do if they don't comply. When the EU brings in similar laws in the near future, they too will do the same. This would have a major financial impact on the likes of Facebook and Google, which is why they are already taking action before the law is passed.
"It's no different from the CIA wanting to extradite the British citizen for hacking into their system for trial in the USA"
No. It is very different.
Someone wanting you to be jailed because they were "offended" by something you said in a totally different country is very different from cyber security and hacking into government systems.
The principal of extradition is the same. Also, you are misinterpreting what the law is about. It's not about being offended. Read the article again. It doesn't say that. You've just made it up.
It seems more likely to me that many site will just block UK users. Far easier to do that to avoid sanction than it would be to put in place all the requirements for users from one small country.
You are correct. The UK may find itself devoid of any social interaction on the internet due to a lame attempt to force their view of morality on the rest of the world.
I can only hope that that would happen. It would suck if people here in the U.S. were inconvenienced every time they wanted to view sexually oriented content on the internet. Imagine instead of just clicking on something and getting right to what you want to see, you have to create an account, verify your age, confirm via email, etc? That would suck. And I really fear that this new bill in the U.K. could cause that type of inconvenience for internet users all across the world.
Google and Facebook have already said they are changing the way they operate to meet the requirements of this law because it will be just the first of many nations acting to protect its democracy in this way.
The whole idea of this law goes against the base idea of democracy.
People celebrating far-reaching and poorly defined censorship laws should read some history textbooks to see how these tend to work out.
Fortunately, this Bill is very well defined and aimed at controlling online activities that are already illegal, such as child pornography and incitement to murder or commit acts of terrorism. It also protects freedom of speech by preventing random censorship imposed by big corporations.
Trolls are great, and they are here to stay. The cops-and-robbers game governments will try to play will only result in more bloated bureaucracy and zero improvement to life. Like life, trolls will find a way.
Yeah I'm not going to jail in a totally different country just because someone on the other side of the planet doesn't like something I say.
Reread the article. It isn't what is being said.
I like most of your stuff, Ivor, but this one is poor. The Online Harms Bill is all about attacking inconvenient speech and inhibiting criticism and scrutiny of politicians - exploiting the idea of protecting others to give cover to the corrupt and unscrupulous. You only have to see how often political criticism is already derided as abuse or trolling to see how the law will be used. Dig deeper.
Looking at the provisions of the Bill, I have read it, it's solely about stopping access to child pornography, selling illegal drugs, misogyny and other hate crimes such as racism, while protecting freedom of speech by enabling news reporting, and allowing people to appeal against the censorship imposed by the big corporations that remove content for no reason.
The problem is there are no universally accepted definitions of what constitutes racism, misogyny, and other so called hate crimes. Officials in high political office as well as judges cannot define what a women is. Others believe that a man can get pregnant. It's all about controlling a certain narrative and has nothing to do with protecting freedom of speech.
What's a "troll" and when does disagreeing with people become criminal?
What if I post that "women are lousy drivers". Is that "misogyny? You say no, it's not that bad. Now what if I say women are emotionally unstable? Yes, maybe that's misogyny. It offends people and could make someone feel bad. But is it "hate speech " that is now going to be illegal?
What if a woman posts that men are "violent by nature"?
Where the heck does this end?
In UK and European law, discrimination against someone because of their status is already an offence. Consequently, European countries have a much better record on equality than many others.
In answer to your hypothetical question, if someone posted that all women are lousy drivers, then it would not be a hate crime, just a demonstration of ignorance and a good indicator of an inability to find or maintain a lasting relationship.
Or if certain races of people didn't perform as well on standardized IQ tests, we wouldn't be allowed to talk about that, unless it were in some kind of sympathy for the lower-performing races, somehow blaming the better-off races for the plight of the lower performing races. If you just talked about how a certain race wasn't as smart as another race, according to the IQ results, then they would remove your content and send you some kind of warning or blacklist you or something, and say that you are a racist. And that is bulls___.
These are no good news. You seem to think that it is self-evident, who is "good, kind, honest" and what "verbally abusing or discriminating against those with protected status" means. It is not. It is up to the local interpretation, which is the interpretation of your government. What the law actually means is more access for agencies to private data hosted by companies, and less privacy protection, like encrypted conversations. For the "small number of the worst offenders" there are already laws in place. They may not exactly be your laws, however.