Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

HanaBothWays t1_iy7s5tr wrote

Football fans gonna get deplatformed LOL

69

UnkindlyDisagree t1_iy7samx wrote

I wonder if it will apply to everyone or if we'll have the usual double standards.

71

Lemon_LostSock t1_iy7suie wrote

In other news UK government to paint whole internet beige.

77

Thrilleye51 t1_iy7wkqb wrote

Twitter is that you and freedom of speech??

7

SaidTheTurkey t1_iy7zvox wrote

At least social media firms didn’t pull out the EU because they’re scared of brown people

−3

typing t1_iy824h6 wrote

Don't censor, get fined? Sounds like a hit to free speech.

11

memberjan6 t1_iy849k2 wrote

The responsibility for execution of the UK's censoring would better belong to UK public services employees or conscripts, not the websites. A service corps is what I sm talking about. The paving company who constructed the streets and sidewalks inthe brick and mortar parts of the UK, as well the pubs and stadiums, are not equipped and should not be equipped to perform public policing jobs at alL. The police are thebest ones to be the police. l.

5

LolcatP t1_iy84fok wrote

Do we even have the money to

1

Daetra t1_iy84yn9 wrote

Replying to typing (#762,244)

When has it ever been about free speech and social media? It's was always about controlling who says what and it hasn't changed.

−16

xabhax t1_iy88i55 wrote

This coming from a government. That allows a convicted child killer to roam around and be a pedophile. And when he gets caught they change his identity and arrest people who post his picture

27

towhom_it_mayconcern t1_iy8a8qu wrote

People were suing over this in Australia ten years ago. They basically started censoring comments or locking certain articles to prevent lawsuits.

7

F0sh t1_iy8b68c wrote

The actual proposals are remarkably sensible: it amounts to a legal duty to uphold your own terms of service, no bans except as set out in the TOS, and right of appeal against bans. If you want to allow offensive speech on your platform then I think you should be allowed to, but if you say you aren't going to and then people sign up thinking they won't be exposed to it but actually are, that's an issue.

36

turnipmeatloaf t1_iy8di43 wrote

> The shadow culture secretary, Lucy Powell

Not really related, but that’s a cool ass job title

2

MrDefenseSecretary t1_iy8hpmo wrote

Replying to Thrilleye51 (#764,417)

I don’t have the expertise to say but I think it is the most likely scenario.

Managing networks of hundreds of millions of people is impossible, especially with how nuanced the English language is. It would be a massive liability.

They would have to have a very restrictive and isolated version of a platform that wouldn’t even accept different words, phrases, and the problem is even harder with images and videos so those would probably be gone too.

Not an expert by any means just my two cents. From my understanding, it’s incredibly hard to police everything internally and AI moderation just isn’t where it needs to be. If a company is held liable for what end users do with their product or service, they will stop providing it.

8

[deleted] t1_iy8hpuc wrote

This is slippery slope . I can see government shutting down valid criticism by using “sexism or racism” card.

19

MrDefenseSecretary t1_iy8jk6o wrote

Replying to Thrilleye51 (#766,620)

I think it will work out but maybe not at the scale he is hoping. Meaning sports betting apps will advertise happily but maybe not companies like Disney.

I agree though, it will be interesting to see in ten years.

1

Daetra t1_iy8lm4x wrote

Replying to MrDefenseSecretary (#766,321)

That being said, most people don't actually care about free speech and it's usually being virtue signalled. Truth Social is heavily moderated and when people cry about free speech, like Musk, they show themselves to be hypocrites. It was always about controlling speech.

2

[deleted] t1_iy8mav6 wrote

Criticism of government to be now considered racism online

8

FRIGIDfreya t1_iy8tpkd wrote

Replying to Thrilleye51 (#764,417)

I don’t know the laws for “network neutrality” in UK. I know that ISPs in USA do have the power and legal authority to filter and block connections to whatever they want. I mean Google/Facebook/Alphabet/Youtube bans or restricts services for locations at the request of governments all over the globe. It’s really not that difficult, even Canada’s new “YouTube Canadian promotion law” or w/e the official title is, is filtering foreign content.

2

EmotionalPlum2102 t1_iy8vwbb wrote

Replying to Daetra (#767,205)

It hasn’t been always about controlling the speech it’s always about controlling people. Speech is part of that yes but having control over people is what it’s about.

I am pro policing social media and what we are seeing are countries trying to act on that as we learn more and more about how social media is affecting the people of the world. The countries actions won’t be perfect and nor will the actions take effect over night in the change that world societies need to happen but not doing anything about the current social media problems is not the course of action to take we are finding that social media affects the well being of individuals all the way up to entire tribe mind mentality countries where we see a complete picture of what misinformation spread on social media does: it elected Donald trump, if not for twitter Trump would not have been elected IMO.

The internet was great prior to social media and now that internet traffic has consolidated to maybe 5 major platforms we see the problem with it and hive mind. Reddit is unique with our communities being able to mod themselves and I suspect policing social medias via govt will entice users to leave said major social media platforms.

3

Daetra t1_iy8xph3 wrote

Replying to EmotionalPlum2102 (#769,618)

I agree with a lot of what you said. Moderators can moderate how they see fit. When we sit down and talk about censorship honestly, most people would agree that in some form of it. Like who would want grown ass adults walking up to children and saying anything they want because of this notion of free speech. We censor ourselves when we are at work and act in a professional manner. Same when we are having conversations with people we don't know very well and we learn to read the room and avoid divisive conversations.

As far as social media and it's effect on our mental health, it doesn't look great. The internet and social media is a new phenomenon that will have to adapt to. Are places like 4chan where there's no moderation better for humans overall? I don't think so. Do we want a fascist state that controls all forms of media online and offline? Probably not. I don't think absolutes when it comes to free speech and expression is safe or healthy.

2

DataGOGO t1_iy8yqnv wrote

This is easy to avoid.

1.) Withdraw all servers out of the UK/EU and close any physical offices. It's the internet, everything will still work; There are plenty of place to host in those GEO's that are not part of the UK/EU.

2.) Tell the UK/EU to fuck off. They can't regulate or fine companies that do not operate within thier borders.

3.) Laugh at the UK & EU thinking they have any control at all over the internet and foreign corporations.

5

DataGOGO t1_iy8z72w wrote

Replying to memberjan6 (#762,774)

The UK has no authority to sensor a post on a US based platform. Social media platforms can literally tell the UK to fuck off, and the UK is powerless to do anything about it.

0

nick_rhoads01 t1_iy96byg wrote

So if I’m sexist and racist on the internet I can hurt social media? Let’s gooo

2

EmotionalPlum2102 t1_iy97z7t wrote

Replying to Daetra (#770,109)

Do you listen to the Making Sense Podcast by ol Sammy boy Harris? His most recent interview with Cal Newport paints a great picture on said phenomenon’s and better health for the world. I am urging everyone I know to give it a listen and seriously consider how humans will never adapt to the quick change of technological of the future if we don’t change how we communicate online. The podcast aired only yesterday and if enough influential people and the hive mind takes hold of it, change may happen quicker than expected ;)

Why I Left Twitter by Sam Harris

1

Daetra t1_iy99iis wrote

Replying to EmotionalPlum2102 (#772,679)

I'll check it out, though I don't agree with Sam on a few issues. If he's worried about how we interact online isn't healthy, I would have to agree. Especially when it comes to young men. Too many are developing cluster B tendencies and a general negativity towards women.

People like Andrew Tate can be dangerous to young men and while I do understand why people say that we should allow everyone to speak freely and bad ideas like his should be challenged, as most would see what hes saying as bullshit. The problem is the few that buy into his rhetoric.

2

onyxengine t1_iy9vcff wrote

Replying to RawrRRitchie (#775,873)

Of the millions of users some have read the TOS, and there are reasonable expectations, even if someone hasn’t read it. Not reading the contract doesn’t make it invalid, and a government enforcing a corp’s TOS on behalf of its users is actually a step in a positive direction.

8

onyxengine t1_iy9w1o8 wrote

Replying to bastiroid (#768,374)

To be fair, how much valid criticism of feminism gets mixed in with foaming at the mouth misogyny on the internet. I can’t remember the last time I read a valid critique of feminism, and toxic femininity that didn’t end up next to way past the line of decency red-pill takes. The internet is a confusing mess.

3

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iya535l wrote

Replying to DataGOGO (#770,380)

I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious or not. To profit in the UK/EU (which Twitter does) you need to be registered there and follow their rules. They're not going to let you serve UK/EU users and have no control over that. Welcome to the 21st century. America also has this right for foreign companies that operate in their borders and they use it often (for example, TikTok).

3

DataGOGO t1_iyacajr wrote

Replying to Glad-Driver-24 (#779,922)

Being serious.

>To profit in the UK/EU (which Twitter does)

If UK companies make payments to a company in the US, that does not make the company beholden to UK/EU rules.

>you need to be registered there and follow their rules.

No, they don't. They can literally completely ignore them.

​

>They're not going to let you serve UK/EU users and have no control over that.

If they want to block thier citizen's access to the internet, that is between them and thier citizens; it has nothing to do with the company that does not operate in the EU/UK.

​

> Welcome to the 21st century

yes, where global routing is a thing, and no one gives a fuck about the EU.

1

Neopiate13 t1_iyae8xf wrote

Studies have shown that moderated social media is a net positive. Moderate your platforms and watch the money pour in.

3

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaesvv wrote

Replying to DataGOGO (#781,534)

So you honestly think that a foreign company can serve ads in the UK/EU, profit off of users in these countries and not follow any local laws? In what universe are you living?

1

ALBUNDY59 t1_iyamc18 wrote

Twit ter will be under review by the EU / UK. Let the fun begin.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyarqx0 wrote

Replying to Glad-Driver-24 (#782,062)

Yes, happens all the time. Goto websites not on in UK/EU , pick one, Doesn’t matter which, do you see ads and banners?

Do you honestly think seeing ads or earning money of foreign users is all that is required to be subject to local laws?

Let’s try a simple one. Goto cnn.com

Do you see ads? Do you think that means CNN has to follow uk/eu laws? Obviously not.

Serving content, presenting ads, and earning revenue is not what determines if a forgien company has to follow local laws. They have to operate in the country; have an office, have employees, have a formed business entity in those countries.

If they don’t, they don’t have to care.

2

yem_slave t1_iyasbmn wrote

So I assume this means banning official accounts from Iran and Saudi Arabia? Oh no? Interesting.

3

Mikeavelli t1_iyasrah wrote

Replying to RawrRRitchie (#775,873)

The real beneficiaries are content creators who depend on social media to earn an income. Most have read the ToS, and creators are often banned or demonetized for frivolous reasons that dont actually violate the ToS. Every once in a while a story about this happening makes it to r/technology.

3

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaturm wrote

Replying to DataGOGO (#784,838)

>Do you think that means CNN has to follow uk/eu laws?

When I visit CNN.com I see a popup box asking me if I consent to using cookies. This isn't present everywhere and is there for GDPR.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyawelj wrote

Replying to Glad-Driver-24 (#785,299)

Because CNN also operates in the EU. They have offices all over the world. That person's point remains. If I create a website in the US, and keep all my servers in the US, but don't block Europe and its users from accessing it, I am NOT subject to EU law. I am subject to US law, where my actual infrastructure is. There's millions of websites I can access from here that weren't intended to be viewed by my region but because of the open nature of the Internet, I can still see them.

Edit: Not sure how old you are but in the early 2000s this is how the famous filesharing website Pirate Bay was able to keep evading being taken down by moving their servers from country to country every time they encountered trouble with the local authorities. Foreign countries weren't able to do shit about it, but their users were still able to access it. That's how the Internet has always worked since its inception. The region blocking thing and serving different data to users of different countries is a relatively new thing. It's carving up the Internet into little bubbles and enclaves and defeating the whole purpose of it.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaxv1z wrote

Replying to DirtyPolecat (#785,933)

His point was that US websites can serve UK/EU users relevant ads without being present in the UK/EU, which is incorrect. I would understand if the US website only targeted US users but if you have UK/EU ads it means you're targeting users from those territories and could get fined.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyaydnq wrote

Replying to DirtyPolecat (#786,330)

Tell me genius, how are you supposed to target UK/EU users with relevant ads without explicitly being in the UK/EU? Do you honestly think that you, as a company, are going to be able to collect data from users in the UK/EU and not have any kind of repercussions? You're in the US, not Iran.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyays3b wrote

Replying to DirtyPolecat (#786,457)

They literally will. You wanna know why? Because literally no company has done it. Every US company, even those that don't even target EU users like US news sites block EU IP addresses because they don't want to comply with GDPR.

The US and UK/EU are not lawless lands, they comply heavily with each other. Imagine if copyright law was incompatible between the two.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyaza6t wrote

Replying to Glad-Driver-24 (#786,528)

If I had the time, I can log onto a European VPN right now and probably find you hundreds of websites hosted inside the US not complying with GDPR but yet are still accessible from inside the EU and give you log files and screenshots and everything. There's way more out there than the big corporate sites that will bend over backwards for any country's laws.

1

Glad-Driver-24 t1_iyazm11 wrote

Replying to DirtyPolecat (#786,658)

As someone who is actually in the EU and actually knows how many US websites either respect GDPR or block, it is the vast majority. Those that don't usually think they're small enough to get away with it. Certainly not when it comes to something like Twitter.

1

DirtyPolecat t1_iyb0805 wrote

Replying to Glad-Driver-24 (#786,746)

Because the EU is a 700 million person market, and no big company wants to forever sully their potential profit on those people by getting on the EU's bad side. JimbobJamesNews.com however, isn't going to give a shit, and nobody in the US is going after them. The big ones aren't doing it because they're forced to. They're doing it because money.

1

masterblaster0 t1_iybyfob wrote

Replying to DataGOGO (#777,043)

Well, take the EU's GDPR. Many US businesses have no presence in the EU but still catered to the GDPR requirements because they were serving EU citizens. Businesses that couldn't set up GDPR compliancy used IP blocks for EU addresses to avoid falling foul and having to pay a fine etc.

If there was no authority all of these businesses would have just carried on as they were or, as you said it, told them to fuck off.

1

hblok t1_iybyy98 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#766,244)

You think?

Pretty much everything anybody says which somebody else does not agree with is "racist". Unless it relates to a woman, in which case it's "sexist". And obviously it's illegal to make claims such as "men cannot bear children".

Now, the mindbogglingly thing here is not that governments wants to censor. That's what they do. Rather, it's that the woke cancel culture still has so broad support that politicians push through with it. In a free society, it ought to be political suicide to even as much as propose a law like this. Yet here we are, with more and more censorship and cancel laws.

0

youmu123 t1_iyc9rd2 wrote

Replying to DataGOGO (#777,043)

Even if it is essentially seen as a "media import", imports are regulated. A Chinese factory with no offices and no employees in the US still must obey US laws for its products to enter. In this case, the product is the social media service itself.

1

youmu123 t1_iycatmr wrote

Replying to DataGOGO (#781,534)

>If UK companies make payments to a company in the US, that does not make the company beholden to UK/EU rules.

>No, they don't. They can literally completely ignore them.

Someone has not worked with the Banking system.

How can the UK/EU prevent ordinary individuals and businesses from sending money to Twitter? The answer: the exact same way the West stops individuals and businesses from sending money to Iran or Al-Qaeda.

The entire anti-moneylaundering infrastructure the West has built actually creates an infrastructure to make it hard for ordinary citizens to pay. Many criminals will always slip through - but social media platforms have law-abiding users as the vast majority of their base, and they will not be able to pay.

>If they want to block thier citizen's access to the internet, that is between them and thier citizens; it has nothing to do with the company that does not operate in the EU/UK.

It does have everything to do with the company that does not operate. That company loses revenue. It's the same way sanctions work.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyd885i wrote

Replying to Glad-Driver-24 (#786,422)

>Tell me genius, how are you supposed to target UK/EU users with relevant ads without explicitly being in the UK/EU?

Easy. The source IP address, which is present in every request, reveals the source geo (unless using a VPN). So the site can present to you UK/EU specific ads.

​

>Do you honestly think that you, as a company, are going to be able to collect data from users in the UK/EU and not have any kind of repercussions?

Yes, because that is exactly how it works today.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyd8sv2 wrote

Replying to youmu123 (#799,344)

>How can the UK/EU prevent ordinary individuals and businesses from sending money to Twitter? The answer: the exact same way the West stops individuals and businesses from sending money to Iran or Al-Qaeda.

No one said they couldn't stop people from making payments, only that a US company receiving payments from the EU/UK does not mean they are required to follow UK/EU laws.

​

>It does have everything to do with the company that does not operate. That company loses revenue. It's the same way sanctions work.

That is between them and thier citizens. All I said is that if there are no operations in the UK; they are under no obligation to follow the UK's laws. Which is 100% correct.

1

DataGOGO t1_iyd9wui wrote

Replying to masterblaster0 (#796,226)

Incorrect.

A US based business, with no operations in the UK or EU, can serve whatever content they want, to anyone in any county and they do not have to follow the EU laws, and the EU has no authority or power to fine them. Period. They can call it a media import if they want, and the US based company can tell them to fuck off.

If they chose to follow GDPR I 100% guarantee it is because they have operations, there.

They can ban them if they censor the internet, then could in theory block direct payments to them, but they can't fine them.

The UK and EU have zero authority over any business that does not directly operate on thier shores. Period

1

youmu123 t1_iydg41o wrote

Replying to DataGOGO (#809,272)

>That is between them and thier citizens. All I said is that if there are no operations in the UK; they are under no obligation to follow the UK's laws. Which is 100% correct.

The person you replied to clearly said they have to follow rules to PROFIT there. Which is my point.

1