Slashdot Mirror
Cameron Says People Radicalized By Free Speech; UK ISPs Agree To Censor Button
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Techdirt: A few years ago, we mocked then Senator Joe Lieberman's request that internet companies put "report this content as terrorist content" buttons on various types of online content. The plan went nowhere, because it's a really bad idea, prone to massive abuse. Yet, over in the UK, some apparently think it's such a grand idea that they're actually moving forward with it. This isn't a huge surprise — the current UK government has been going on for quite some time about banning "extremist" content, and just recently ramped up such efforts. And now it appears that a bunch of big UK broadband access providers have agreed to play along: The UK's major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation. They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.
Make this such an onerous burden that the ISPs are forced to either withdraw their support, or just censor everything that is flagged without checking it. To do this, report everything that is remotely political as "extremist" and "radicalizing". When the politicians themselves are the targets of their bad law, they just might take a hint.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Has there ever been a censorship campaign without some allegedly noble objective? I certainly can't remember anyone standing up and saying "Yeah, it's forbidden because we are basically evil like that." There is always a threat to the children, social order, national security, etc.
Nice work, Airstrip One.
Here we are on a site where strangers can rate what we say, potentially burying it where others won't get the chance to read it, and we're complaining that governments are vaguely coming around to the same idea? Aww, come on now, haven't we gotten this pattern yet? Legislators are always going to be years behind everybody else in leveraging tech, and will always try to apply it on a broader scale. Do I need to start listing all the sites that have user moderation, post or content scoring, or "report" buttons?
Obviously, because there are so many websites that make it work, there are ways to make it work. Whether it will be abused by consumers (including trolls, shills, marketers, etc etc) to the point of uselessness depends entirely upon the implementation. Whether it will be abused by politicians to control the ideas we're exposed to ultimately depends upon the same thing it always has: whether we keep talking to each other.
The concept we have all gotten used to by now is that we have the right to speak, but not a right to be heard. Again, the fact that you're here means that you've already accepted that. People just don't trust governments to do the same, and site owners may not want the government doing it for them. Obviously there are other options, so it's just a matter of making the right tools.
Have you ever used a "webrep" browser plugin? Personally, I think it would be refreshing and useful to have one that works.
This is actually quite a good idea. Though without a troll army, you won't be doing much.
Still, I guess a browser add-on could be made that would automatically report any page you visit that contains certain keywords (politicians' names, hint hint) as extremist and radicalizing. Reporting shouldn't be a hassle, after all.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Actually fixing the problem would hurt too many vested interests.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I literally get sick to my stomach every time I see these kinds of proposals. I know us turning into a police state is not the goal of radical Islam, but having us live in fear is and which this will promulgate as a constant reminder.
We use to want to defeat authoritarian regimes by being a beacon of freedom that their citizens aspired to – thus defeating them without having to have boots on the ground. It worked well against the Soviet Union and given enough time will work against radical Islam, that is if we don’t turn into something their people don’t admire and aspire to be.
Just quit playing their game, seriously, leave things alone to sort themselves out. I’m not completely isolationist, groups like ISIS certainly deserve a thumping. I’m not blind that some intervention is called for in extreme cases.
How about we get to UN to quit backsliding on basic freedoms, instead of worrying about the sensitivities of religions? How about to be full fledged member of the UN your people have to have freedom of speech and religion? Political systems and economic systems are up to whoever is in charge, but quit letting theocracies to get a pass on human rights. Do this and within a generation religious radicalism will be a thing of the past.
Letter To Iran
BS.
The US government didn't attempt to suppress the free speech of OWS or the TEA Party. Even the RNC's boneheaded idea of having "free speech zones" back when Dubya was in charge was summarily shot down by both sides.
Free speech may lead to more consequences since the times of Reagan, but free speech itself is still alive and well. The current administration even wanted to have a government official in each newsroom, and that was quickly shot down too, even in this very polarized administration.
Shouldn't there also be `Racist' and `Sexist' "public reporting buttons" as well?
Did I actually just type that?
Holy shit.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Well, on the good side, this would probably silence religious speech.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
So the IRS going after tea party groups according to their own internal emails wasn't an attempt to suppress free speech? Okay. I mean, I can see how you believe it wasn't, after all...all those "convenient losses of emails" from a very particular time period, of not only lois lerner, but a dozen or more other people directly related to it...well, what are the chances right?
Om, nomnomnom...
the last few major "acts of terrorism" in britain have been by a gent named Pavlo, a Ukranian man with a distinctive axe to grind against Muslims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... the 2007 glasgow attack was stretched as a "terror ramming attack" of all things, and in 2008 an individual with a history of mental problems who had 'recently converted to islam' attempted to bomb a cafe.
When governments pass antiterrorism laws, its amusing to see their concern for children or the welfare of the youth as Terrorism in the strategic sense does not serve to undermine the citizenry but their government. Events like disclosing sensitive government information related to, in the case of the states, the wholesale slaughter of a crew of journalists by a helicopter team and an ensuing coverup for example are acts of terrorism as they directly challenge and discredit the government as an agent acting genuinely in the best interests of its citizenry. Lastly, it remains to be said that Terrorists arent a toggle switch. In most cases these individuals have been pushed to desparation over many years until theyre left determined with nothing to lose. For example, the secret drone strike that killed a man or womans family may be met with a seemingly random and disproportionate retaliation 12 years later as theyve joined a support group of terrorists equally affected by these strikes and ignored by their respective governments.
Britain and most western governments hate terrorism because it is an effective means of wearing down psychologically and emotionally one or more governments political policies in a means that cannot be bargained away or ignored. it inspires political churn in the state, distrust and apathy in the citizenry, and ultimately a further push from policies such as dominionism. It can also be argued that miring large nations in protracted, endless war is both an effective catharsis for an exploited people as well as deterrent against future distatesful foreign policy in the resultant return of wounded troops whom while perfectly alive, serve as a tangible reminder of the govenments complete lack of prudence and judgement again and again.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It isn't forgotten, rather the whole point of the supression. With this new tool, the UK government can classify any speech it doesn't like as terrorist or extremist material.
It would likely silence the speech you just made too.
If you think silencing speech you do not like or agree with is proper, you need to consider how long it would take to silence yourself. I'm sure there are people who do not agree with you.
It is a direct assault on free speech, though. While those particular TEA Party rallies weren't shut down, what message was sent to those who would want to have another TEA Party rally in the future? Clearly, that message is: "If you hold a TEA Partly rally in the future and say something we don't like, you will be punished!" Knowing that they will be punished for expressing an opposing view, how many would still hold their rally?
Lets see... who's the most responsible for bombing the largest number of innocent civilians in Britain?
Parliament of course.
So get clicking folks. We need to stop the government from spreading it's propaganda and continuing it's 300 year terror campaign.
I thought that was the Luftwaffe?
The people only want it because they're only fed misleading propaganda. Once again, this just shows that the ignorant masses are ignorant and gullible and incredibly easy to manipulate.
Britain has struggled - successfully - for freedom of speech for hundreds of years before the US existed.
They do not, however, make a religion out of it, and don't live in a theocracy anyway.
He almost lost the Scotland gamble. And of course there will be a second Referendum in a couple of years which will end in a divorce. He leads the UK out of the EU sinking the British finance sector. He also wants to cancel the European human rights treaty. And he censors the internet and spies on everyone.
He mostly acts like a child. He is angry or has tears in his eyes. And then he lies to the British and then the EU is the cause of all problems according to Cameron. He is an upper class classisist with a big ego and no intellect. And I am very sorry for the UK, but he will ruin it for most of them.
Not for Muslims. UK seems to have two separate standards: one for Muslims, one for everybody else.
Muslim preach hate in the streets all the time. Muslims are allowed to offend anybody. Nobody is allowed to offend Muslims.
The fact remains that you're free to say whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
That has got to be one of the stupidest recurring phrase n use. It's ambiguous enough that any attempt to point out the idiocy of the phrase would be met with "well that's not what I really meant"; however, all interpretations are stupid. Just because you seem to be having trouble, I'll suggest some phrases to help you understand:
You are free to kill whoever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to steal whatever you want, but it might have consequences.
You are free to be as stupid as you want, but it might have consequences.
+5 interesting for this crap. What world am I living in?
In actuality the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did save lives in the long run. The two cities were chosen for their geographic and demographic profiles, to test the effects of terrain and building types on bomb effectiveness with a future clash with the Soviet Union in mind. What they found was that the effects of nuclear weapons were so horrible that even the lunatics in the Pentagon and Kremlin hesitate to use them. If the nukes had just been used at some remote location to demonstrate to the Japanese what we could do it's very likely that they would have been launched at some point during the 1950s and the highest life form left on the surface of the planet would be rodents.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin