Slashdot Mirror
British PM Candidate Promises Social Media Crackdown (politico.eu)
Theresa May's party "is expected to win a majority at the June 8 election," reports Reuters -- and she's promising they'll pass new social media laws. An anonymous reader quotes Politico:
They want to introduce a new measure that could fine or punish internet firms which fail to adequately flag and take down content harmful to minors or "direct users unintentionally to hate speech, pornography or other sources of harm," according to a press release. "The internet has brought a wealth of opportunity but also significant new risks which have evolved faster than society's response to them," May said. "We want social media companies to do more to help redress the balance and will take action to make sure they do"... The Conservative digital platform also promises to better protect Brits' personal information, compelling social media companies to trash user records from before the age of 18. The party plans to encourage the development of digital by default government and business services, as well.
British PM Candidate Explains, "I don't understand how the Internet works!"
There seems to be an awful lot of politicians that don't understand how powerless they are to control what happens outside of their country.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
In the EU, the GDPR will give EU citizens roughly the same powers. The UK is leaving the EU, so this law will be a replacement for it.
Quantum hacker.
We don't directly elect our Prime Minister so Theresa May isn't a PM candidate. Wish people would get this right
This could go a long way toward persuading average Brits they should protect their privacy...and make it considerably more difficult for law enforcement to sort out the really bad stuff from relatively harmless things.
For example, if I were an ISP, I'd probably start offering discounts to customers based on the level of internet security they were willing to employ. If a customer was willing to make it impossible or incredibly difficult and expensive for me to determine what sites they were visiting, I'd be willing to knock quite a bit off their monthly internet bill.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
UK already has hate speech laws, which must've been fine with you.
Representative democracy doesn't work that way. Just because the party in power implements a particular law, that does not mean the voters are "fine with it". The choices in an election have a very coarse granularity. You vote for a party, not particular policies. If you vote for Labour so that you get more enlightened censorship laws, then you also get a PM that thinks the British economy should be more like Venezuela's. People care about their paycheck more than they care about the free speech rights of Holocaust deniers, but that doesn't mean that every Tory voter supports censorship.
National citizenship rules should be changed. Instead of getting automatic citizenship based on where you are born, you should instead get provisional citizenship until your 21st birthday, and then you pick permanent citizenship in the country that best fits your political and economic views.
No, this issue always existed. Why didn't the Japanese who were interned move away to a state that would project them? Why didn't gay people just move to another state in the 50's that would properly protect them? Why couldn't people who are in prison for drug usage move to another state where drug usage was legal?
Because nobody ever stood up for them, hence there was no place to go. Blaming "the federal government" is a cop out; rather than admit that the multiple states approach didn't work, because conservative Americans held (and still hold) very little sympathy for people who lead lives different from themselves, it's much easier to blame something as large and abstract as the federal government. When we talk about outsourced jobs, is it the federal government's fault, or that of the companies for willingly and knowingly sacrificing quality and employee welfare for a better bottom line?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Except having to conform to their numerous orders.
You do realise that we won't be able to do whatever the fuck we want after we leave, right? I mean, no one will agree to do a trade deal with us if re refuse to agree to any rules.
And you know, if we refuse to agree to the EU stuff on fisheries, we risk getting what the EU juust managed to prevent which is a full blown fish stock collapse. Once that happens, you can piss and moan however much you like but you still won't be able to get fish out of the sea.
Just one example, banning creosote for tarring fences; maybe irrelevant to you (or to EU residents in sunny Spain and Italy, or basement dwellers) ) but a big deal
Well then you're a right fucking numpty because you can still get creosote if you know where to look.
It also is terrible for the environment so selling it to every tom dick and harry to tip down the drain is a fantastically poor idea too. Creosote is really rather carcinogenic, so yeah, it's a pretty good idea to not have it for general sale on the grounds that not having people kill themselves for not have the right piece of obscure knowledge. But you can still get hold of it easily enough, though without your own pressure treating kit, you won't do nearly as well as if you simply buy pretreated fencing.
Now, you lazy, ill informed git, here's somewhere that'll actually sell you the stuff:
https://www.creosotesales.co.u...
for me as I maintain several hundred yards of fencing in the damp misty hills of Wales.
Well, I hear Tories love Wales, so I'm sure you won't be at all fucked now you've just handed them all the power.
SJW n. One who posts facts.