Slashdot Mirror


Social Media Bosses Could Be Liable For Harmful Content, Leaked UK Plan Reveals (theguardian.com)

The United Kingdom is working on legislation that would hold social media executives liable for harmful content distributed on their platforms. The leaked white paper comes less than 24 hours after Australia passed sweeping legislation that threatens huge fines for social media companies and jail for their executives if they fail to rapidly remove "abhorrent violent material" from their platforms. From the report: Under plans expected to be published on Monday, the government will legislate for a new statutory duty of care, to be policed by an independent regulator and likely to be funded through a levy on media companies. The regulator -- likely initially to be Ofcom, but in the longer term a new body -- will have the power to impose substantial fines against companies that breach their duty of care and to hold individual executives personally liable.

The scope of the recommendations is broad. As well as social media platforms such as Facebook and search engines such as Google they take in online messaging services and file hosting sites. Other proposals in the online harm white paper include:

- Government powers to direct the regulator on specific issues such as terrorist activity or child sexual exploitation.
- Annual "transparency reports" from social media companies, disclosing the prevalence of harmful content on their platforms and what they are doing to combat it.
- Co-operation with police and other enforcement agencies on illegal harms, such as incitement of violence and the sale of illegal weapons.
"Companies will be asked to comply with a code of practice, setting out what steps they are taking to ensure that they meet the duty of care -- including by designing products and platforms to make them safer, and pointing users who have suffered harm towards support," the report says. "The code of practice is also likely to include the steps companies will be expected to take to combat disinformation, including by using fact-checking services, particularly during election periods, and improving the transparency of political advertising. Regulated firms will be expected to comply with the code of practice -- or explain what other steps they are taking to meet the duty of care. However, many questions are left to the regulator to determine."

95 comments

  1. It's for your own good. by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a new statutory duty of care, to be policed by an independent regulator and likely to be funded through a levy on media companies

    Unfortunately the modern educational system couldn't completely strip you of your humanity and free thought, so it's come to this now.

    Really, it's for your own good though. That's why we insist you pay for it.

    1. Re:It's for your own good. by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think they have a great concept. Let's enforce similar on legislators - any harm done by anyone in their jurisdiction while they're in office, they should be held personally liable for.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Content policy should be up to the individual company, not the government.

    3. Re: It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are existing laws that hold top executives personally liable for harmful content. New laws are good but I wouldn't assume somehow that executives have carte blanche for past behavior. maybe some of these guys should avoid traveling in the UK.

    4. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Brits used to be hard men. Now Oxbrige gaffot bosses pimp Trotsky-slut thought-crime spew that would make a rabid rat vomit. For the sake of what or who ... a few Pak pederasts and Jammi rastaz ?? Yet it goes on ... have all Saxon-yeoman been gelded? Perfideous Albion has always marveled at it own sins ... from slaughter of the two-Marys to Orwellian thought-crime laws. So does modern English royalty treat its subjects; do noone Englishman ... Welsh or Scot still live who would remove this simpering Rawlsian pestilence from the Crown ?

    5. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm not necessarily a huge fan of government censorship, I really don't see how handing off the task to unelected multinational monopolies is any better.

    6. Re:It's for your own good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      For one thing, they are not monopolies. Content should not be regulated. The real issue is open internet service. That's where you bump into monopoly markets that need to be pried open.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Facebook is not a monopoly, then you'll have no difficulty naming some of its competitors.

    8. Re: It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Legislators being held responsible for the harm which they, themselves perpetuate on the people would be a great step forward. As if we'd ever see even that.

    9. Re: It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's gonna be a total clusterfuck if the approach isn't mapped out.

    10. Re: It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communist quislings need prison.

    11. Re:It's for your own good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Competitors to what? Name an instance where they don't have competition. What does Facebook offer that you can't find somewhere else?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I should illustrate with an example of a former competitor: Myspace. Of course, network effects and Myspace's now-tiny userbase mean that it is no longer a viable competitor. Google+ would be another former example, also killed by network effects.

    13. Re:It's for your own good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      So what? That's by user choice. The users make and break this stuff. You just gotta come up with another pretty face and a gimmick, and you're in business. Facebook didn't force anybody to abandon MySpace.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I to take it that you no longer dispute my original assertion that Facebook is a monopoly? Because you seem to have switched your argument to justifying its monopoly position.

    15. Re:It's for your own good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Am I to take it that you no longer dispute my original assertion that Facebook is a monopoly?

      No, it is not. I implied nothing of the sort. User choice does not make a monopoly. Alternatives are still available.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:It's for your own good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And in case you haven't noticed, MySpace is still up and running. So you're really making no sense at all.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they have a great concept.

      It's not exactly new.
      The closest we have pre-internet when it comes to publishing texts was newspapers and there the boss have liability for harmful content.

    18. Re:It's for your own good. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We already have that law in the UK. If you can prove that, say, the Home Secretary authorized your torture you can sue him personally and the government for compensation. That's why they are so careful not to leave any direct, incriminating evidence.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:It's for your own good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, and your concept of monopoly is way off base. Users have the right to pick and choose as they wish. MySpace is still up, and you can still use it. It's not facebook's fault if your friends decide to stay with them. If facebook could take MySpace down, you would have case. As it is, you don't. Facebook is not a monopoly over anything outside of facebook.com. That's the way it's supposed to be. The government needs to butt out and work on the ISP problem, where we have real monopolies over access to the entire internet.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook enjoys overwhelming dominance of its particular market segment, assisted by strong network effects. Whether or not you call that a monopoly, it gives Facebook enormous power to censor, and that power is not democratically accountable. I consider that to be a problem. Myspace is not a viable competitor to Facebook because its lack of users undermines the core purpose of a social network, which is to connect to other people. I am not faulting Facebook for obtaining its current dominance, just noting that that dominance exists.

    21. Re:It's for your own good. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      All the power and dominance come from the users. It is by their choice. Don't confuse this with real monopolies, where the wire has become the new railroad.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. US UK Canada Australia NZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you get it? They're working their way up.

  3. US >> UK > Canada/Australia >> NZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you get it? They're working their way up.

  4. Just adds another chapter to Censorhip in the UK by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Go and amend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - it's got a long tradition.

  5. I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Social Media is simply not a part of my existence, unless you broadly include Slashdot... though I suspect that might qualify as antisocial media.

    But. Asking the social media sites to duplicate the work the police are already doing on the internet interdicting terrorism, child exploitation, violence, and illegal weapons trafficking is absurd. The internet, and in particular social media, is the greatest thing to happen to law enforcement in a generation... the idiots catch themselves.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      This flows out of the social media companies' own requests that governments start regulating them. Yes, it's going to be silly in some cases, some Neo-Nazi planning on blowing up a synagogue and bragging about it on Facebook, then they're online equivalent of the moron with the face tattoos that robs a liquor store. At the same time, it's clear that the social media giants have been incapable or unwilling to police their own users to demonstrate at least some minimal of diligence.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's clear that the social media giants have been incapable or unwilling to police their own users to demonstrate at least some minimal of diligence.

      Which is strange, because this industry pattern of "we'll regulate ourselves so the government doesn't step in and do it for us" is well-established and understood (see, for example, the ESRB for PC/video games). At this point, the social-media companies can't even complain about laws like this, because they've been so flat-footed with any kind of moderation on their platforms.

    3. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      The governors' pattern for passing rights-restricting legislation all too typically begins with seemingly reasonable restrictions on the more agreeably vile infractions.

      It's for the children! or Some of them are rapists!

      Even: But they're supporting terrorism...Just like the Colonies' sympathizers in America's revolutionary war with the English.

      Short of doing away with free speech on the internet, policing posts on Unlilliputian social platforms capable of real-time streaming is a task awaiting true Artificial Intelligence... whose gossamer arrival seems as fleeting as human intelligence, or, the arrival of the Great Pumpkin.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but you don't see the problem with punishing people for the actions of others?

    5. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how this would be any different than Ofcom's or the FCC's effective censorship of regular television for "decency" purposes. I'm not necessarily say I support it, but if Facebook, Twitter, et al. are thrown in the same basket as, say, broadcast television and radio, then there's a consistency here. If you can't show programs encouraging child abuse or acts of terrorism on Sky or CBS, then the logic goes, nor should social media.

      It of course leaves the question open when you're talking about two-bit operations like Stormfront, but since those are pretty much small scale subscriber portals with a pretty predictable membership, as opposed to Facebook, which is a platform of mass dissemination and sharing, I guess you can square that circle to some degree.

      Regulation was going to happen sooner or later. The social media giants have astonishing reach at national and international levels, and have already shown themselves very vulnerable to sharing of this kind of content. Guys like Zuckerberg knew this was coming, and I suspect would rather at this point have governments set up regulatory frameworks than the self-regulation they did in the past, if for no other reason than it levels the playing field.

      Hard core libertarians are never going to like this, but then again they don't like any government regulation. I suspect they hate the decency rules the FCC imposes on network television, and yet those have been the rules since the 1950s. The Supreme Court has upheld decency standards in the past, so I see little likelihood of a meaningful court challenge, and really, since these are private companies, unless they want to mount the challenge themselves, I doubt any user whose content is removed or has their account deleted is going to have a leg to stand on.

      And further, this particular story is about the UK. The extent of free speech guaranteed in the US Constitution is not guaranteed in the UK, and indeed in most other liberal democracies. Hate laws in Europe are quite a bit stronger than anything that could pass muster in the US.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re: I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The difference, of course, is that with OTA broadcast, your using government spectrum to broadcast, which implies government support. That's very different then owned spectrum for satellite broadcast or cell phone.

    7. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of social media, real name and real identity social media and avatar based social media, pseudonyms with imagined identities. They are inherently different, one claims to present facts and truths and the other an imaginary social interaction game. They simply need to be treated different, they one that claims to present the truth, needs to be held accountable for sponsoring false content for profit, criminally and civilly, fully liable. The other, the fantasy version where right of the get go, the names are imaginary, so are the identities and there is absolutely no pretence at presenting the truth. It is basically non-fiction social media versus based upon fiction social media, the liability for content difference is real straight forward. Some social media pretends to be true and factual to sell advertising and to mine people's private data, they should be held liable for that, quite clear cut.

      Slashdot is between the two, quite simply the exchange and challenging of ideas, and most of Slashdot pondering occurs away from slashdot, just a forum of ideas. 4Chan and 8Chan are different again, pretty much, straight up trolls trolling trolls, challenging challenging ideas, pursuing the bounds of ideas, seek the truth there and you'll twist your brain up like a pretzel.

      Facebook et al purports to represent the truth, to datamine it and sell advertising, they should be held liable for that content because by the nature of that social media site they claim to present the truth. The difference between fictional social media, factual social media and ideas social media, all need to be treated differently by their users and by legislation.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If the Social Media companies object to this then they will move their servers out of ( insert country of bad laws here ). There is always a less regulated country.

    9. Re:I could not care less if it imploded tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the idiots catch themselves.

      This is how we ended up with Trump.

      Set fire to the lot of them, fucking deplorables, not worth my energy to spit on them. Can't wait until we get to take all their rights away and treat them like the retarded children they are.

  6. Block social media & here's how... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for MacOS h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r M a c O S . z i p

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

    Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing u hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition loaded w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation!

    * ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 MacOS!

    STOPS JEWGLE & all other kike advertisers!

    APK

    P.S.=> Protects against ALL known & unknown vulnerabilities. Now supports port filters in hosts. My work is world-class & China copied it because they can't do better. I am God's gift to Slashdot... apk

  7. Freedom of speech vs the UK and US media by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Freedom after speech.
    The freedom of the press.
    To publish and comment.
    Is a movie review about an actors skills abhorrent material? The political nature of the low quality SJW script?
    Is abhorrent for Catalonia to be mentioned in a way Spain finds not legal?
    Would Argentina like to correct the history of the Falkland Islands?
    Germany like to filter all history, art and political news about Germany? No commenting on the results illegal immigration into Germany?
    Do French political leaders not like funny cartoons? No funny political memes about France?
    Would a faith find blasphemy to be abhorrent material?
    A cult would see their protected teachings online line for free as abhorrent?
    Undercover filming/photography of US farms is an abhorrent act in some US states? UK to remove that US news too?
    Talking about DRM removal?
    Talking about junk and weak crypto math passed for consumer use by the intelligence services?
    Comments on UK whistleblower material?
    The role of the SAS, MI5/6 in Ireland and the UK?

    So much people/mil/gov/lawyers/faiths/cults/NGO's/think tanks/NATO would find abhorrent material.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Freedom of speech vs the UK and US media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure those are the right syllable counts for a haiku.

  8. Re:But you DO care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least a little.

    -- Weird Al Yankovic in "Word Crimes"

  9. Hooter cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the bad old days of AOL when they tried to regulate sex stuff, so breast cancer survivors had to rename themselves as hooter cancer survivors so they wouldn't get auto-flagged for inappropriate content...

    1. Re:Hooter cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clbuttic misbehavior of automatic censorship.

  10. Strangling the Opposition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not "social media companies", it's a very small cartel of incumbents who see this as a beautiful way to prevent any competition.

  11. Knife Control. by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Only criminals eat food that requires a knife.

    1. Re:Knife Control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oi, you have a loicense for that plastic knoife, ya cheeky monkey?

    2. Re: Knife Control. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody wants to take your knife. We need red flag knife laws. Nobody needs a knife, turn it in or else.

  12. Brexit will fix it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buffoons... your own government is hell bent on censorship and steady de-evolution into a police state.

    Getting out of the EU isn't going to spare a single one of you from your fate.

    1. Re: Brexit will fix it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While true, the EU is hardly any better, and two evils is worse than the one on it's own.

      Too bad the EU decided to stand for the rights of foreigners, Eurocrats, and multinationals. If it stood for the rights of its people, you would have a real point.

    2. Re: Brexit will fix it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the EU really had the means to enforce what you said, you would have a real point.
      Just look at what Hungary does. Orban stands for the rights of his country. There's no super special rights for foreigners. On the contrary aiding those illegals is a crime there. And what does the EU against it besides of talk? Nothing. Hungary still receives EU funding, has representatives in the Parliament and has access to all other services.
      So what, you're hurt by EU talk now instead of EU actions?

      The UK could do exactly the same thing that Hungary does. And they can be sure that their EU membership is still far more valuable to the EU than that of Hungary.
      But their parliament apparently has other plans, that have very suspicious parallels with what the EU wants. The only difference being that the UKs government can actually enforce those things within their jurisdiction while the EU can't in practice.

      Bottom line: Whether the UK leaves or stays, these things are upon themselves.
      And especially after they leave that convenient scapegoat of the EU won't work much longer. Continuing to blame the EU whenever the UK parliament does something stupid then becomes Russian logic - whataboutism.

  13. This helps the big social media companies. by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

    Facebook can afford the team go implement their Censorship Rules, and Google already has a team to work with China's. /. can't afford similar.

    1. Re:This helps the big social media companies. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Facebook can afford the team go implement their Censorship Rules, and Google already has a team to work with China's. /. can't afford similar.

      Pardon me sir, but you're way out of line. The Slashdot budget for for policing and censorship is several tens of dollars, which the editors have been known to repurpose as delivery food.

      Downside is you have to let the "GNAA" & "MooMoo I'm a cow" posters soil the thread. Upside is you get a lot of truthy, insightful observations.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:This helps the big social media companies. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I mean, who really cares about slashdot. Its a bunch of nerds that society rarely realizes exists, unless their electronics aren't working right. Who's with me here? Oh wait, uhh... Shit.

  14. The west is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After spending trillions from our coffers and millions of lives to fight tyranny in the 20th century, we have become our own worst enemy. We don't support our best institutions, we betray our heritage, we don't have children and expect migrants to do our dirty work for us.

    End of an era. You will miss it when it's gone. The future belongs to those who show up for it. The power struggles of the next century will be awful and may surpass the 20th century in death toll.

    Captcha: phosgene. How appropriate.

    1. Re: The west is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The meek will not inherit the earth, those who take it will. This lesson was learned long ago, but forgotten. This is the future many asked for. No returns.

    2. Re:The west is dying by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The west is dying (...) After spending trillions from our coffers and millions of lives to fight tyranny in the 20th century, we have become our own worst enemy.

      Uhh... the west both started and ended WW1 and WW2. The suffragettes and civil rights movement fought harder, but they also had a lot more to fight against. It's possible that we've become soft and complacent, but it's because most the heavy battles were won. Obama was POTUS. I doubt it'd make much fuss if Hillary became president as a woman or Sanders as a Jew. Even in anti-immigration parties race theories are mostly dead. I'm not going to sugarcoat it and say everything's perfect, but most of us in the west live as individuals and treat others as individuals. We'd like to decompose cultural identity into values that we think are universal and the rest is simply individual preference, like nobody cares if you eat sushi and listen to k-pop instead of "our" food and music.

      This clashes with many other cultures where collective ideas of family, clan/tribe/caste, ethnicity and religion still dominate their mindset. Values that often come before those we consider universal, like arranged marriages or honor killings because you've brought shame on the family. Many gangs are ethnically centered, us against them. Religious shaming and policing of those who try to break away. It's like cultural or institutional problems don't exist, just a preponderance of individual problems even though they're happy to talk about toxic subcultures everywhere except in minorities. There's lots of racism, sexism, hostility against alternative sexual orientations and a lot of it is culturally accepted. You have entire countries where it's law, not just some shady little district of a backwards village.

      But the thing is, I don't want to resurrect our collectivism and fight fire with fire, Christians against Muslims. Nationalism against globalism. I don't want my nation to be a mono-culture where we all fit the same mold and accuse everyone else trying to take part of cultural appropriation. Culture is organic and it changes, both in taking new impulses from the world and giving those impulses to others. It's just that there's a difference between organic change and what's essentially a cultural transplant. I don't want a piece of the Middle East transported here, many of them reject us and establish parallel cultures. And no, I don't want to engage in cultural appeasement to people who pack their women away in tents and think ours are sluts and whores.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:The west is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the west both started and ended WW1 and WW2

      Not true really. WW2 was an amalgamation of conflicts, the first of which is generally though to have been the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

    4. Re:The west is dying by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, we live in a golden age of peace. There was a huge migrant crisis in Europe and we managed to deal with it peacefully, without going to war, and without completely losing sight of our values. Europe rose to the challenge, and although it was hard we got through it.

      The future is the future we are building, welcoming diverse groups of people in to our union and spreading our values as we do so. Democracy, human rights, equality. Those are our strengths and our heritage and our future.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:The west is dying by mjwx · · Score: 1

      After spending trillions from our coffers and millions of lives to fight tyranny in the 20th century, we have become our own worst enemy. We don't support our best institutions, we betray our heritage, we don't have children and expect migrants to do our dirty work for us.

      Had me up until here.

      Western nations are definitely having children, less of them as there are becoming more expensive to raise and there is no need to rely on your children to support you in old age. That's the big difference in the west, kids aren't the retirement plan.

      We keep importing immigrants because we want an underclass of cheap labour with few rights to do the jobs we are too lazy to do ourselves. Australia doesn't do this, hence when I lived in Perth I washed my own car, cleaned my own house and ignored the fecking garden hoping the heat and neglect would kill everything because I just couldn't be arsed.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:The west is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think I'm going to be sick. You haven't seen the problems in France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Hungary, Poland and so forth? Like most EU fanatics you either don't talk about them or completely ignore them, mostly both. EU immigration policy has been a disaster but a very profitable one for people-smuggling gangs who were helped by big multinational NGOs providing a Med taxi service for them.

      In case you hadn't noticed, the fault-lines in Europe aren't really between East and West, they're more North/South, something you open borders loons would do well to remember.

  15. Bye bye slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Muslims rape young girls and get away with it in the UK.
    Now for sure you're gonna get shut down. That's hate speech even though its true.

    1. Re: Bye bye slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth isn't a defense for being against the liberal anti-civilization agenda. If it was, it would have already lost.

  16. Conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate censorship. I also hate social media which has done nothing but push censorship. I say let them burn. Push people to the dark web, beyond the grasp of either Google or Uncle Sam/Sister May.

    1. Re: Conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so stupid and boring

  17. Re: Just adds another chapter to Censorhip in the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave some pork at a mosque, go to prison.
    Rape a child, get charges dropped if you're muslim.
    Such a great empire.

  18. Gov Threats Google - Punitive Action Over Bad Pres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada recently threatened google with punitive legilastion over bad press of the Tredau government. They literally called it "hatespeech" and made threats that google should remove these bad "press" items from searches. We are now in 1984 ladies and gentleman.. prepare for urine samples to be collected in the morning.

  19. Tony Blair's people rule every aspect of the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When Tony Blair finally became PM he did two things first. 1) killed the house cat. 2) Invited Thatcher to be his first visitor at no.10 (and NO, she was not his predecessor- that was the ex-circus performer that replaced Thatcher as head of the Conservative party.)

    The voters had thought they had empowered the exact opposite of the Tories- but Blair proudly demonstrated to the nation that as bad as the authoratarian Conservatives had been, he would be a million times worse.

    Blair tore the power structure of Britain to shreds, and placed his loyalists into every aspect of power- way beyond party politics. But Blairites would rise to power and take control of the THREE major political parties, Conservatives, Liberals and labour of course. In power, Blair began the Orwellian remodelling of Britain.

    Today Blair operates at a planetry level, where his loyalists have taken power in most major nations (which is why you had so much Trump hate when Blair's appointed horror, Clinton, failed to win- the Democrat and Republican parties are 100% controlled by Blairites). In the UK his proxies head essentially everything. There is a lasting public hatred of Blair in the UK, so Blair only has to put his name in public to the OPPOSITE of what he desires there (like Blair saying he is against 'brexit'), so anti-Blair sentiment gets the sheeple behind what he wants in the first place.

    Social control is a key plank in the demonic Blair's greater plan. Blair's 'Academy' schools indoctrinate millions of UK kids. Censorship and total surveillance are Blair's go-to methods.

    Social media giants were always part of the Blair plan. Hook the vast majority of users in centralised services and then bring down governmental regulation of said services. Today anything outside of the giants are backwaters with handfulls of users. Even Dissenter shows insanely tiny numbers of forum users on its busiest forums compared to even obscure forums on Reddit.

    Today there is no need for Blair's people to worry about 'alternative' Internet sites when so few people use them. The giants have vacuumed the majority of online Humanity into easily controlled and regulated arenas. But Blair's team had to wait for the true giants to arise and addict the numbers they have done. And this needed the ole 'bait and switch'- a nursery slope 'wild west' to entice the sheeple before the Orwellian regulation hit.

    Better again were the fools who wanted to speak to wide audiences, but used the infrastrucure of the giants rather that building their own. Now these people are 'deplatformed' for 'wrongthink', and if they all too late try to form their own platforms, almost no-one follows them.

    Sites like Slashdot inform the sheeple that they MUST trust the mass media outlets that all spread Tony Blair's lies about WMD in Iraq. Because after all it is only 'logical' to trust sources scientifically proven to be the world's most co-ordinated liars.

    Freedom of speech- dead.
    Freedom of assembly- dead
    Freedom of conscience- dead (in the UK, kids from 'muslim' families are taught at school they must remain 'muslims' because only racist extremists believe in freedom of conscience)

    These freedoms have been very rare in Human History, so for Blair to wipe them out once again is actually true to how this planet usually operates. Which is why Blair gets so little resistance, and certainly none from outlets like Slashdot.

    If you think it is bad now, think about how awful it will be in a few decades time when things like Blair's plan to BAN private car ownership are implemented. When Blair's total surveillance society has been brainwashed into every sheeple from birth.

    The power of the computer allows a thing that was before only theoretical, no matter how desirable to earlier demons in our History. All Blair had to ensure was that ordinary people lost their say about the oppressive use of this tech- exactly as envisaged in Orwell's 1984. Today's young Brits 'think' only in ways their Academy schools have commanded them

    1. Re:Tony Blair's people rule every aspect of the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God for Brexit.
      That'll fix this as well.
      No, don't look at internal politics in the UK! We need to be united, you traitor. It's all the EU's fault!

      (beware of sarcasm)

    2. Re:Tony Blair's people rule every aspect of the UK by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Interesting conspiracy but you give Blair too much credit. Modern UK politics has been about the centre ground since the 80s. If you want to get into power, you need to occupy the centre. Blair did that, that's all. No evil scheme to oppress people, he was just the right kind of centre-right politician at the right time.

      The fact that you have to assume Blair always wants the exact opposite of what he says he wants doesn't exactly make a strong argument.

      Blair fucked up in three major ways. First he went along with the US into Iraq, which was very unpopular in the UK. Then he didn't do enough to manage migration from newly joining EU member states, and allowed newspapers and the far right to demonize the Polish and blame them for everything. Finally he did little to prevent the financial crash from happening, because he continued Thatcherite policies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  20. Jew push for hiding their malice/subversion/lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't have it all ways. Either free speech or make hate illegal and ascii-harm illegal. You can't do it. You will lose trying. It would be like making air illegal.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-_s8c_URQU
    https://twitter.com/superzar2000/with_replies

  21. Re:Jew push for hiding their malice/subversion/lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi? Not hardly yo Stalinst cunt. Actually that free-speaking Brit could follow the colonies advice ... a put a bullet in the head of a dozen gaffot MPs ... and their Trotsky-slut pimps. Perhaps a few thousand bullets would be needed ...

  22. Just imagine by Livius · · Score: 1

    ...how much harm a politician would suffer from the truth.

  23. What is "terrorist activity" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are videos from the planes hitting the WTC towers on 9/11 considered "terrorist activity" ?

  24. It's their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the social media sites took to censoring conservatives and other non-pc posts, rather than relying on community moderation, they demonstrated that the company itself could police user content. Now they will be held responsible for it. Had they instead relied on users themselves to police the community, they wouldn't be in the position they are now.

  25. Re: Just adds another chapter to Censorhip in the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "Catholic."

  26. Good Work UK!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO, Internet desperately needs "keep it clean" rules, unless we think it is ok to raise mentally screwed-up future generations!!!

    Internet companies/websites need to be hold responsible for their social responsibility for common good of general public, whether they like it, or not!!!

    & any laws for it, does not need to be fully comprehensive @ first!!!
    More complicated issues/parts can be handled by future extension laws!!!

    1. Re:Good Work UK!!! by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Just look at all the mentally stable people internet censorship and control has given us so far!

  27. Re:Jew push for hiding their malice/subversion/lie by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But in the UK, there's never been the level of free speech that would make you invulnerable from being prosecuted for, say, blaming the Jews for everything.

    No, but there was certainly a time when the idea of *criminally prosecuting* someone for making a joke video of himself teaching his GF's dog to do a Nazi salute would have been laughable. And there was most certainly a time when no police officer worth his uniform would have even *considered* just turning his back on evidence of a large group of men raping underage girls out of fear of being called a racist if he were to act on that horrible evidence.

    The UK has never enjoyed the robust free speech protections of the U.S., it's true. But there was at least a time when they weren't FUCKING BATSHIT INSANE.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  28. Re: Jew push for hiding their malice/subversion/li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't refute it, ban it. Communists are all the same.

  29. Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how it would be better to have somebody other than the USA in charge of the net?

    A few yeasrs back when the Obama team relinquished some control there were arguments including here on Slashdot about how good it would be to have somebody else other then the USA in control. My point back then was that I was not happy with the politicians in the USA (across party lines and for varying reasons) but that the USA atleast had certain traditions and a written Constitution with certain guarantees that bad it the best option.

    The UK has no "1st Amendment" and has far less of a government hands-off tradition relative to communications.

    You might like what the UK is talking about here as long as it goes against people you do not like, but what happens when they start using the policy against YOU?

    Think about it.

    1. Re: Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They came for the employees but I was not an employee. Then they came for the children but I was not a child. Then they came for Reddit, but I was not a redditor. Then they came for me and there was no one to speak on my behalf.

    2. Re:Tell me again... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "they start using the policy "

      The UK has GCHQ to find the comments.
      A nice police interview to suggest a change of topic online. To understand why the comments got published.
      A list of words that are no longer legal to use in a friendly illustrated booklet.
      Words that now have to be used in the UK. Further police contact is then not needed if a change in the persons social media use is detected.

      Should that not alter the persons views than further action will start.
      A longer police interview at work? Police interviews with everyone connected with the person who published the comments.
      Who used the wrong words after getting the illustrated word booklet from the police.
      Still publishing comments, views and links online?
      Found a new VPN service and using a UK bank and UK CC for that VPN service?

      The MI5/6 and the SAS to take further action to prevent any further use of social media.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have a few minutes could you please tell the rest of us what life is like on the planet you come from?

  30. Killing the internet by spongman · · Score: 1

    One has to wonder, if such regulations were in place in the 90â(TM)s, would to world-wide-web ever have been born?

  31. And people wonder why I joined the NH migration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I joined the Free State Migration Project and then moved to NH explicitly because of shit like this. The majority of you are mad! There is no hope anywhere and without like-minded people moving to one region there is no hope for real change. I want to live in a world that is not ruled by control freaks.

    It's not hard for people born 30 years ago to see how terrible things have gotten, but it's even worse for those who have been around longer. I long for a time when drivers licenses didn't exist, kids just had to be home before dark, and mandatory big brother tracking programs (ie license plates, social security numbers, and passports) didn't exist. Until fairly recently my state didn't even have a state police. Today we live in a world where it's acceptable to steal money from the young to cover the old or to cover the desires of one group or another. Social security was a bad idea to begin with. It's ensured that the people didn't learn there lesson. Instead of saving for retirement like responsible adults we became entitled wards of the state. Those who don't like it and refuse get kidnapped by the biggest gang in town. That is assuming one has the mental capacity and will to get around the system.

  32. This Is How It Begins by mentil · · Score: 1

    Let no tragedy go to waste.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  33. Social Media needs to decide what it is by steveha · · Score: 2

    The social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook say that they are platforms, and therefore they should not be held liable for awful things that people say on their platforms. They aren't curated information streams like a newspaper, where nothing is published without editorial oversight.

    However, they have been indulging in quite a bit of curation. And it hasn't been even-handed. If they like you, you can literally get away with inciting violence; if they don't like you, they will strike you down or shadow-ban you for any reason or no reason.

    There are numerous cases of conservatives being suspended or banned from social media over relatively mild stuff (for example, telling a journalist to "Learn to code") while liberals can make jokes about the President being assassinated, wish for conservative people's children to be raped, etc. The post "#MAGAkids go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper" did not result in any punishment from Twitter. This tweet was accompanied with a cartoon picture of a man feeding a body into a woodchipper and bloody snow. By "#MAGAkids" he meant some high school students who were in the news at the time.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/449368-disney-producer-threatens-maga-kids/

    Keith Olbermann wrote on Twitter these words: "we should do our best to make sure the rest of his life is a living hell." Who was the target of his wrath? A man who had a permit to hunt turkeys who shot a turkey. Olbermann has a million followers and some of them went on to harass the hunter. Twitter did not punish Olbermann in any way. (Faced by a backlash of bad publicity, Olbermann made a follow-up tweet saying that his words were not intended as an actual threat.)

    https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/03/27/keith-olbermann-urges-followers-make-hunters-life-living-hell-killing-rare-turkey/

    I found an article that claims that a statistical analysis shows that this isn't just a few anecdotes, it's a trend.

    https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/

    I tried to use Facebook Messenger to send a link to a satirical essay. It would not allow me to send it, and it gave a totally nonsense reason. I just tried it again just now and the same thing happened; here's the error:

    It looks like you were misusing this feature by going too fast. You've been blocked from using it.

    Learn more about blocks in the Help Center.
    If you think this doesn't go against our Community Standards let us know.

    I was "going too fast"? After not using Messenger for over 24 hours, I attempted to send a single URL, so that message is clearly nonsense. Obviously I was merely guilty of wrongthink. The essay makes the point that the USA is spending so much money that it's not possible to "soak the rich" to pay for it all, using a sort of reducto ad absurdium. Clearly someone who works for Facebook doesn't like this essay or doesn't like "Iowahawk". If you want to read this forbidden essay, here you go:

    Iowahawk: Feed Your Family on 10 Billion a Day

    Then there is the current controversy over Twitter apparently shadowbanning the movie Unplanned. So far Twitter has adamantly maintained that everything that looked like shadowbanning was just buggy code, but this seems really egregious. The Unplanned Twitter account at one point had more followers than Planned Parenthood, and then suddenly it had zero followers. Peopl

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  34. Re:Jew push for hiding their malice/subversion/lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to see how insane things are in the UK, here's an interview with South Yorkshire's Police & Crime Commissioner. South Yorkshire Police are encouraging people to report "non-crime hate incidents," which is basically people being offended on Twitter. Say something out of line here and you'll have the police all over you. It should be noted that South Yorkshire is where Rotherham is where the Muslim rape gangs were operating, but the police are far more concerned with protecting the feelings of those rapists than investigating actual crimes.

    The interview is 15 minutes long, but if you listen to a few minutes at this point you'll get the idea:

    https://youtu.be/wZXGI7R1-gA?t=329

  35. Re: Tony Blair's people rule every aspect of the U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Never seen such a level of Blair derangement syndrome.

    I suggest a holiday. There's a place called reality, it's pretty nice at this time of year.

  36. Re: Just adds another chapter to Censorhip in the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You misspelled "Religious."

  37. Tech Company hubris by Munich+Munchkin · · Score: 1

    I have little sympathy. If you are a tech company who thinks the UK and Australia is full of little people who don't matter then maybe this sort of response is to be expected.

  38. Re: Just adds another chapter to Censorhip in the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm pretty sure that "Catholic" is correct.
    Even the Pope himself admitted that there is a sexual child abuse problem in their ranks by calling it "evil". At least this is the most recent and biggest scandal for such a large religious organization.

    Of course Christianity isn't alone here. There's plenty of sexual child abuse in various other countries, that are culturally rooted in Islam, where child brides are legal.

  39. Demolition Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Down with nanny states. The people making these laws deserve a streamed crucifixion.

    You are fined one credit for breaching the verbal morality code.
    And now 500 credits for the live streaming morality codes, such as illegal fox hunts or doing burnouts. but shoot em up games are just fine.

    Rich in culture, have we not had witch burnings. public beheadings, public hangings. public whippings and public executions in American prisons. Cock fighting , dog fighting, bare knuckle fighting.

  40. Stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these stupid greedy companies have to do is claw back everything to the U.S. Then the politically correct commies in the EU and elsewhere in the world can be told to go to a very warm place.