Online Safety Act

[Sideways]

A general heads-up before it happens:

Do not turn this into a "controversial" thread.
Do not turn it into a "political" thread.

Nothing to do with freedom of speech but compliance with the "UK workshop forum" rules that say keep that content out of the off-topic forum.

If anyone wants one of those discussions, start another thread in OT2 or take it somewhere else.

 

[Agent_zed]

'Freedom of speech' before the internet was mostly self moderating.

You say to your wife/GF 'You look fat in that, you shouldn't be allowed to wear a dress like that', you end up on the sofa or single. Yet this is perfectly normal type of comment I've seen on comment sections of newspaper articles.

You say to your boss 'You are a stupid T**t with half a brain cell and even a monkey could do your job better, I hope you get hit by a car', you end up in HR and most likely lose your job.

You walk into a pub and tell all the drinkers 'I'll laugh when you all get liver cirrhosis and the doctors refuse to give you a donor transplant', you'll probably get a punch in the face.

Yet in anonymous internet land you can go and say all of those things about anyone you like and apparently that's ok because 'free speech'.

And if we dare say there should be some kind of moderation, then we are all suddenly going to find we are in N.Korean style dictatorship?!

Perhaps if we stopped all of the anonymous hate posts and people had to actually take responsibility for their words (like in the above examples) then people might actually remember some manners and the reasons you don't get to run your mouth off whenever you like.

 

[Agent_zed]

If you say ‘i believe in feee speech but…’ you’re an authoritarian. You have authoritarian tendencies and you want to control the world based on your principles.

We have a sensible guide line regarding free speech; no call to violence.

Somewhat amusing that you berate people for applying a caveat to free speech, and then immediately go on to say you think it's sensible to have a caveat to free speech.

Why can't I call for violence, why are you trying to silence me and take my freedom of speech? We'll end up in a N.Korean dictatorship if we can't call for violence to prevent it.
(To be clear this is sarcasm in case it was not obvious)

 

[paulrbarnard]

'Freedom of speech' before the internet was mostly self moderating.

You say to your wife/GF 'You look fat in that, you shouldn't be allowed to wear a dress like that', you end up on the sofa or single. Yet this is perfectly normal type of comment I've seen on comment sections of newspaper articles.

You say to your boss 'You are a stupid T**t with half a brain cell and even a monkey could do your job better, I hope you get hit by a car', you end up in HR and most likely lose your job.

You walk into a pub and tell all the drinkers 'I'll laugh when you all get liver cirrhosis and the doctors refuse to give you a donor transplant', you'll probably get a punch in the face.

Yet in anonymous internet land you can go and say all of those things about anyone you like and apparently that's ok because 'free speech'.

And if we dare say there should be some kind of moderation, then we are all suddenly going to find we are in N.Korean style dictatorship?!

Perhaps if we stopped all of the anonymous hate posts and people had to actually take responsibility for their words (like in the above examples) then people might actually remember some manners and the reasons you don't get to run your mouth off whenever you like.

Perhaps it’s the anonymity which is the problem…

 

[Jake]

I have no idea what that has to do with free speech and no, I’m not talking about freedom of expression; you are.
You seem deeply confused about two different concepts.

There is no freestanding right to freedom of speech, it is part of freedom of expression. Otherwise, for example, it would not apply to anything written, and anyone without the power of speech would not have the same freedom to express themselves as those who can speak. Equally, a protestor's sign is an exercise of freedom of expression. Freedom of speech only would allow shouting at a protest but not banners (but actually the presence at a protest of more than one also requires freedom of assembly, which is not covered by freedom of expression (or speech).

Usual glib lack of thought to things which have been very carefully thought about over the years by people who actually understand the issues involved.

 

[Agent_zed]

If freedom of speech has been responsible for the death of 3 people in the last say 70 years, don’t you think that’s an incredible return on investment, given the benefits of living in a free society which exists due to freedom of speech?

This is just nonsense. There have been untold numbers of deaths and injury due to so called freedom of speech. Trumps call to arms on Jan 6th resulted in deaths. He and other republicans spread lies about disaster workers after the recent hurricanes which resulted in FEMA being turned back at gunpoint in some areas and no doubt led to further suffering of some of those in need.

Musk has wrongly accused people of being killers and ****'s and caused those people to have to flee their homes.

Words have meanings and consequences. Ironically the people who now have the biggest voices and claim free-speech is important are proven liars and continue to spread misinformation which has real consequences, seemingly for others but never them.

Did you pick 70 year so it avoided the rise of Hitler and his propaganda speech? There are plenty of others around the globe doing the same in the name of free speech. I'm sure Orban was able to speak freely and make his case for his rise to power.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Government set the judiciary landscape, they set, amend and enact the laws into legislature. The police then enforce said laws, then judiciary prosecute those laws.

Yep.

When governments change laws or want to focus on one area, then the police and judiciary have to follow.

Yep.

But that categorically does not equate to

"a broader encompassing narrative to silence discussion on some agendas that don't meet the ruling governments points of view".

This ridiculous (in my view) conflation panders to the notion of "Starmer jailed people for posting their opinion online" - which is categorically not true despite the very best and deliberate and concerted efforts to precipitate disinformation. Jailings have been covered elsewhere (under legislation instituted by Tory government). Which kinda brings us full circle...


Man who owns media platform - "Right to Free Speech at any and all cost!"

Same man - <posts lies>

Yet again same man - <removes true content from his platform> (thereby proactively and deliberately denying other people's Right to Free Speech)

 

[Sideways]

Perhaps it’s the anonymity which is the problem…

In South Korea, anonymity has been removed. In order to create an account on social media platforms you need to use your national ID number so people can be traced and held to account if necessary.
At the same time, and despite this, the country has a real issue with online hate and social media pile ons. There have been suicides as a result. It's a recognised problem.

 

[Vulcan]

Would that not drive away all our vegetarian and vegan members?

I’m not sure it’s about food, I think it might have something to do with sex?

 

[martin45]

Government set the judiciary landscape, they set, amend and enact the laws into legislature. The police then enforce said laws, then judiciary prosecute those laws.

When governments change laws or want to focus on one area, then the police and judiciary have to follow.

What you are describing is a dictatorship or similar rather than a democracy.

This is more a separation of powers problem in a democracy, usually governed by a constitution.

Most democratic countries allow the challenging of laws being brought in by a government by a judicial process and their rejection if necessary.

It usually allows challenges to the enforcement being carried out by a police or other enforcement agency to the judiciary.

When there is a situation where the judiciary is being "packed" with government "stooges", this is where democracy breaks down.

I can think of two countries where this is happening very publicly (but I'm not sure i would call one of them a democracy to start with!).

I'm not aware of it happening in Britain but I stand to be corrected about this.

 

[Spectric]

Maybe having nowhere to hide is a good thing so you must register for anything like social media accounts or a mobile phone so no more burners and that would create chaos for the gangs.

 

[Ollie78]

I know that people can become radicalised by what they are exposed to. Plenty of people have been radicalised before the internet as well, certain people are drawn to fanaticism.
You have to credit people with some intelligence and agency to think for themselves.

Even though you didn't? You called those people "crazy" - so how do we reconcile the crediting of all of the people with intelligence and agency to think for themselves, while at the same time acknowledging that some people are crazies?
It'd be interesting to have that discussion...

Are you suggesting I have in some way discredited someone or encroached on anyones rights to think for themselves? I just thought we were having an interesting discussion.

I specifically didn`t call those people crazy ( assuming you mean the radicalised people ). I did directly call the murderers of those politicians unhinged in a previous post. Do you think they were of sound mind ?

Radicalised people do not necessarily murder people many just try to convert people to whatever cause they support, many are lost and vulnerable people and as I said some people are particularly drawn to fanaticism for some reason. Only a few of them actually go and murder people, these ones are likely a bit "crazy".

I can easily reconcile the fact that people should be allowed to think for themselves and have agency to decide what to do in their own lives with the fact that some are crazy.
These two things can both be true.

This is just humanity, most people are generally good, trying to get on with their lives in peace. However, some people are crazy, evil, stupid, etc.
Similarly, some people are geniuses, have amazing talents and skills, are super caring etc.

I just think we don`t need thought police, any country or regime that has idea police has not been improved by it.

 

[Rhossydd]

I just think we don`t need thought police,

That's not the intention, only people trying to push their own agendas are suggesting that might be the intention.

Overall what this is about is effectively trying to put the standards we already have and accept on printed communication onto the online world.
I think most reasonable people accept and support that hard core pornography is kept out of the easy reach of children.
We don't want children and vulnerable people 'groomed' into doing things they wouldn't normally choose to do.
We also accept that adverts should be honest and truthful.

It's going to be exceptionally difficult and effectively impossible to achieve 100% compliance. But right now the internet can be a unregulated wild west and a degree of responsible control can only be a good thing for every user.

 

[Ollie78]

That's not the intention, only people trying to push their own agendas are suggesting that might be the intention.

Overall what this is about is effectively trying to put the standards we already have and accept on printed communication onto the online world.
I think most reasonable people accept and support that hard core pornography is kept out of the easy reach of children.
We don't want children and vulnerable people 'groomed' into doing things they wouldn't normally choose to do.
We also accept that adverts should be honest and truthful.

It's going to be exceptionally difficult and effectively impossible to achieve 100% compliance. But right now the internet can be a unregulated wild west and a degree of responsible control can only be a good thing for every user.

I understand the intention which I have no problem with in principle. I have no personal agenda to push, and obviously no control over what the government decides to do ( except my vote of course, but whoever we vote for we get politicians anyway ).

My worry is inevitable mission creep due to the extremely wide definitions of "harm" etc.
The internet always has been a completely unregulated wild west, that is part of its usefulness as well as its problems.

"responsible control can only be a good thing for every user" is fine, until it isn`t. and by then it could be too late.
Try looking up Tiananmen square 1989 in China. According to them it did not happen this is where control can end up if you let it.

 

[Rhossydd]

Try looking up Tiananmen square 1989 in China

Totally different culture and set of values.

The internet always has been a completely unregulated wild west, that is part of its usefulness

All the value I've got from the internet, and I've been using it since mosaic days, has come from sites that would easily conform to the proposed regulations.