UK's Online Safety Bill drops rules forcing social media to remove 'legal but harmful' content
- Reference: 1669789814
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/11/30/uk_online_safety_bill/
- Source link:
The change comes after lawmakers and activists raised concerns it could have a chilling effect on free speech online. In the previous version of the Bill, companies like Twitter or Meta faced sanctions if they failed to remove specific types of content considered harmful, but not illegal, by the British government.
Lawmakers, however, have decided to scrap this rule over fears that it could give the government power to crack down on content and risks curtailing people's freedom of speech.
[1]
"The Bill will no longer define specific types of legal content that companies must address," the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport [2]confirmed in a statement. "This removes any influence future governments could have on what private companies do about legal speech on their sites, or any risk that companies are motivated to take down legitimate posts to avoid sanctions."
[3]Children should have separate sections in social media sites, says UK coroner
[4]Tories spar over UK's delayed Online Safety Bill
[5]Nadine Dorries promotes 'Brexit rewards' of proposed UK data protection law
[6]Scanning phones to detect child abuse evidence is harmful, 'magical' thinking
Social media companies will still be required to remove illegal content, related to criminal activities such as fraud, threats to kill, harass and stalk people, the sale of illicit drugs and weapons, and revenge pornography. They will, however, be free to set their own policies on how to deal with content that may be harmful but isn't illegal to post in their terms of service. If they do decide to take down any content or ban a user, they will have to allow users to appeal the decision.
Ofcom will be entitled to sanction companies who fail to enforce their own rules appropriately up to 10 per cent of their annual turnover.
[7]
The Online Safety Bill was designed with protecting children in mind. Platforms will have to publish their terms of service for younger users, including specifying a minimum age, explaining how they verify age if they use facial recognition technology, for example. Clear warnings about the potential risks and dangers children might face using the social media application need to be provided too.
Earlier this year, a coroner ruled social media content glorifying self-harm had contributed "more than minimally" to the suicide of 14-year-old Molly Russell. Her death prompted the government to introduce a new criminal offence for assisting or encouraging self-harm and suicide.
[8]
Officials want social media companies to build new tools that will give all users the ability to block anonymous accounts and control the types of content listed on their feeds. They should be able to minimize posts on topics they wish to avoid and flag content that is unlawful or harmful to children.
The latest changes made to the Online Safety Bill will be discussed amongst Members of Parliament in the Commons for Report Stage on December 5. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y4c3zh1vAW1Mo-HQVGLJDAAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-protections-for-children-and-free-speech-added-to-internet-laws
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/18/social_media_separate/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/15/online_safety_bill_delayed/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/05/culture_secretary_data_bill_uk/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/13/clientside_scanning_csam_anderson/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y4c3zh1vAW1Mo-HQVGLJDAAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y4c3zh1vAW1Mo-HQVGLJDAAAAFI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: not upsetting GBeebies viewers is more important than stopping online bullying or plotting
wikipedia describes it as 'Fallacy of composition'
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
"Lawful but awful" ... aren't they the people who make the laws? Sounds like "we want you to stop embarrassing us, but not in a way where people can say that the drawbacks are our fault."
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
I agree that this bill enforces current practice (which includes the need to take down illegal stuff so its not the wild west). One problem is one persons bullying and harassment is another's right to express an opinion - the 'discussions' regarding trans-rights is an issue going on now where any debate or disagreement can end in the police knocking on your door.
We can all agree that there is (amongst other things) horrendous bullying that ends in youth suicide and needs to be stopped. But after that where is the subjective scale set? The good intent of legislation today isn't how it's used tomorrow - road to hell and all that...
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
Ah yes, the po-po showing up at your door as you posted something that 'someone might find offensive'. Not long and it will be because you might post something that someone might find offensive.
It was quite funny after Queenie popped her clogs where protesters were getting arrested and there was much screeching BUT it was the very laws these screechers had called for to 'stop hate speech' that had backfired on them.
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
"...plotting someone's death" is conspiracy to commit murder, which is very much illegal.
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
Unless you are a member of antifa in which case it is a noble cause.
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
whoo edgy.
You do know that an anti-anti-fascist is a Fucking fascist.
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
Odd how antifas tactics can be quite simply described as that very thing they claim to be against. Do as we say, think as we say and conform to our will or we will smash and burn and attack you.
Putting 'anti' in your name does not actually make you anti the thing especially as the thing they claim to be anti is a left wing socialist ideology. (yes, it is, look it up, its roots are in French socialism)
Re: An exercise in pointlessness
However the social media platform only has to take action when illegal content "has been reported or they become aware of its presence" (doesn't often happen for a conspiracy to commit murder) and maybe even then that only appears to be relevant for women and girls. [1]Online Safety Bill: factsheet
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-bill-supporting-documents/online-safety-bill-factsheet
Still a mess of a bill.
There still alot of major problems with the bill such as the unworkable Age Verification plans and Client-Side-Scanning.
Re: Still a mess of a bill.
I understand the stated reasons for client side scanning, but that could be so abused it's unreal. This is why apple got massive backlash when they said they were going to do this.
So, a good idea never to install a social media app on your phone or computer going forward, and if you do have one, uninstall it.
Re: Still a mess of a bill.
"but that could be so abused it's unreal"
Better still, impossible to detect misuse, since you can't tell what a given image hash refers to. It might be an illegal image or it might be something embarrassing to a politician. Then, by collecting the creation date, they could identify the source.
Social Credit Score
Every government penetrated by Klaus Schwab's minions is introducing some form of such bill. This bill is crucial when it comes to collection of data points from which your social credit score could be calculated.
Saying something against Great Narrative privately to your friends? Minus 10 points for you. Oh you talked about going to that fancy restaurant? That booking has been cancelled for you.
This bill has nothing to do with "online safety", but it is more about the safety of the future regime.
Re: Social Credit Score
It is working ‘so well’ in China right now, as we are currently witnessing
Re: Social Credit Score
It will take time to make it "perfect". Imagine the scale of protests if China didn't have any surveillance deployed.
Re: Social Credit Score
Shhhhh!!! We must not speak badly of our overlords! Remember the great reset is just a far right conspiracy theory and in reality it is all sunshine and puppies.
Re: Social Credit Score
reality is not sunshine and puppies, but thats down to right wing nutters.
your not supposed to tie the tin foil so tight your brains start leaking garbage, loosen it a bit you'll feel a lot better
Re: Social Credit Score
It is the left who are destroying the world. You're just conditioned to see it backwards.
We have always been at war with east Eurasia!
Re: Social Credit Score
The bill does the exact opposite of "enforce the great narrative" but apparently you're still not happy.
It makes it illegal for social media company to not follow the law and makes it possible for a social media company to be fined if it doesn't follow its own terms of service. Let's see if you can work out what the net effect of that is.
Re: Social Credit Score
It makes it illegal for social media company to not follow the law
Did you read that before posting?
Re: Social Credit Score
I'm not sure they did. Maybe one too many bug burgers.
Re: Social Credit Score
Yes, I did read it before I posted. This is the point I'm making. Why not read through the factsheet?
Re: Social Credit Score
When did it become legal to not follow the law? Did I miss a meeting?
Re: Social Credit Score
It's called an exception. Or sovereignty. Or both. We could get into all kinds of jurisprudential arguments here. What *IS* law? What is *Law*? Where does is come from?
Re: Social Credit Score
your tinfoil hat is on backwards, it seems to be stopping blood getting to your brain cell
Social Media - a perfect example, in this digital age, of humans exploiting other humans for profit and gain. Our recorded human history is full of such behaviour. Such exploitative compulsion appears to be hard-wired into our very nature. Dangle the highly addictive shiny shiny digital treats in front of the defenceless masses and we simply cannot ignore the wonderful promises of a better, digital, existence - oh joy!
Social Media offers us absolutely nothing of any meaningful substance or practical use!
And yet here we are, with more sticking-plaster legislation, which I sadly doubt, will prove to be anywhere near fit for purpose and yet it will give the great unwashed masses a sense that the gubermint (whatever the flavour de jour happens to be), is taking real and meaningful action!
I also take issue with the use of the phrase "online safety", as I feel that it provides an entirely false sense of security in what is, in fact, an extremely impersonal and inherently unsafe environment to navigate!
Long gone are the days of ROFL copters, trying to find the last part of that MIME encoded picture you really want to see from usenet and emailing your friends to see who has the missing network terminator from the last Doom LAN party.
Pardon me but ...
"This removes any influence future governments could have on what private companies do about legal speech on their sites..."
A complete load of plural spherical objects. Any future government can amend, repeal or create any law it pleases. A fundamental constitutional principle is that no legislation can be enacted that has force in perpetuity.
An exercise in pointlessness
The government said "The Bill will no longer define specific types of legal content that companies must address. This removes any influence future governments could have on what private companies do about legal speech on their sites, or any risk that companies are motivated to take down legitimate posts to avoid sanctions" which is a long-winded way of saying they're doing nothing about lawful but awful posts. Any future government can just change the law again anyway.
Social media companies can be fined if they don't follow their own terms of service so that's hardly going to be a challenge for them. In the very worst case they can just change their TOS and avoid a fine.
So in other words the bill is legally enforcing what is current practice and no more. It seems not upsetting GBeebies viewers is more important than stopping online bullying or [1]plotting someone's death , however in a nod towards dystopia facial recognition is permitted to identify minors, so I'm sure the government consider that a win.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-63479190