Britain proposes 'super-complaints' to help keep the internet safe
- Reference: 1700223072
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/11/17/supercomplaints_proposed/
- Source link:
The [1]proposal is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the government cites the example of a social media platform removing legal content that its terms don't prohibit, thus attracting the ire of free-speech advocates. On the other hand, a super-complaint might also be used to flag up social media features that some groups feel expose users – and children – to harmful content.
Element's head of policy and compliance, Denise Almeida, told The Register that the approach was sensible when it came to monitoring and reacting to illegal content without breaking encryption and implementing blanket surveillance.
[2]
She added: "However, we do need to ensure the process will not be used to delay the implementation of important security features. Or even worse, allow certain people or organizations given the right to submit 'super-complaints' an excuse to attack end-to-end-encryption again.
[3]
[4]
"Whether or not Ofcom has the bandwidth to react to the amount of super-complaints that are submitted is another question."
Almeida's point is valid. Part of the consultation is to gather views on the criteria for who can actually make a super-complaint, its format and conditions, and how Ofcom should respond.
[5]
Michelle Donelan, UK secretary of state for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, said: "The super-complaints process will allow organizations to make Ofcom aware of new challenges quickly and efficiently, making sure the ambition and promise of the Online Safety Act can keep pace with evolving trends, protecting people online for decades to come."
The Online Safety Act [6]was signed off at the end of October with the aim of making Blighty "the safest place in the world to be online." Companies such as Element and Signal have expressed [7]alarm at some of the clauses within, notably [8]section 122 [PDF] that allows Ofcom to scan for suspect content using "accredited technology."
How that squares with encrypted communication has yet to be tested. Hopefully, as Almeida said, not with a super-complaint.
[9]King Charles III signs off on UK Online Safety Act, with unenforceable spying clause
[10]Australia threatens X with fine, warns Google, for failure to comply with child abuse handling report regs
[11]Judge sides with Meta and Google, puts California child privacy law on hold
[12]'We hate what you've done with the place – especially the hate' Australia tells Twitter
Gill Whitehead, Ofcom's Online Safety Group director, trotted out the think-of-the-children justification for the new online safety laws along with protecting free speech. She said: "We've assembled a world-class team so we can keep a close eye on issues as they emerge, and we've already set out our first [13]blueprint for what tech firms need to do to tackle illegal harms."
The [14]consultation is set to close on January 11, 2024, and will deal with defining an eligible entity and the procedure for Online Safety Act super-complaints. The draft criteria include requirements around impartiality, integrity, experience, and competence in representing groups in the UK. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/childrens-charities-and-free-speech-groups-could-be-allowed-to-submit-super-complaints-to-ofcom-to-keep-internet-safe
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZVecNtp4kxZLn6etJVbZBwAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZVecNtp4kxZLn6etJVbZBwAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZVecNtp4kxZLn6etJVbZBwAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZVecNtp4kxZLn6etJVbZBwAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/27/online_safety_act_charles/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/uk_government_clause_online_safety_bill/
[8] https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/52368/documents/3841
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/27/online_safety_act_charles/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/16/esafetty_australia_google_x_noncompliance/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/19/california_kids_privacy_law_blocked/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/22/australia_demands_twitter_explain_moderation/
[13] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/protecting-people-from-illegal-content-online
[14] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/super-complaints-eligible-entity-criteria-and-procedural-requirements
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Super?
It seems like a borderline-reasonable idea if viewed without any consideration for reality. So, I suppose, it aligns perfectly with the wider Online """Safety""" Bill.
Re: Super?
It's more like to enable big corporations to stifle competition.
Oh you have a nice feature over there, and you are growing so quick! Shame if our army of solicitors lodged a super complaint about it.
Re: Super?
Double top-secret super complaint
Re: Super?
The new super-complaints system to be known as KAREN
So posting imported American Christian nationalist anti-lgbtqia+ "free speech" aka bigotry will be A-OK but heaven forbid you advocate for refugees, suggest a 5 eyes ally might be in the wrong, advocate for lgbtqia+
Yeah I can see exactly where this is going.....whether under the "tell me a story" Tories or Tory-lite under their current leader who didn't at all come from an extremely well heeled background....
"their current leader who didn't at all come from an extremely well heeled background"
Please! Keir Starmer's father was a toolmaker.
Of course, if Starmer Senior had done us all a favour and worn a condom, none of this would be true.
Re: "their current leader who didn't at all come from an extremely well heeled background"
He was a toolmaker and made tool.
So posting imported American Christian nationalist anti-lgbtqia+ "free speech" aka bigotry will be A-OK but heaven forbid you advocate for refugees, suggest a 5 eyes ally might be in the wrong, advocate for lgbtqia+
Depends what you mean, but seems to be the point-
The proposal is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the government cites the example of a social media platform removing legal content that its terms don't prohibit, thus attracting the ire of free-speech advocates.
Or anti-free speech advocates. So some religions view the LGB stuff as wrong, immoral, not compatible with their religion. Religious freedoms are protected characteristics, as are most aspects of sexuality and gender. Activist members of the alphabet brigade can be just as bigoted as religious fundamentalists, and both groups sometimes need protecting from each other. There should be scope for rational debate on religious grounds, but 'burn the switch bitch!' should perhaps get taken down. Especially as Wiccans are also protected.
Same's true with any divisive subject. We should de-platform anyone who doesn't like Marmite! On stuff like refugees, there is again scope for rational debate. Like apparently our Border Farce picked up an unseaworthy boat load of illegal immigrants that a French vessel had escorted into our waters. The vessel was clearly unseaworthy, so per SOLAS, the French should have intercepted them and returned them to France. Meanwhile, Finland's complaining that Russia is allowing illegal immigrants to cross into Finland. If France does it, why shouldn't Russia? Why are we paying France a lot of money to stop illegal immigrants, not pay to provide them an escort service?
muh both sides
one group wants to simply exist and spread their shared experiences and the other wants to kill or drive to suicide every queer person
this is not the same and free speech needs controls so that the oppressed feel free to speak instead of just the oppressors
" rational debate on religious grounds "
There's nothing rational about one doing the bidding of an imaginary sky fairy.
There's nothing rational about one doing the bidding of an imaginary sky fairy.
That's kind of the point. I could probably argue that that's hate speech, especially given the alternative meanings of 'fairy'. Should I now demand you be deplatformed for mocking the beliefs of a few billion people? Plenty of people do stuff that others may consider irrational. I've jumped out of perfectly good airplanes because it's fun. Maybe I start believing in a flying spaghetti monster, and why shouldn't I, if my beliefs harm nobody?
I think a lot of it's back to people not understanding Karl Popper's comments on tolerance, and becoming more intolerant as a result.
It's just the atheist fundamentalists being as predicable and boring as any other belief system's fundamentalists.
> Activist members of the alphabet brigade can be just as bigoted as religious fundamentalists
Although there are relatively fewer gay bombings of churches / murders of bishops by drag queens
However
.. there are threats and incitements to "punch *** in the face" where *** is some group that is not agreed with. So, fairly violent.
"but heaven forbid you advocate for refugees,"
I think you will soon find that the boot is firmly on the other foot, because the test of competence will largely be a way of encompassing NGOs, who (in my view) already have a wildly disproportionate influence on government policy making.
>NGOs, who (in my view) already have a wildly disproportionate influence on government policy making.
Like ACPO ?
supercomplaint
when millions of individual complaints would be ignored, because of the volume thus cost, and those placed 'on behalf of', by a few, no doubt, carefully selected partners, might be actually read. Ironically, even those 'few' might be too many:
"Whether or not Ofcom has the bandwidth to react to the amount of super-complaints that are submitted is another question."
Perhaps we should start considering supervoting, eh? After all, cost-optimisation is humanity's driving force.
Re: supercomplaint
Supervoting? Wouldn't that imply that only members of the currently elected party get to vote in the next election?
Hyper
Next year we will have hyper complaint tier.
In two years ultra complaint.
In three years ultimate complaint.
...
Re: Hyper
How much is it for the super platinum plus complaint with 3 colour foam ?
Re: Hyper
And then they’ll add a subscription option to “fast track” the top tier clients
Re: Hyper
Ultimate Complaint Pro
Re: Hyper
But then everyone will get access to super ultimate platinum complaints free with their credit card.
Then we go back to just needing to complain privately
I suppose when you pass legislation that's inherently broken it's entirely consistent to propose equally broken stuff to surround it. I wonder how long it'll take for ministers - of any political persuasion - to grasp this.
Common Sense
I guess this was proposed before the new Minister for Common Sense was introduced...
Suyer-complaints process and preventing exposing users to “harmful content”
a. How about the people making the "super-complaints" just not read the stuff.
b. Define “harmful content” ?
c. What self appointed entity gets to define “harmful content” ?
d. Why is it in the remit of “social media” platforms to shield us from such ?
This whole thing is just a pretext to shut-down free speech online. I've recently noticed a concerted effort to shut-down unorthodox opinions across social media. Something to do with the upcoming US 2024 presidential election. If you feed people the lie with no access to alternative views then they have no choice but to believe the lie.
--
A bit of a [1]Typo on the website: “ Suyer-complaints process is designed to help Ofcom stay on top of systemic harmful trends and emerging threats. ”
ps: If your msgs pass through a server then it ain't end-to-end-encryption ;)
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20231116124627/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/childrens-charities-and-free-speech-groups-could-be-allowed-to-submit-super-complaints-to-ofcom-to-keep-internet-safe
Re: Suyer-complaints process and preventing exposing users to “harmful content”
"If your msgs pass through a server then it ain't end-to-end-encryption"
What about asymmetric key encryption, e.g.PGP?
Super?
So, the difference between a normal complaint and a super complaint is that normal complaints by normal people are (and will continue to be) ignored, while the new super complaints (made by some designated super complainants) will actually be heard?
Isn't that just formalising the current setup where anyone within the old boys' network can get their complaint heard while the hoi polloi are routinely ignored??