UK gov't proposes additional internet censorship rules against "online harms"; fines for non-compliance

[Delicieuxz]

 

Internet watchdog, blocks & fines: UK outlines plans to protect citizens from all ‘online harms’

Quote

 

The UK has proposed a set of measures to regulate the internet by obliging tech giants to ‘protect’ users from ‘harmful’ content, with a watchdog blocking inappropriate websites and slapping fines on those refusing to cooperate.

The proposals, outlined in a white paper by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, call for creating a new, independent watchdog (or granting sweeping powers to an existing one, like Ofcom) to monitor online traffic and, if necessary, to block access to websites.

 

Besides eyeing "substantial" fines for non-compliance, lawmakers also want to see annual transparency reports from tech companies, and a full itinerary on how they addressed the dissemination of any harmful content. The regulator will also be empowered to hold individual executives of technology firms responsible if they fail to comply.

 

...

 

“For too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content,” Prime Minister Theresa May stated, endorsing the proposals.

 

...

 

While the British government’s initiative was welcomed by campaigners for safer internet use, some had concerns about the prospects of greater censorship. Matthew Lesh, head of research at the Adam Smith Institute, a UK-based neoliberal think tank and lobbying group, earlier argued that such a move would be an attack on “freedom of speech and the free press.”

 

Lesh suggests it would be hypocritical of Britain to impose such restrictions, when the UK government criticizes alleged violations of freedom of expression in countries such as China, Russia, and Iran.

 

 

 

Online Harms White Paper

Quote

 

1.    The government wants the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, and the best place to start and grow a digital business. Given the prevalence of illegal and harmful content online, and the level of public concern about online harms, not just in the UK but worldwide, we believe that the digital economy urgently needs a new regulatory framework to improve our citizens’ safety online. This will rebuild public confidence and set clear expectations of companies, allowing our citizens to enjoy more safely the benefits that online services offer.

 

The problem

2.    Illegal and unacceptable content and activity is widespread online, and UK users are concerned about what they see and experience on the internet. The prevalence of the most serious illegal content and activity, which threatens our national security or the physical safety of children, is unacceptable. Online platforms can be a tool for abuse and bullying, and they can be used to undermine our democratic values and debate. The impact of harmful content and activity can be particularly damaging for children, and there are growing concerns about the potential impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

 

3.    Terrorist groups use the internet to spread propaganda designed to radicalise vulnerable people, and distribute material designed to aid or abet terrorist attacks. There are also examples of terrorists broadcasting attacks live on social media. Child sex offenders use the internet to view and share child sexual abuse material, groom children online, and even live stream the sexual abuse of children.

 

4.    There is also a real danger that hostile actors use online disinformation to undermine our democratic values and principles. Social media platforms use algorithms which can lead to ‘echo chambers’ or ‘filter bubbles’, where a user is presented with only one type of content instead of seeing a range of voices and opinions. This can promote disinformation by ensuring that users do not see rebuttals or other sources that may disagree and can also mean that users perceive a story to be far more widely believed than it really is.

 

5.    Rival criminal gangs use social media to promote gang culture and incite violence. This, alongside the illegal sale of weapons to young people online, is a contributing factor to senseless violence, such as knife crime, on British streets.

 

6.    Other online behaviours or content, even if they may not be illegal in all circumstances, can also cause serious harm. The internet can be used to harass, bully or intimidate, especially people in vulnerable groups or in public life. Young adults or children may be exposed to harmful content that relates, for example, to self-harm or suicide. These experiences can have serious psychological and emotional impact. There are also emerging challenges about designed addiction to some digital services and excessive screen time.

 

 

The UK's approach to stopping unwanted activities has tended to be to increase government surveillance while reducing privacy and personal freedom, as these other examples show:

 

UN slams Britain’s ‘Big Brother’ anti-terrorism strategy

A long list of sex acts just got banned in UK porn

Why the UK's porn block is one of the worst ideas ever

 

I expect that the approach of trying to stop bad things by just piling on more rules creates a stressful and frustrating environment for those living within it.

 

And with ambiguous and potentially-ominous wording to the UK's new proposal such as "The government wants the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online", and, "Other online behaviours or content, even if they may not be illegal in all circumstances, can also cause serious harm", and considered in context with the UK's previous heavy-handed and over-bearing censorship and anti-privacy measures, I'm concerned that the UK government could be once again preparing to throw out a lot proverbial 'baby' to go along with the 'bathwater'.

[Sauron]

UK: "We need to block 'harmful' content!"

VPN providers:

[myselfolli]

seems like the UK hasn't ever heard of VPNs... You can't control or censor the internet, people tried doing that to porn back in the day and we all know how well that worked -.-

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, myselfolli said:

people tried doing that to porn back in the day

That is law right now in the UK

[3 Lions]

32 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Prime Minister Theresa May stated, endorsing the proposals.

Mrs May, sort Brexit out first. 

[GoldenLag]

37 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 There is also a real danger that hostile actors use online disinformation to undermine our democratic values and principles. Social media platforms use algorithms which can lead to ‘echo chambers’ or ‘filter bubbles’, where a user is presented with only one type of content instead of seeing a range of voices and opinions. This can promote disinformation by ensuring that users do not see rebuttals or other sources that may disagree and can also mean that users perceive a story to be far more widely believed than it really is.

trying to avoid this will quite often lead to broken content recommenders. the algorythms are made to maximize watchtime or activity on the plattform. this quite often leads to "content-bubbles", either it being rocket physics or Meme reviews

[Taf the Ghost]

"But won't you think of the children!", from the same folks have cover up large scale human trafficking. 

 

Though, this one seems to be less specific and more in the general category of "You're guilty of something if we decide you are guilty of something". Authoritarian regimes have a need for everyone to be guilty of something when they want them to be in a vaguely "legal" enough way that it doesn't activate the automatic disgust trigger from the locals. There's a reason chunks of the American Constitution are written the way they are. We've seen this story before, this is just another terrible cash grab sequel of it.

 

Everything these people say is their reasoning is just cover for the actual reason they want to do something. Though this one has a tinge of "make work program" for the local governments, as well. 

[williamcll]

VPNs would only work if the website is hosted outside of the UK, I would ISPs won't be this dumb anymore.

[yian88]

48 minutes ago, myselfolli said:

seems like the UK hasn't ever heard of VPNs... You can't control or censor the internet, people tried doing that to porn back in the day and we all know how well that worked -.-

Dont put hope on VPN's they are the next target of the UK gov, and all governments around the world will censor or block or force VPN's to abide by the laws.

There is no free internet anymore and is going to get really restricted soon everywhere.

The past free internet where you could share and enjoy whatever, which sadly included a lot of illegal stuff, is dying and the good things with it.

Torrenting, cracking, video piracy is going away and no you cant do anything about it, this is the same in every domain, these people who make laws dont have anything better to do other than making more rules of law, get it? take for example building a house, it was so much easier 1-200 years ago, but with time it became so regulated it costs more to get the land, the permits, power and so on than the cost of the materials, and you cant even build it yourself anymore it has to be an authorized company that builds and it has to respect hundreds of environmental laws and materials you cannot use.

Why do you think housing is only getting more and more expensive, apart from demand, due to regulation is getting more costly to build anything.

Same  applies to anything, car companies have very strict pollution/safety standards to implement, starting a car company is pretty much DOA, only big corp. can produce something new in auto industry.

Same will happen with internet everywhere, very strict regulation, gov manipulation, online monitoring of people, and not too long after social credit score like China, but more "moderate".

 

[suicidalfranco]

Just UK being UK

Move along nothing to see here 

[paddy-stone]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

This can promote disinformation by ensuring that users do not see rebuttals or other sources that may disagree and can also mean that users perceive a story to be far more widely believed than it really is.

Oh the irony

[jiyeon]

Can the UK government do anything right or even have an idea of how the internet works?

 

They're blocking pornographic content even though VPNs exist...

[Brooksie359]

I agree with some of the stuff they are trying to protect against but I am a bit baffled that they need a new law to fight against content that is clearly illegal. 

[duncannah]

It looks it's in in good faith, but it's obviously not going to work with the current way the Internet works; there will always be a way to pass information and such

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

Can we have a parlexit instead? Fuck this shitty government seriously...

[Trik'Stari]

The appropriate action here by the tech giants would be to completely close up shop and ban all users from the UK. Shutdown all servers and services they own, within the UK.

 

Watch the peoples reaction when their facebook accounts, twitter accounts, google accounts, etc. all get deleted and all service to the UK is shutdown.

 

Not that the will of the people seems to matter in the UK, but I feel like some shit would go down if they did this.

[Billy Pilgrim]

UK: The EU's laws are too restrictive. Take Article 13 for example. The only solution is leaving.

 

Also UK: The internet is dangerous. Let's Censor it.

[79wjd]

45 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

The appropriate action here by the tech giants would be to completely close up shop and ban all users from the UK. Shutdown all servers and services they own, within the UK.

 

Watch the peoples reaction when their facebook accounts, twitter accounts, google accounts, etc. all get deleted and all service to the UK is shutdown.

 

Not that the will of the people seems to matter in the UK, but I feel like some shit would go down if they did this.

Yeah....private companies using their power to regulate governments is no better than governments using their power to regulate companies.

[Trik'Stari]

30 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Yeah....private companies using their power to regulate governments is no better than governments using their power to regulate companies.

I don't disagree, but what would the UK actually be able to do about it?

 

Hell, they could just shutdown all services for a bit like they did over SOPA here in the US. Just completely redirect all traffic from the UK to a webpage saying how idiotic this law is and how it needs to stop.

[79wjd]

12 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I don't disagree, but what would the UK actually be able to do about it?

 

Hell, they could just shutdown all services for a bit like they did over SOPA here in the US. Just completely redirect all traffic from the UK to a webpage saying how idiotic this law is and how it needs to stop.

Oh absolutely, these tech companies could literally screw over the world (at least in the short term) if they wanted to. 

[KE2012]

1 hour ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

UK: The EU's laws are too restrictive. Take Article 13 for example. The only solution is leaving.

 

Also UK: The internet is dangerous. Let's Censor it.

Small correction 

UK People: 

The EU's laws are too restrictive. Take Article 13 for example. The only solution is leaving

 

UK's disconnected parliament: 

The internet is dangerous. Let's Censor it and remove / restrict people's freedoms online.

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

Yeah....private companies using their power to regulate governments is no better than governments using their power to regulate companies.

Divide and conquer (or from the perspective of the common man: divide and try-not-to-get-caught-in-the-crossfire) - resources & time the deep-pocketed interests spend fighting each other is resources & time they are not directly spending on the continued subjugation of the general populace.

[poochyena]

Imagine if someone walked onto your property and then killed someone. These types of legislation would make you responsible for the murder simply because it happened on your property.

What is even the logic to this?

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Imagine if someone walked onto your property and then killed someone. These types of legislation would make you responsible for the murder simply because it happened on your property.

What is even the logic to this?

In many US states you ARE liable if a burglar trips and breaks their leg while trying to break into your house.

[poochyena]

28 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

In many US states you ARE liable if a burglar trips and breaks their leg while trying to break into your house.

completely irrelevant since that is something caused by your actions that you are aware of. I'm specifically referring to instances that you are unaware of.