OFCOM to Regulate Social Media in the UK

[redbread123]

11 hours ago, IAcKI said:

Sources:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51446665

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/11/social-media-sites-could-blocked-uk-ofcom-gets-job-policing/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ofcom-youtube-facebook-twitter-online-harms-regulation-law-a9330971.html

 

New powers will be given to the watchdog Ofcom to force social media firms to act over harmful content.

Until now, firms like Facebook, Tiktok, YouTube, Snapchat and Twitter have largely been self-regulating.

The companies have defended their own rules about taking down unacceptable content, but critics say independent rules are needed to keep people safe.

It is unclear what penalties Ofcom will be able to enforce to target violence, cyber-bullying and child abuse.

There have been widespread calls for social media firms to take more responsibility for their content, especially after the death of Molly Russell who took her own life after viewing graphic content on Instagram.

Later on Wednesday, the government will officially announce the new powers for Ofcom - which currently only regulates the media, not internet safety - as part of its plans for a new legal duty of care.

Ofcom will have the power to make tech firms responsible for protecting people from harmful content such as violence, terrorism, cyber-bullying and child abuse - and platforms will need to ensure that content is removed quickly.

They will also be expected to "minimise the risks" of it appearing at all.

 

Opinion:
Seems just another nail in the coffin of Internet freedom. How a board are going to be able to decide if something is offensive to people is beyond me. Seems old hats trying to make the internet like traditional media. OFCOM already remove adverts from air after very few complaints from 'career moaners'. All we can ope is they're a little more lenient when it comes to this regulation; only removing terrorism videos etc.

why is uk suck so much lately with all these bans and reinforcements and whatever

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

1) Fair enough, I apologise. Funny thing is we seem to agree on sentiment, it's the details where the disagreement begins.

 

2) It shouldn't. I just don't think censorship is the way forward. Once you start censoring people then tend to take their activities underground and as long as there's kids with access to the internet there's someone willing to provide them with the means to 'socialise'. It's better out in the open than on some end to end encrypted platform where nobody except the bullies and victims can see it.

 

3) One perfect example, anti terror laws passed after 9/11. The laws were intended to protect the public from people wishing to do them harm. These days they're nothing but a catch all used by the police for profiling and to perform otherwise illegal searches and activities.

 

Let’s hope that this law does work in a positive way. Many years ago I had the miss-fortune to be working at a place that investigates online child exploitation etc and it really had quite an effect. We have phishing sites, sites dedicated to to conning people out of their hard earned, billions of dollars in 2019 according to today’s FBI report. There is a lot of work to be done, so thing I know you understand. Now while I am sceptical that OFCOM will be able to do anything or have the cajones they currently seem to lack, I am willing to give them a chance.

[weeblord]

Just another brick in the wall for an Orwellian government. Now how I am I going to watch porn in peace?

10 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

It won't be long until anything the government even slightly disagrees with will be judged as harmful and outright banned. Porn will be the first target and I'd bet everything I own on that.

Oh, right. I can't.

[Master Disaster]

32 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Let’s hope that this law does work in a positive way. Many years ago I had the miss-fortune to be working at a place that investigates online child exploitation etc and it really had quite an effect. We have phishing sites, sites dedicated to to conning people out of their hard earned, billions of dollars in 2019 according to today’s FBI report. There is a lot of work to be done, so thing I know you understand. Now while I am sceptical that OFCOM will be able to do anything or have the cajones they currently seem to lack, I am willing to give them a chance.

I hope so too. Can i also say that I fully agree with you on the fact that this is an important topic and the conversation absolutely needs to take place. If this generation of kids is as bad as they are god knows how bad the next generation will be.

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Because some companies are doing almost nothing to stop grooming, sale of harmful goods and sexual exploitation online even after it is reported. Just yesterday I was reading about Pornhub ignoring pleas from a 14yr old rape victim to have the video of her abuse by multiple rapists taken down. Clearly that is harmful for the victim and her family and friends. If the company will not do anything then they need to be slapped around the face until they bloody well do.

I would think existing laws should be able to deem that content 100% illegal. I don't believe a law like this is necessary to address things like that. 

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, chiller15 said:

That title is misleading, as OFCOM will only be regulating social media under this change, not the entire Internet.

 

Honestly? I'm all for OFCOM regulating social media. I work in a school and I regularly take evidence from children's phones (yes, despite it being an 11-16 school and they're often referred to as students or young people...they are still children at the end of the day)...the stuff that I see is horrendous. The way they talk to each other and things they send each other. It's not just bullying, there's sexual content, weapons/gangs, racism (a whole lot of racism) and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Yes, these things happen offline too, however it's become so much easier to do and get away with online than in 'real life'. It needs to be regulated.

Honestly I think this type of system is just plain dumb and likely won't fix the problem you are referring to. I honestly think they should just ban social media for people under the age of 18. I mean the increase in suicide rate in young people who grew up with social media being a thing vs people who didn't get it until after they were 18 is actually insane. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would think existing laws should be able to deem that content 100% illegal. I don't believe a law like this is necessary to address things like that. 

I think the problem is that where this type of content is hosted overseas it is often impossible to regulate. So this way the companies can have an agency tell them to remove it with a sanction their site, and so ad revenue, will be blocked. If the site is in a country where we have the ability to sanction, they could be acted upon directly.

[Andreas Lilja]

14 hours ago, IAcKI said:

There have been widespread calls for social media firms to take more responsibility for their content, especially after the death of Molly Russell who took her own life after viewing graphic content on Instagram.

"Molly's father Ian says he believes Instagram is partly responsible for his daughter's death."

 

BBC doesn't seem to dissociate between what her parents believe and fact.

[chiller15]

 

18 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Ahh yes, the biggest nanny state in the world, the UK, want to regulate what people say online.

I am not surprised in the slightest. And of course "think of the children" is the main argument.

  Did you read my posts regarding how bad online bullying is for today's children?

16 hours ago, huilun02 said:

OFCOM cant stop physical bullying either. You got a suggestion?

No they can't, however when in the 'real world', you're in a social environment where there are repercusions, should that victim say something. In schools, it's the responsibility of the staff to act on reports of bullying or more severe acts. Outside of school the police can be involved, in cases like racism and other more serious cases.

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I think this type of system is just plain dumb and likely won't fix the problem you are referring to. I honestly think they should just ban social media for people under the age of 18. I mean the increase in suicide rate in young people who grew up with social media being a thing vs people who didn't get it until after they were 18 is actually insane. 

And how are you going to enforce that ban?

[LePawel]

22 hours ago, Phill104 said:

I am sure a lot of the world get that impression. However, a lot of it is perpetrated by the scum that call themselves newspapers here. Really, some spread hope and fear just to sell newspapers. Actual reporting is no longer the norm, instead they spout bile and hatred as well as complete lies.Seriously, we have some of the worst press on the planet for this and it gives an impression to the rest of the world that is simply not true. 

 

In this case should we allow sites showing rape, abuse, paedophilia, racial hatred, advice on how to be a better bully? I certainly hope in the future the worst of these can be weeded out.

I get you're passionate about this, but I disagree. Government body deciding what is or isn't news-worthy or worse valid on a public forum is a road to censorship, always.
Newspapers that talk shite will die off with the generation that reads them. If you want them to stop generating these articles stop opening their websites, educate people around you to do the same. Government is not the answer here

It's up to the individual to decide what you read/watch, you cannot force that choice down people's throats, that leads to indoctrination, control of the media when abused.

Offense itself is subjective, some will find BBC news articles talking about cases of "rape, abuse, paedophillia" offensive, is just talking about these too much? what defines abuse? same for racial hatred, what is considered hate in one context is friendly in another, UK's "hate-speech" laws literally say it's up to the offended to decide what constitutes offensive content, there's no definition.

UK already has laws against discrimination and abuse, and ridiculously strict ones at that, they are so seletively enforced however it's no wonder it sometimes feels like there's nothing in place.

On top of that Brits are so self-concious and scared of speaking their minds it's a genuine minefield talking about anything "controversial" in my office, they're voluntarily surrendering itself to the Gov, but then it feels like UK was always about passing another law, that'll surely fix it (check: porn filter). It's conflict avoidance at all costs, because otherwise you're called an -ist and we all know that's like, super bad!

There are very simple solutions to these problems, like classifying social media as either a publisher or a platform, and enforcing law based on that classification.

You don't need more government bodies doing more pointless busy work while complaining there's not enough money from taxes to fund the NHS.

 

/rant

 

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, LePawel said:

I get you're passionate about this, but I disagree. Government body deciding what is or isn't news-worthy or worse valid on a public forum is a road to censorship, always.
Newspapers that talk shite will die off with the generation that reads them. If you want them to stop generating these articles stop opening their websites, educate people around you to do the same. Government is not the answer here

It's up to the individual to decide what you read/watch, you cannot force that choice down people's throats, that leads to indoctrination, control of the media when abused.

Offense itself is subjective, some will find BBC news articles talking about cases of "rape, abuse, paedophillia" offensive, is just talking about these too much? what defines abuse? same for racial hatred, what is considered hate in one context is friendly in another, UK's "hate-speech" laws literally say it's up to the offended to decide what constitutes offensive content, there's no definition.

UK already has laws against discrimination and abuse, and ridiculously strict ones at that, they are so seletively enforced however it's no wonder it sometimes feels like there's nothing in place.

On top of that Brits are so self-concious and scared of speaking their minds it's a genuine minefield talking about anything "controversial" in my office, they're voluntarily surrendering itself to the Gov, but then it feels like UK was always about passing another law, that'll surely fix it (check: porn filter). It's conflict avoidance at all costs, because otherwise you're called an -ist and we all know that's like, super bad!

There are very simple solutions to these problems, like classifying social media as either a publisher or a platform, and enforcing law based on that classification.

You don't need more government bodies doing more pointless busy work while complaining there's not enough money from taxes to fund the NHS.

 

/rant

 

That's very rant-ist of you

 

Seriously though, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LePawel said:

I get you're passionate about this, but I disagree. Government body deciding what is or isn't news-worthy or worse valid on a public forum is a road to censorship, always.
Newspapers that talk shite will die off with the generation that reads them. If you want them to stop generating these articles stop opening their websites, educate people around you to do the same. Government is not the answer here

It's up to the individual to decide what you read/watch, you cannot force that choice down people's throats, that leads to indoctrination, control of the media when abused.

The thing is, the press here have become very influential and powerful. They have become pawns so to speak. Sadly some take things too far, such as the news of the world which closed as a result. It just opened under a new name in truth. I will not comment on my hatred of the Daily Mail and Express newspapers.

1 hour ago, LePawel said:

Offense itself is subjective, some will find BBC news articles talking about cases of "rape, abuse, paedophillia" offensive, is just talking about these too much? what defines abuse? same for racial hatred, what is considered hate in one context is friendly in another, UK's "hate-speech" laws literally say it's up to the offended to decide what constitutes offensive content, there's no definition.

Offence is one thing. I am of the strong opinion that if you are offended by something I say, so what!. It is your choice to be either offended or, discuss the matter. I am always happy to discuss things and if I am proved wrong I will hold my hands up. This however is not about offence, at least that I how I see it. It is about stopping activity that could result in the injury or death of someone. Suicide forums are a prime example of this, or websites where someone can see themselves being abused or raped. They exist, and I have linked to stories about them. There needs to be some way of taking that kind of material down. There are also plenty of people in any country that lack the mental capacity to understand what is meant to be a joke. Now those kinds of sites I have nothing against, such as videos telling you to bleach a stwawberry. We cannot wrap everyone in cotton wool so I can see those should not be a target. 

1 hour ago, LePawel said:

UK already has laws against discrimination and abuse, and ridiculously strict ones at that, they are so seletively enforced however it's no wonder it sometimes feels like there's nothing in place.

Hmm, not sure about that. Sexual abuse, great and I back everyone who works to try and put a stop to that. Inciting racial hatred too is another thing I detest. Free speech is one thing, and we do have that, but there should not be the freedom to deliberately hurt others.

1 hour ago, LePawel said:

On top of that Brits are so self-concious and scared of speaking their minds it's a genuine minefield talking about anything "controversial" in my office, they're voluntarily surrendering itself to the Gov, but then it feels like UK was always about passing another law, that'll surely fix it (check: porn filter). It's conflict avoidance at all costs, because otherwise you're called an -ist and we all know that's like, super bad!

Most of the people I know will speak their minds openly. I grant you there are some things that are taboo, such as discussing ones own salary which I think takes away our negotiating power. Most things are open though.

1 hour ago, LePawel said:

There are very simple solutions to these problems, like classifying social media as either a publisher or a platform, and enforcing law based on that classification.

Which is what is being done here. OFCOM are the media regulator and technically and NGO, although in reality are government approved (read controlled). I agree they should have the power to do stuff but not be under the control of the government. We have many agencies who work well that wat, The ASA, BBC, RNLI etc so I do feel OFCOM and all the other OF.... bodies should be independent too.

1 hour ago, LePawel said:

You don't need more government bodies doing more pointless busy work while complaining there's not enough money from taxes to fund the NHS.

 

/rant

 

I certainly am no fan of the current government, nor of what has happened in the last three years. I am probably going to be lambasted for being an EU supporter with the honest feeling that we are better together.

 

As for OFCOM and this new ruling, which really is just adding social media to the whole media umbrella, I would like to see how it functions and just how far they will go before complaining about the principal. One thing about our messed up democracy that is good is we can often get things changed if they go too far. I hope this law does do the right thing.

[Brooksie359]

On 2/13/2020 at 2:29 AM, chiller15 said:

 

  Did you read my posts regarding how bad online bullying is for today's children?

No they can't, however when in the 'real world', you're in a social environment where there are repercusions, should that victim say something. In schools, it's the responsibility of the staff to act on reports of bullying or more severe acts. Outside of school the police can be involved, in cases like racism and other more serious cases.

And how are you going to enforce that ban?

It is much easier to enforce when it is social media that has profiles of who the person is. You can just look at their account and you will likely figure out relatively quickly if they are under the age of 18. I think trying to do anything else would just be putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. 

[Delicious Cake]

Quote

I hope this law does do the right thing.

It won't.

 

Why?

 

Because it's just another in a long line of attempts to censor criticism, particularly that of the conservative government and their 'mates'. There is definitely a serious problem with how social media have become little more than mechanisms to spout abuse and lies, with the platform owners quite literally turning a blind eye to it, because they know they can practically get away with it due to how ingrained it has become and that doing something will affect their bottom lines. However, the true intent behind this has very little to do with any altruistic agendas, especially when one of the most common perpetrators social media abuse have been political/politican proxies; every side on the spectrum is guilty in some way, but the most regular and often most vile contributors have been from the right-wing.

 

The Tories are quite literally in the process of dismantling any remaining independence the BBC has, by revoking the license fee and cutting its funding which will obviously affect every aspect of how it operates, from local radio services all the way up to the national FTA channels & internet infrastructure. They'll then use the excuse that it's become 'not fit for purpose' to scrap it altogether for some government-controlled media entity that'll no doubt conveniently always tow the party line. Or worse, use income tax and VAT money to subsidise a Fox News UK entity.

 

They've used this MO with the utilities services (the UK was looking into rolling out fibre optics nationally to replace the copper network in the mid-late 80s to early 90s, until the Tories scuppered the plan, because this sort of nationwide infrastructure project made the on-going privatisation process harder), they've used this MO with the railways and they're part way through doing this with the NHS.

[mr moose]

On 2/13/2020 at 1:37 AM, Sauron said:

Just because "think of the children" has been an excuse for pretty dumb stuff doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving to protect children from things that could legitimately be harmful, when possible. So... this is a non-argument. If there were no indication that cyber bullying etc. had harmful consequences you'd be right, but that's not the case.

 

This right here, labeling everything as a "think of the children" argument is just a superficial catch all for people who don't or can't get their heads around how serious or deep a social problem is.   There are plenty of things on social media that have caused real world harm (including death). If you don't believe me then look up bleach enemas for autistic children, stool transplants, the US measles outbreak.  All of them a result of social media giving people a platform to con the less astute into destructive and dangerous practices.  

 

 

[chiller15]

13 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

It is much easier to enforce when it is social media that has profiles of who the person is. You can just look at their account and you will likely figure out relatively quickly if they are under the age of 18. I think trying to do anything else would just be putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. 

Is it? Because policing trolling on Twitter had gone so well this far...fake accounts, etc.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

This right here, labeling everything as a "think of the children" argument is just a superficial catch all for people who don't or can't get their heads around how serious or deep a social problem is.   There are plenty of things on social media that have caused real world harm (including death). If you don't believe me then look up bleach enemas for autistic children, stool transplants, the US measles outbreak.  All of them a result of social media giving people a platform to con the less astute into destructive and dangerous practices.

The problem is that we are banning and censoring people from expression ideas, and once we do that we have to put someone in charge of what is and isn't allowed to be said.

I think most people is for censorship, but only as long as it censors things they do not like. The problem is that you can't make sure that these laws will only censor what you don't like.

 

I would rather live in a world where saying "try a bleach enema" is legal (but doing it is illegal, which it already is), than a world where a very untrustworthy government dictates what is and isn't allowed to be said.

 

 

And if you think UK politicians are trustworthy, please remember that they have covered up several pedophile rings, as well as written spying laws which specifically exclude themselves because they think it would be too invasive on their privacy.

Do you really want those same people to be in charge of what is and isn't allowed to be said? Even if you trust the current politicians, what if someone you don't trust gets elected in maybe 10 years and can wield the exact same laws against you?

[TechyBen]

On 2/13/2020 at 12:25 AM, Andreas Lilja said:

"Molly's father Ian says he believes Instagram is partly responsible for his daughter's death."

 

BBC doesn't seem to dissociate between what her parents believe and fact.

Yeah. It's sad. Really sad. Reminds me of an interview of a father who's son was given a few liters of Vodka to drink as a "game" in a *paid for* event out. Strangely, he did not blame the event organisers when his son O/D fast... weird denial? Alternatively, my friends who don't let their kids use social media... their kids don't use social media. Just saying.

 

I don't agree that is should be legal to tell people to do harm. It might instead be a civil crime, or "libel" like type of laws. But giving people free reign is anarchy. Where to draw the line? That takes time and patience. Perhaps we will never find a solution.

[Thorium19]

If OFCOM can just remove Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan from social media, I think that'd be enough.

 

In all seriousness, whilst people are calling this a nanny state move, and to a degree it is, it has been a long time coming. I don't mind the idea of an independent regulator monitoring social media websites to make sure they are properly complying with the law, along with their users, as it always seems social media companies are poor at acting on false news, advertisements and the spread of far wing terroris-like groups

 

This should be seen as a kick up the arse for social media companies, not as a big brother entity slowly looming over us. If the british government really wanted to be like that, they'd have tried harder to get their porn ban functional last year.

[Delicious Cake]

Well, proper education is often the solution to most of society's problems and 'proper' doesn't have to mean 'formal'. However, most politicans usually resent backing plans to improve overall education and is often one of the most frequent targets for budget cuts, because the effects of education are generally not conducive to short-term results and tend to promote critical thinking, institutional indoctrination aside.

 

An informed individual who is capable of critical thinking and is aware enough to not take everything at face value is pretty much the bogeyman of every politician. The more of these that exist in a population, the harder it is for the ruling class to subdue the masses.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Thorium19 said:

If OFCOM can just remove Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan from social media, I think that'd be enough.

 

.

Well said the rest of your comment, However I have to take umbrage to this comment. OFCOM should be locking Piers Morgan in a dark, dank, dungeon hung by his toes forever more. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The problem is that we are banning and censoring people from expression ideas, and once we do that we have to put someone in charge of what is and isn't allowed to be said.

I think most people is for censorship, but only as long as it censors things they do not like. The problem is that you can't make sure that these laws will only censor what you don't like.

 

I would rather live in a world where saying "try a bleach enema" is legal (but doing it is illegal, which it already is), than a world where a very untrustworthy government dictates what is and isn't allowed to be said.

 

 

And if you think UK politicians are trustworthy, please remember that they have covered up several pedophile rings, as well as written spying laws which specifically exclude themselves because they think it would be too invasive on their privacy.

Do you really want those same people to be in charge of what is and isn't allowed to be said? Even if you trust the current politicians, what if someone you don't trust gets elected in maybe 10 years and can wield the exact same laws against you?

I don't have a problem with any of this, It's not actually censorship they are engaging in it's holding companies responsible for the content on their websites, ergo if facebook allow a person to be bullied and do nothing about it they will be punished.  Governments have always had the power to censor, they always have and they always will.  What you are scared of is not being proposed.  You have taken to this idea that someone should be held responsible for their actions and run all the way to government dictatorship.

 

7 hours ago, Delicious Cake said:

Well, proper education is often the solution to most of society's problems and 'proper' doesn't have to mean 'formal'. However, most politicans usually resent backing plans to improve overall education and is often one of the most frequent targets for budget cuts, because the effects of education are generally not conducive to short-term results and tend to promote critical thinking, institutional indoctrination aside.

 

An informed individual who is capable of critical thinking and is aware enough to not take everything at face value is pretty much the bogeyman of every politician. The more of these that exist in a population, the harder it is for the ruling class to subdue the masses.

Won't happen, people are already largely educated on everything from bullying to cyber safety?  have you ever tried to educate an anti vaxxer?  how about educate a mother who is beside herself with fear because her child is autistic and the only person giving her any hope is the woo witch doctor on facebook who wants to sell her herbs and bleach?

 

I have in all of the above.  I have watched people fall prey to fraud like that all the time.  Education only goes so far,  and I am afraid even here in Australia where we have mandatory online safety education in schools (it really is good, I have been to a few).  It doesn't seem to stop it though.  

 

 

Here a video that highlights why you can't educate a bully:

 

 

 

A bit over the top but he makes a great point,  if bullies haven't worked out what they are doing is not acceptable from their parents let alone the countless hours of education and ads and posters and talks throughout their school years then trying to educate more is not going to do anything.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, chiller15 said:

Is it? Because policing trolling on Twitter had gone so well this far...fake accounts, etc.

That's twitter though and a completely different field. When I think of online bullying I don't think Twitter is really a problem so I don't think that is entirely relevant. Also hard to bully someone who is using a fake Twitter account. 

[Anomnomnomaly]

On 2/12/2020 at 8:11 PM, Master Disaster said:

the internet also does a lot of good. It allows people to tell the, sometimes very ugly, truth about goings on.

 

 

The greatest thing about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice....

 

The WORST thing about the internet... is that IT GIVES EVERYONE A VOICE!!!

 

When it allows unmetered hate and bile to be spewed out across the world, it's a problem... When it allows discourse and collaboration, sharing and helping each other... it's great.

 

The problem is that it's equal parts of both right now and these tech companies are simply not doing enough to stop the bad and promote the good... they created this monster and are refusing to deal with it... So some one needs too... Legislation is the right way to do that, but it can't be toothless and it can't be vague and open to loopholes and get out clauses... it also needs to be so harsh that flouting it isn't profitable for these companies.... that flouting it cost them more than it can make through advertising and theft of private data.

 

Will that happen with these UK laws... not a fucking chance. It's all populist bullshit designed to appease the dumbed down masses who believe what they are force fed.

 

So what's the solution... I don't have a fucking clue. I am not smart enough to figure it out... But I do know that there isn't a politician out there capable of doing what's right and what's actually needed. they only care about their own power and enrichment.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

 

 

The greatest thing about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice....

 

The WORST thing about the internet... is that IT GIVES EVERYONE A VOICE!!!

 

When it allows unmetered hate and bile to be spewed out across the world, it's a problem... When it allows discourse and collaboration, sharing and helping each other... it's great.

 

The problem is that it's equal parts of both right now and these tech companies are simply not doing enough to stop the bad and promote the good... they created this monster and are refusing to deal with it... So some one needs too... Legislation is the right way to do that, but it can't be toothless and it can't be vague and open to loopholes and get out clauses... it also needs to be so harsh that flouting it isn't profitable for these companies.... that flouting it cost them more than it can make through advertising and theft of private data.

 

Will that happen with these UK laws... not a fucking chance. It's all populist bullshit designed to appease the dumbed down masses who believe what they are force fed.

 

So what's the solution... I don't have a fucking clue. I am not smart enough to figure it out... But I do know that there isn't a politician out there capable of doing what's right and what's actually needed. they only care about their own power and enrichment.