23-02-2019, 17:46
^ Thank you for that. This is exactly the sort of detail that has been lacking in the media's discourse on this topic and that I hoped would elucidate from posting with someone who has heard direct from the horse's mouth. (Early press indications on this aspect were obviously either misleading or the subject has undergone revision.)
Of course it has become clear in recent news that the current government feel the need to target social media in a different manner going forward. They seem to have concluded that doing so via the current legislation would have been an overreach that could have threatened the success of both prongs of attack. So we now see that they are leveraging other threats to (once again largely) children (self-harm, eating disorders, etc.) as well as, more generally and troublingly, anything they deem to be "disinformation" as the way to curtail the social media's growing pervasiveness in communication. A white paper due next month with proffer more detail of course but is thought to include the option of a new Ofcom-like online regulator "with teeth". AV for Facebook, Twitter, et al is thought to be a shoe in. The government push on even when one the usual cheerleading charities concerned is warning of the "unexpected consequences" of knee-jerk legislation.
Anyone like to bet these politicians will stop their interventions against the net at that point? If so I will take that bet. These people see themselves as crusaders on a roll at this point. One successful act of censorship seems utterly precipitous to the next. The Culture Secretary is already bragging the new regulation with be flexible (read vague) enough to allow for it to deal with any future 'harms' the government deems worthy of the name.
[Apologies for taking this somewhat OT. I just thought the contrast/similiarities between the two pieces of legislation interesting and the approach becoming ever more clear that porn is being used as the proverbial canary in the coal mine.]
Of course it has become clear in recent news that the current government feel the need to target social media in a different manner going forward. They seem to have concluded that doing so via the current legislation would have been an overreach that could have threatened the success of both prongs of attack. So we now see that they are leveraging other threats to (once again largely) children (self-harm, eating disorders, etc.) as well as, more generally and troublingly, anything they deem to be "disinformation" as the way to curtail the social media's growing pervasiveness in communication. A white paper due next month with proffer more detail of course but is thought to include the option of a new Ofcom-like online regulator "with teeth". AV for Facebook, Twitter, et al is thought to be a shoe in. The government push on even when one the usual cheerleading charities concerned is warning of the "unexpected consequences" of knee-jerk legislation.
Anyone like to bet these politicians will stop their interventions against the net at that point? If so I will take that bet. These people see themselves as crusaders on a roll at this point. One successful act of censorship seems utterly precipitous to the next. The Culture Secretary is already bragging the new regulation with be flexible (read vague) enough to allow for it to deal with any future 'harms' the government deems worthy of the name.
[Apologies for taking this somewhat OT. I just thought the contrast/similiarities between the two pieces of legislation interesting and the approach becoming ever more clear that porn is being used as the proverbial canary in the coal mine.]
