
UK government proposes fine or block if website fails to tackle “online harms” - pmlnr
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47826946
======
chatmasta
Jeremy Wright, "Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in
the UK" penned an op-ed in CNN about this. [0] The closing line is
particularly infuriating to me: "That is an objective on which the British
Government, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Mark Zuckerberg would all agree."

No, I don't think TBL would agree on this. The cited organization started by
him explicitly calls for the opposite [1]:

\- Ensure everyone can connect to the internet so that anyone, no matter who
they are or where they live, can participate actively online.

\- Keep all of the internet available, all of the time so that no one is
denied their right to full internet access.

\- Respect people’s fundamental right to privacy so everyone can use the
internet freely, safely and without fear.

[0] [https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-
online-...](https://us.cnn.com/2019/04/07/opinions/uk-government-online-
regulation-wright/index.html)

[1]
[https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/](https://fortheweb.webfoundation.org/principles/)

~~~
jquery
>without fear.

Do they mean fear on the consumer end or the content creator end? There is a
natural tension there which must be resolved. A fearless internet for content
creators means lots of ungood content out there (sometimes doubleplus
ungood!). A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run
across this ungood content, unless they go through great efforts to seek it
out.

~~~
gnode
> A fearless internet for passive consumers means they won’t run across this
> ungood content

That's one way to generally interpret "fear" but not in its context of a right
to privacy. "Without fear" in this context must mean fear of what happens when
you don't have privacy, that is chiefly: embarrassment and persecution.

~~~
jquery
Thanks for the clarification, that makes a huge difference in meaning.
Appreciated.

------
hugh4life
I find it baffling how western nations can't understand how they're now
providing ideological justification to the same stances Russia and China are
taking towards the internet.

~~~
timomax
Not really. It's not the same ideology. It's the same tool.

~~~
rayvd
Leads to the same place.

------
jatsign
This looks like negative news for the Facebooks & Youtubes, but I think it's
the opposite. Whenever the law, Facebook & Youtube will adapt - they have the
resources to do so. Smaller players, and potential future competitors, will
not be able to adapt.

This just draws a moat around existing behemoths that will protect them
against future disruption.

~~~
malvosenior
Yes, it's called regulatory capture and it's the reason big players push for
regulation and government involvement.

~~~
matrixmultiply
This is indeed favors FB and YT. They will censor and blame it on the
government, and they won’t take any responsibility.

------
luiscleto
> But it also covers harmful behaviour that has a less clear legal definition
> such as cyber-bullying, trolling and the spread of fake news and
> disinformation.

So, basically any site with user content can be fined/blocked at any time at
the official's discretion.

~~~
zyxzevn
This child-porn and terrorism is the propaganda catch-phrase to make people
agree with it. Like the UK porn-filter.

While it never will happen, this rule would mean that the BBC should be banned
too. It published fake news that started the Iraq war, and one of the famous
hosts was a child molester.

Instead they will ban sites that disclose the military propaganda that is
published by the government media. Will they now try to block wikileaks and
other similar journalism?

My greatest fear is that these waves of censorship are there to remove
resistance against a 3rd world war. The US, Israel and UK are currently very
aggressive.

Just as an example: Propaganda on Iraq and Venezuela
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I)

~~~
rgbrenner
Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after
the fact. In the run up to the war, perhaps questioning the sources and
information provided by the government would have been labeled fake news.

~~~
Someone1234
> Iraq is an interesting example because we only found out it was false after
> the fact.

What? 100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]. We knew the UK
Government stole a student's essay for their "Dodgy Dossier" and tried to re-
package it as intelligence before too[1].

We knew full well it was false before invasion. It didn't stop them.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier)

~~~
okmokmz
>100,000+ people marched in the street against it[0]

>[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War)

These just seem to be anti-war protests. I'm not seeing anything that suggests
they knew it was false, or that that was the reason for the protests

~~~
Someone1234
I was part of the protests. It was widely reported in the media that WMDs
weren't found, that Iraq was cooperating with the UN, and that the
government's evidence was debunked.

The "anti-war" thing was just a big-tent message that most of those against
the war could agree to (with each group having their own reason for being
against it).

------
Bantros
Fuck this country.

They will implement it without any trouble. No one cares because they don't
realise what they already have.

Most media outlets will report on it as a "good thing" of course which doesn't
help either

------
bamboozled
I hate to say it, but large online social platforms are really giving
governments way too much ammunition to start regulating and censoring the now
largely centralized Internet.

Very, very scary but interesting times ahead.

~~~
wallace_f
Because of the internet, a lot of people are becoming aware of stories like
how the CIA watched over the "get Gary Webb team" of industry experts who said
"we're going to take away his Pulitzer," before Webb died by "suicide" by two
gunshot wounds to the head.(1) Just one of thousands of outrageous stories
questioning where global power lies and what those who have it are doing with
it.

Iraq lies were territory of "fake news" and conspiracy theories, same as a lot
of what Tulsi Gabbard is saying about the US military industrial complex.

Every group of individuals will always have psychopaths whom try to cheat to
exert control over others. Obviously many powerful people in the world dont
want a democracy of individuals sharing ideas freely.

[https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-
cia-m...](https://theintercept.com/2014/09/25/managing-nightmare-cia-media-
destruction-gary-webb/)

------
coldcode
OK lets say this article harmed me in some way. If I don't need to prove it
then this law lets me shut down the BBC? How do you deal with thousands of
"online harms"? If I do need to prove it, given the law is so vague on what
that is, I can never succeed since big sites have fancy lawyers, and small
sites will just go out of business, and the law is a waste of time.

~~~
CJefferson
I think you are over stretching. The lae has dealt for hundreds of years with
idea that one person might harm another. Such laws tend to be a little vague,
then build up case law, at least in the UK.

~~~
pavel_lishin
A lot of commenters tend to think of the law as an API, and frame all
discussions about it as such.

"So what, I just have to POST
[https://law.uk/onlineharm](https://law.uk/onlineharm), and I get to take down
the BBC? That's ridiculous!"

Any given strawman is ridiculous.

------
speeq
Here's the white-paper (pdf):

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793360/Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf)

Also, the published code of practice:

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793324/Code_of_Practice_for_providers_of_online_social_media_platforms.d.pdf)

Statement and parliamentary discussion:

[https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c...](https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4576d30e-52ad-42d9-b5c4-22e1723c47de?in=17:21:02)

------
ilovecaching
America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending
individual liberties are paramount to a moral society. But now it seems we’re
taking our new digital plane of existence and giving up a lot of that self
determination for convienience and protection from exposure to things we don’t
like.

I’m not sure how this will shake out in America versus Europe, but this seems
as paradigm shifting as the civil war or the new deal. The next decade will be
critical for Internet freedom.

~~~
Throwway32
_America is founded on the idea that personal determination and defending
individual liberators are paramount to a moral society_

I wonder what US citizen Anwar Al Awlaki would have said to that argument. The
truth is that political free speech has limits, even for the United States.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-
of-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-
awlaki.html)

~~~
FakeComments
This seems a strange response, since the extra-judicial killing of an American
by the Obama administration was widely regarded as a serious breakdown in
American norms — precisely by the same crowd who says things like GP.

Your link then would be support for their point, not a refutation.

Generally speaking, point out something in the past few years that’s an
example of what the person is talking about isn’t a way to refute that things
are changed — that you can only point to recent ones is evidence that things
_have_ changed.

Of course, Obama has no respect for American traditions, broadly: he’s the
first president in history not to leave the capital and to continue to be
politically active during his successor’s term.

His actions certainly aren’t what I’d put forward to someone claiming that
American values used to be something, but have recently changed — Obama in
general is an example of that collapse in principles.

~~~
Throwway32
I never bought into Obama’s hype machine, but the drone strike was carried out
by the United States armed forces, who are required to not follow illegal
orders; via a chain of command. There is a different party in power now: have
there been any prosecutions?Presumably there was a lot of legal advice that
sanctioned the hit on a US citizen exercising his ostensible free speech
rights,[1] otherwise it would not have happened.

[1] My personal opinion is that praising terror and “inspiring” others is not
free speech, but I don’t pretend otherwise

~~~
FakeComments
There was a lot of pseudo-legal justification and lack of prosecutions for the
Bush torture program as well, which was another violation of American norms.

You have a very idyllic view that people can’t break the rules and get away
with it: Obama murdered an American in violation of the law, but there is a
tradition of not holding presidents accountable for their crimes.

Personally, that lack of accountability seems to have led to a ratcheting
level of presidential misbehavior and a collapse in societal norms — precisely
what this thread is about.

------
iicc
Theresa May did an Op Ed[0] in the metro[1][2].

[0] [https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-
leadi...](https://www.metro.news/exclusive-by-theresa-may-we-are-leading-the-
way-on-making-the-internet-safer/1510510/)

[1] pdf about audience - [https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-
content/uploads/201...](https://d212k0qo5yzg53.cloudfront.net/wp-
content/uploads/20190107104636/audience-metro-2019-01.pdf)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(British_newspaper)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_\(British_newspaper\))

------
calewis
The issue here will be securing a conviction or affecting actual change. I
suspect the cost to conviction/prosecution (for the Uk taxpayer) will be so
high, and the fines/action so small for the respective platforms, it will
hardly be worth the effort. Most likely companies will be fined
retrospectively for a bit of government PR.

------
bArray
Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be
abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go?
They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.

~~~
gnode
I find this argument similar to: regulating the construction of buildings will
just lead to seasteading.

The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a
mainstream audience.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to
> a mainstream audience.

Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference
do you see as relevant?

~~~
gnode
In the scenario of forcing speakers underground, those speakers have not been
silenced (they may still speak to a large audience) but they will not speak to
an audience which has not elected to listen to them.

Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who
are not looking for your speech.

The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of
government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it
stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.

------
C1sc0cat
Would that include the Daily mails website :-)

~~~
ohiovr
The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it
never happens.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The UK should delegate which media gets banned to the Queen so therefore it
> never happens.

The UK already does that with some decisions (which is technically the Queen-
in-Parliament delegating to the Queen with the advice of the Privy Council),
but that doesn't stop action (Orders in Council) on those matters from
occurring. Of course, in practice this is almost exactly delegation from the
Parliament to the government.

------
return0
Or Vices as the Victorians would call them.

------
ptah
a bit late but could be extremely helpful

------
usub98
It's funny how this is such a popular topic on sites like HN who heavily
censor users themselves based on their political opinion.

HN put shadow bans on hundreds of users for non-conforming posts. It seems
like anyone who had a wrong stance on the whole "NPC meme" is affected, even
if they only found it mildly amusing.

Source: I found it amusing, openly said so and I'm shadow banned on this IP.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
My impression is that HN moderators mostly focus on civility. IME stance-
related silencing occurs only via downvotes by regular users.

~~~
FakeComments
There’s a strong, intentional skew in their enforcement:

dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb the
groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting popular
opinions would be excused for.

That’s what it means when they say they censor to keep “civility”: if the
groupthink finds you disruptive, you will be silenced by arbitrary application
of rules others (who subscribe to groupthink) are excused for — and in this
way, an insistence on civility always favors groupthink.

The pretense of censoring for civility here is merely dishonest gaslighting
about their ideological policing, in favor of groupthink.

It’s precisely the same kind of dishonesty you see in YouTube, Twitter, and
Facebook’s censoring of conservative voices: hyperpartisans screech, and
complicit moderates use that as a pretense to enact their biases.

~~~
dang
I've not said that. If you're going to make such a claim, you should provide a
link so readers can make up their own minds.

The other claims you make aren't really falsifiable, though I can tell you we
go out of our way not to moderate HN based on ideology, and I can also tell
you that for whatever ideological position you'd care to name, people loudly
complain that we're biased against it.

~~~
FakeComments
You have, to me, in reply to contentious things I’ve said.

Repeatedly.

~~~
dang
All my replies to your comments can be found in this subthread, and plainly do
not match your description.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19345439](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19345439)

~~~
FakeComments
> Especially: "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a
> topic gets more divisive."

> dang has previously said that they’re more critical of people who perturb
> the groupthink, and take action against them for things people supporting
> popular opinions would be excused for.

Your entire moderation policy is based around precisely what I claimed, as you
yourself stated: the arbitrary application of increased standards for comments
which disrupt groupthink, or to use a euphemism, are “divisive”.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
@FakeComments: I'd like to share an idea you may find helpful.

I too am sometimes frustrated by how HN conversations go. There are numerous
times where I know I'm taking a contrary position on HN, and despite my best
efforts to present my argument politely and succinctly, the audience seems
unable or unwilling to honestly engage with my logic. It's doubly vexing when
my comments are downvoted without clear justification. (To be clear: I'm
talking only about downvoting, not thwacking from the site admins.)

But I also think there's plenty of evidence that taking a harsh tone in the
discussion is unproductive in such conversations, and is ineffective at
curbing the behavior of (what I perceive as) unjustified penalization of my
comments.

So here's my idea: How about treating this as an intellectual challenge? The
goal is to study the form and substance of these contentious discussions, and
identify trends regarding successful vs. failed presentations of contrary
viewpoints. And then see if adopting those forms results in more satisfying
discussions of the points you're trying to raise?

If you're able to nail that skill, especially with a sometimes-fickle
audience, you may find it benefits other areas of life as well.

~~~
FakeComments
You admit your comment is non-responsive to my point, which is that dang
ideologically censors posts.

Do you believe a non-sequitur ad hominem was a constructive comment?

I’d prefer not to learn that style of social skill.

Your comment is also factually wrong: the reason that censorship for civility
developed as a strategy is that it’s maximally effective suppressing
ideological conversion for the amount of speech it suppresses. Your comment
then becomes nothing more than “working under adverse conditions teaches
resiliency”, which is true — but not a reason to stop questioning the
censorship policy.

People do not rationally switch positions — they switch positions during an
emotional cascade after a sufficient number of rational reasons have
accumulated. That “avalanche” where an emotional spark triggers the awareness
of a substantial shift in your beliefs.

These criticality events necessarily require an emotional trigger such a
failing to be able to substantively reply to provocatively phrased arguments
or the inability to factually correct mocking humor.

Civility suppresses precisely that: the emotional barbs in arguments and the
mockery which might provoke a person to change their stance, in a substantive
manner.

Rationality alone is all powder, no spark.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
I'm _assuming_ that we all want roughly the same thing: we each want to
believe all true facts, disbelieve all false facts, and hopefully help others
achieve that as well.

I think your point about cascades is interesting, and it seems to jive with my
experience. And I can see how censoring for civility would, as a result, be an
impediment to changing minds.

I also believe @dang's point that _not_ stifling incivility leads to
unproductive flame wars. Which, I'm guessing, _also_ results in conversations
that fail to change minds.

So where does that leave us regarding HN discussions? Can you think of an
approach that addresses both your _and_ @dang's points? Are we stuck with
having HN admins try to find the optimal censorship policy that somehow
balances the issues you and @dang have raised?

Please also consider the possibility that you may have a greater appetite for
(hopefully productive) acrimony than the majority of HN's target community. In
terms of your theory of changing minds, the HN owners may wish for this site
to be where people can discuss the logical / empirical aspects of issue in a
calm and pleasant manner, and leave the mind-chaning, emotional stages of the
discussions for other forums.

------
mtgx
Since David Cameron days, the UK government has had every intention of turning
UK into another China, at least as far as surveillance and censorship goes.
They just can't do it so obviously, so they do it in a round-about way like
arguing for "porn filters" and later for other "serious crimes". And then you
wake up one day that they use the filters for whatever they want.

------
jquery
Once people accept that it's fine for social media to censor political speech,
it's only a small mental leap to hand over that same control to the
government. This development should come as no surprise as government
officials see the thunderous applause heaped on media companies when they ban
"problem people".

------
sparkling
What is it with the obsession about "hate speech" in some random internet
comment section? Report that user, ignore it, turn off the screen, whatever.
How in the world is it worth spending actual policing resources on this
nonsense?

~~~
commandlinefan
Well, the justification - mind you, I don't agree, I'm just answering your
(rhetorical?) question - is that speech can sway opinions, opinions can shape
behavior, and (the wrong sort of) behavior can lead to chaos, so it's best to
nip the wrong sort of speech in the bud before it cascades into genocide. The
problem with that sort of "slippery slope" thinking is that it always ends up
slippery-slope-ing in the other direction: hate speech regulations designed to
silence nazis calling for genocide are almost immediately applied to reasoned,
principled, thoughtful people like Jordan Peterson whose conclusions are
outside the mainstream.

