Ofcom To Police The Internet

[naomi24]

//Ofcom will be able to fine firms up to £18million for failing to remove harmful content from their sites//

 

https://www.thesun.ie/tech/14220472/internet-inclusivity-police-ofcom-labour/

[barry1010]

Somewhat scary. The details need to be clarified which will be impossible to do.

 

[naomi24]

I agree Barry.

[New Judge]

"It is understood Mr Kyle is referring to stamping out illegal hate speech..."

What could possibly go wrong?

In the past week or so two women - one a respected journalist and the other a writer and feminist had police officers knocking a their doors. Both were accused of posting offensive material - principally critical of the radical ttransgender movement. Neither could be told wha the material was, who had complained about it and what the basis of the complaint was. 

Fortunately both were robust enough to show the officers the way out. It was suggested that the first (an allegation againstt Alison Pearson) was into an alleged "non-crime hate incident" though police have now confirmed it is an investttigation into an alleged criminal offence.

The other "accused" was Judy Bindel. She was invited to the police station for a formal interview, an invitation she politely declined which left the officers a little red-faced and unsure how to proceed. They sais they would have o "consult a senior officer" to which Ms Bindel responded, before showing them the door,  by saying that if they did not know how to proceed it might have been better if they had brought a senior officer with them.

If Mr Kyle is aiming to stamp out "illegal hate speech" a definition of that term is urgently required. At present it seems that anybody who makes a complaint has only to mention that term and that they were offended and the police start knocking on doors on Sunday mornings.

But before he sets off on his mission, I think it needs to be made clear to anybody using social media that, if they are of a delicate nature, they are very likely to be offended by some things that they read. 

[naomi24]

//a definition of that term is urgently required.//

 

I think we'll whistle for that one.  As it is it covers a multitude of 'sins' - in fact practically anything anyone cares to object to.  A very slippery slope indeed.

[douglas9401]

One of the main problems is the loosening of the definition of hate to give the weak-minded attention seekers of the world a buzzword to spout at every chance in an attempt to make it legitimate.

My research shows they actually mean 'holding a contrary opinion' or 'normal'.

[douglas9401]

For the avoidance of doubt and to save the usual squeaky voices the trouble, 'my research' is a humorous fiction.

[albaqwerty]

I'm baffled.

The Internet is a world wide Web, companies from across the globe can transmit, if ofcom deign someone worthy of a fine not of this country, then ofcom can whistle.

Surely the best they could hope for is ISP's blocking them?

[chelle7272]

The governement can block an internet service on their behalf if needed.

[Old_Geezer]

IMO (from experience of YouTube) there is far too much strict censorship already. Apparently any innocuous statement of truth, that apparently the site don't agree with, gets removed before the Internet gets too enlightened. Last thing we need is to encourage that bad behaviour everywhere. It'd be like living in a Stasi monitored nation.