Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 18 2017, @03:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the Do.-Not.-Want. dept.

A report has recommended that online/tech companies and social media platforms be held more liable by the UK government for the content that users post:

A report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life advises the UK government to bring forward legislation "to shift the liability of illegal content online towards social media companies" upon Brexit. While the report's focus is on the problem of online intimidation, the advice envisages the UK moving away from the safe harbors offered by the EU's E-Commerce Directive.

[...] The protection offered by the E-Commerce Directive is a hot topic right now, one which necessarily involves the UK. However, with the UK due to leave the EU at 11pm local time on Friday 29 March, 2019, it will then be free to make its own laws. It's now being suggested that as soon as Brexit happens, the UK should introduce new laws that hold tech companies liable for "illegal content" that appears on their platforms.

The advice can be found in a new report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Titled "Intimidation in Public Life", the report focuses on the online threats and intimidation experienced by Parliamentary candidates and others. However, the laws that currently protect information society service providers apply to a much broader range of content, including that alleged to be copyright-infringing.

"Currently, social media companies do not have liability for the content on their sites, even where that content is illegal. This is largely due to the EU E-Commerce Directive (2000), which treats the social media companies as 'hosts' of online content. It is clear, however, that this legislation is out of date," the report reads. "Facebook, Twitter and Google are not simply platforms for the content that others post; they play a role in shaping what users see. We understand that they do not consider themselves as publishers, responsible for reviewing and editing everything that others post on their sites. But with developments in technology, the time has come for the companies to take more responsibility for illegal material that appears on their platforms."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday December 18 2017, @04:56PM (12 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday December 18 2017, @04:56PM (#611458)

    They should just go whole-hog and completely eliminate safe harbor protections completely, for all sites. Any site where users can submit any comments or content should be held completely liable for the content of that material by the UK government, with absolutely no leeway at all, so sites that want to be safe need to either completely eliminate the ability for users to post anything, or they need an army of moderators to check everything that's posted before it can be seen publicly.

    Of course, this might mean that media companies will scramble to get out of the UK completely, and perhaps even block access from the UK, but that's OK. We'll see how successful this strategy is.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Monday December 18 2017, @05:29PM (5 children)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Monday December 18 2017, @05:29PM (#611480)

    Well, yes, all the media should leave the UK immediately. That is the whole purpose! We need to eliminate dissent. We must control the resident media. Therefore, we push out all the media we cannot control, cut off access to any of them once they go outside the jurisdiction and then are simply left with the propaganda media engine we, the government, like so much. It is as simple as that, and all will be sold as a good old "think of the children" fallacy.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 18 2017, @05:53PM (4 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday December 18 2017, @05:53PM (#611497)

      As I always say in situations like this, "every nation gets the government it deserves". This is apparently what the British people deserve. Maybe the Scots will decide they don't deserve it and vote for independence next time.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 18 2017, @06:58PM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 18 2017, @06:58PM (#611525) Journal
        Maybe the British will vote for independence as well. After all, that's what Brexit was supposed to be about in the first place (well, that and immigration control).
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 18 2017, @07:40PM (2 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday December 18 2017, @07:40PM (#611545)

          They did vote for independence, and they got it. Independence doesn't guarantee good lawmaking, as seen here with this recommendation to eliminate safe harbors. In fact, independence frequently means much more incompetent law-making overall, as seen with the UK vs. the EU, and especially with the US Southern states vs. the US federal government. As for immigration control, there's plenty of EU nations that don't seem to have the problems that the UK has, so I don't really see how Brexiting will fix that for them. (And the UK, being one of the most populous and powerful nations in the EU, should in theory have way more power to set EU policy than places like Belgium.) It's mostly a problem of their own making, and it's being blamed unfairly on the EU.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday December 18 2017, @10:23PM (1 child)

            by frojack (1554) on Monday December 18 2017, @10:23PM (#611602) Journal

            In fact, independence frequently means much more incompetent law-making overall, as seen with the UK vs. the EU,

            Oh, come on. British have been making law, and fairly good law, for hundreds of years before the EU was a thing.

            Look around the world at places that were colonized by the British, and compare that to the French, Dutch, and (horrors!) the Spanish. Even after they British left or were kicked out, British model governments were generally orderly and well run.

            This current crop of British governance with its overwhelming invasive resilience is a relatively recent thing. Probably this necessitated by the over-extension of rights of migration afforded to anyone with a British (or indian, canadian, australian, etc, etc) passport (in decades past) and the new influx of EU-induced mandatory admittance.

            Crap law because of the EU, not in-spite of the EU.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 18 2017, @10:27PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday December 18 2017, @10:27PM (#611604)

              Oh, come on. British have been making law, and fairly good law, for hundreds of years before the EU was a thing.

              The people who made law back then are long since dead. Things change.

              and the new influx of EU-induced mandatory admittance.

              There's plenty of EU countries that don't seem to be complaining so much, including most of the ones in the east and south.

  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Monday December 18 2017, @10:28PM

    by crafoo (6639) on Monday December 18 2017, @10:28PM (#611607)

    100% agree. This would be an effective solution to everyones' problems. It would be at least hilarious to watch play out.

  • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday December 19 2017, @11:40AM (4 children)

    by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 19 2017, @11:40AM (#611778)

    We don't have any safe harbor protections here in the UK, they're safe harbour protections.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:44PM (3 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:44PM (#611882)

      Even worse! Not only are you getting rid of something useful, you couldn't even spell it correctly to begin with, and added a superfluous and unpronounced 'u'!

      I think this shows that one big problem with the UK is their variant of English, which is much too inefficient and cumbersome. It's the same reason that France is such a has-been: their language is full of unpronounced and unnecessary letters (and a ton of wacky diacritical marks too).

      • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday December 20 2017, @01:06PM (2 children)

        by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 20 2017, @01:06PM (#612274)

        Hm. If I can't use my UK/Canadian English, and my High School French isn't acceptable to you either, I'll just have to answer in Welsh!

        Er, wedi meddwl, efallai wnei di gwyno fod yna acenion ar ambell i air yn y Gymraeg hefyd. Yn ôl rhai, mae 'na ormod o gytseiniaid yn y Gymraeg, a dim digon o lafariaiad, ond mae'r pobl hynny'n anghofio fod gennym saith: a,e,i,o,u,w ac y!

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @04:50PM (1 child)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @04:50PM (#612357)

          Huh? Canadian English is fine, and it's not like UK English. Canadian English generally uses American spellings.

          Ond mae'r Gymraeg yn oer hefyd.

          • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday December 20 2017, @09:24PM

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 20 2017, @09:24PM (#612548)

            Yeah, unfortunately my spellings tend to swing between UK and Canadian English. Working in Fibre Optics (or is it Fiber Optics?) can be frustrating as a result.

            For "cool", Welsh has just the word as "cŵl". Unfortunately "oer" corresponds to "cold", which I'm sure you didn't mean.