SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 It is clear, however, that this legislation is out of date," the report reads.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."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday December 19 2017, @04:48AM (9 children)
Okay, but why do you think UKIP and company have the solution? Divisiveness for the sake of divisiveness is no guarantor of improvement either.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @08:37AM (8 children)
The UK hasn't been putting itself first. They got into the EU. Factories got shut down. They've allowed an invasion of people who are busy raping, bombing, running people down with trucks, and living on the dole.
I doubt it can be fixed without major violence. I think major violence is coming, and the winner might not be very British.
But, had the UKIP and BNP been the choices elected half a century ago, the UK would be in fine shape today.
Again, there is no certainty of recovery. Almost any random choice has better chances than continuing on the current path.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Tuesday December 19 2017, @07:43PM (7 children)
When all countries start "putting themselves first" you get a war.
Secondly, the factories were shut down under Thatcher (and previous PMs), long before any EU existed. The blame lies squarely with incompetent and ignorant British leadership.
Lies, lies and more lies.
Because you are an ignoramus and a bigot.
So continuously threaten the alt-wrong/far stupid neo-Nazis from behind their keyboards...
By what stretch of the imagination? Did you have chemical assistance?
Certainly not resulting from any of the actions or inane ramblings of you goose-stepping morons.
Oh really? Actually, I agree. The current path (Brexit) is national social and economic suicide.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday December 19 2017, @09:47PM (1 child)
Modded up. It's amazing how close these people get to the come-to-Jesus moment, and then go all loopy and start spouting complete whackadoodle nativist idiocy, isn't it?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday December 19 2017, @11:13PM
Yes, and I'm sick of seeing my country being flushed down the toilet by these cretins. We stand at a crossroads, where we could be on the verge of creating a truly amazing modern society and these loonies want to drag us back into the primordial swamp via poverty, hatred and war.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:36PM (4 children)
When all countries start "putting themselves first" you get a war.
Sorry, but this part I have to question. You're probably talking about WWI and WWII.
In WWI, all the countries "put themselves first", true. And the result was a war, because they were all a bunch of assholes trying to grab as much land from each other as they could.
In WWII, a few countries (esp. Germany, but also their pals in Italy, if we focus on the European theater) wanted to grab a bunch of land and power for themselves, and the others were resisting this.
There's some big differences between that situation and today. The biggest one, in my view, is the level of industrialization. Going to war effectively requires a large industrial base, so you can build your war machines. You can't just buy them from China or whoever and expect to win a protracted campaign, unless your supplier becomes your ally and joins you in battle. As acknowledged here, Britain doesn't have that much of an industrial base left, certainly nothing to compare with the industrial capacity of Germany for instance. Secondly, the EU exists, as does NATO. So who exactly is Britain going to go to war against? Their NATO/EU allies? If they tried that, they'd surely lose badly, unless the USA under Trump joined them. And why exactly would they go to war in the first place? Presumably, Britain isn't going to try to retake parts of France again, and I'm sorry, but I just don't see the EU wanting to invade Britain just because it's turned away from the EU. The era of land-grabbing is over, at least in western Europe. This stuff just doesn't make sense. Britain might very well wreck its economy, but I just don't see how that's going to turn into any kind of war.
The current path (Brexit) is national social and economic suicide.
Probably, but the British people do have the right to mismanage their country. As I say over and over around here, "every nation gets the government it deserves." If Brexit ruins Britain's economy, that's really OK: they're getting exactly what they wanted, and what they deserve.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:53PM (3 children)
Correct, and the three countries putting themselves first that worry me are, in the following order of scariness, the USA, Russia and China. The UK is a backwater, and and jingoistic arrogance on its part might provoke a reaction from a more powerful country against which it has no hope of defence.
I would agree with you, but British democracy is a funny thing, and this path we are following is the result of an opinion poll, a non-legally binding referendum for which many affected people were denied a vote, in particular millions of UK citizens living and working abroad in EU countries under EU Freedom of Movement laws. The threshold was set at a "simple majority," ie 50%, for a fundamental change to the country's path and there was no quorum specified. In the end, the result was 51.9% to Leave, which worked out as 37% of the electorate, not the population. Less than a third of the population voted to Leave, to rip us out of our local trading bloc which we had grown up with over 40 years and had been instrumental in shaping. All of our industry, agriculture, science, finance depends on it.
Not only that, the UK is made up of four individual countries and two voted to Remain, in particular Scotland and Northern Ireland, the latter which shares a border with an EU country (Eire) and has a history of terrorism.
To me, that's a very harsh punishment for a bit of stupidity in parliament and at the ballot box, very harsh indeed. We might be witnessing the beginning of the disintegration of the UK with Irish Reunification and Scottish Independence fueled by English ethnic delusions of grandeur.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 20 2017, @09:10PM (2 children)
Correct, and the three countries putting themselves first that worry me are, in the following order of scariness, the USA, Russia and China. The UK is a backwater, and and jingoistic arrogance on its part might provoke a reaction from a more powerful country against which it has no hope of defence.
I still don't get who you think the UK is going to go to war with. How is "jingoistic arrogance" going to provoke some other country into *attacking* them? Why would anyone bother picking a fight with them at all? They have no resources to gain, and enough allies that will jump to their defense. Now if you're claiming the UK would pick a fight with someone, who? They're in no position to win a protracted war against anyone except some crappy 3rd-world country, and if they pick a fight for an obviously poor reason, they're not going to get their NATO allies to back them up most likely.
I'm just not following the logic here. As far as I can tell, the only thing Brexit is going to lead to is more economic isolation and a poor economy. It'll be like when China focused inwards and stopped trade hundreds of years ago.
We might be witnessing the beginning of the disintegration of the UK with Irish Reunification and Scottish Independence fueled by English ethnic delusions of grandeur.
If the Scots and northern Irish really don't like Brexit, maybe they should seek to get out of the UK. As I said before, "every nation gets the government it deserves". And if the UK (esp. English) electorate really doesn't agree with the results of Brexit, it's really their responsibility to do something about it. If they don't, then again, they're getting the government they deserve.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday December 20 2017, @10:17PM (1 child)
This Scottish person doesn't like Brexit at all. I live in England. My wife is English, I work with people from all over Europe, and indeed the world. If we can't stop Brexit, then I'll be hoping for an independent Scotland looking forwards and outwards not Little England looking back to Queen Victoria's day fantasising about the Empire.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by purple_cobra on Tuesday January 02 2018, @03:53PM
That's exactly it: a small, but vocal, group of bell-ends who think we should return to the good old days of the Empire. That ship has long since sailed in terms of military force, and we're hardly likely to do so through goodwill/soft power. One fool mentioned "Commonwealth 2.0" which I can only assume is some sort of "friends with benefits" fantasy concocted by the swivel-eyed section of the political class.
The sooner these old fools die out, the better.