SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the consequences-will-never-be-the-same dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
New laws will be introduced to tackle the internet's "wild west" that will make Britain the "safest place in the world" to be online, the culture secretary has said.
Social media companies have already taken some positive steps to protect users, but the performance of the industry overall has been mixed, according to Matt Hancock.
The government outlined proposals last year to impose an industry-wide levy on social media firms like Facebook and Twitter to fund measures to tackle online harm. It is understood the move will be subject to a further round of consultation with the sector and charities before any decision is made on pushing ahead.
A new code of practice to tackle bullying, intimidating or humiliating online content and a regular internet safety transparency report to keep tabs on online abuse could be included in new legislation.
Right, show of hands, who thinks we should move our servers to the UK and stop saying mean things to each other?
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday May 25 2018, @05:34AM (21 children)
plans to license and tax foreign Internet companies (yes, Including the US ones). Whoever refuses will be blocked (by a future great Swiss firewall, I guess).
So far it is only about gambling, but just wait... https://calvinayre.com/2018/05/16/business/switzerland-online-gambling-law-referendum/ [calvinayre.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @06:28AM (20 children)
You see... Switzerland is direct democracy. The law will pass if and only if the referendum will say so
As such, if the majority of voters agree with "you pay us, otherwise we don't want to hear from you online", what grounds you have to object their decision?
I can only wish they'll do the same to online advertisers: "You pay us or we block you". The moment they'll do so, I swear I'll pay a VPN exit in Switzerland - yes, I know I can use ads/tracking blockers for free, yes I know I won't be spared by the ads for those who paid; though, it will be my way to show my approval to their position and encourage other states to do the same - at least some national budgets may be less out of balance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @08:24AM (12 children)
I would object on the grounds that there will be plenty of people there who disagree with such government censorship, and they should be allowed to see the information if they wish. Direct democracies are a terrible idea when they allow the majority to violate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. Not that this stupid scheme will work anyway.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @08:34AM (8 children)
Heh, so we have come to this: online gambling run as a business is free speech. Accepting it requires quite some intellectual contortion, don't you think?
What's next? Selling narcotics online is also free speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @09:46AM (7 children)
I have no issue with this.
The advertising portion, sure. And I think all drugs should be legal, so even the selling part does not bother me.
I guess if you're an authoritarian, these things might bother you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @10:01AM (6 children)
Yeah, sure, whatevs mate. I got it, money is speech and should flow unimpeded.
Tell you what, though. I'll make sure to send you some dimethyl mercury as a free speech sample - it does cost some money but for you it will be free as in both speech and beer. Just drop your mailing address here.
I hope you aren't going to contest my definition of free speech or to censor its intended expression, otherwise I might think of you as authoritarian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:12AM
Here's a clue: by my swimming pool there is neither lever nor roll of paper.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @08:25PM (4 children)
Giving someone something is not necessarily speech. But advertising and running a website certainly are. I have no issues with online gambling if there is no fraud (i.e. they claim it's possible to win but it's not), even if the owner of the website is collecting real money. Why would I? Face it, you just picked bad examples.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @11:40PM (3 children)
It's not the advertising for online gambling the Swiss intend to tax, it's the online gambling itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @07:08AM (2 children)
And how will they punish the websites that don't pay the tax? By attempting to stop all Swiss citizens - whether they agree with the censorship or not - from visiting the website. Therein lies the issue.
The only saving grace here is that there will be countless ways to bypass any censorship.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 26 2018, @10:28AM (1 child)
Running an unlicensed brick-and-mortar casino is alright, but running an unlicensed casino online is censorship.
Yeah, takes quite a twist of logic for this to make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 26 2018, @10:31AM
s/running/stoping
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @11:25AM (2 children)
Are you Swiss?
If so, you will get your say when the time comes;
if not, your say isn't relevant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @11:29AM
Edit to post (#683964): this was supposed to reply to (#683926).
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @08:29PM
No, but I feel empathy for those whose rights are being violated. I guarantee you that even if this passes, there will have been plenty of people who disagreed with it and didn't want to suffer under censorship. I believe that human rights should be respected worldwide, and that government censorship is flat-out wrong. If it did pass, I would hope that people ignore the law and fight to get it stricken down, direct democracy or not. Censorship is absolutely not the answer.
As if we can't care about people in other countries. That's an argument I'd expect a right-wing nutter to make, which is ironic.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday May 25 2018, @08:27AM (3 children)
So, if the majority agree you should be executed with an oversized spiked dildo, what grounds you have to object their decision?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 25 2018, @08:38AM (2 children)
The already existing laws of the place.
To allow my execution with an oversized spiked dildo, they'll need to pass a law allowing this to happen. If this is initiated until all the due process is carried on (including the phase in which all the other citizens are informed), you can bet I'll take the necessary precautions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @07:10AM (1 child)
Nice cop-out. If you argue that we should respect the wishes of the majority simply because they are the wishes of the majority, then that logic should apply to any conceivable scenario, no matter how horrible.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday May 26 2018, @10:26AM
I'm going to stay with the people which's choices, even if I don't agree, can respect. When I cannot, I'm not going to poop in their wishes, I have my life to live so I'll leave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday June 01 2018, @02:37AM (2 children)
I have many, but here is the most famous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 01 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
They live under that "tyranny" since 1891 and haven't complained.
If you are a Swiss citizen, you can initiate a process of amending the constitution if you don't like it. Before you do, consider this [reuters.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday June 02 2018, @12:27AM
I totally agree - they are civilized people and so can make decisions. However, most other peoples, say Americans, a salvages.
Bottom line - democracy is possible only at certain rather high level of development. The vast majority of the earth population is not there yet. That's why the US mostly supports kingdoms and dictatorships; including internal, and hates democracies.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.