UK lawmakers vote to jail tech execs who fail to protect kids online:
The United Kingdom wants to become the safest place for children to grow up online. Many UK lawmakers have argued that the only way to guarantee that future is to criminalize tech leaders whose platforms knowingly fail to protect children. Today, the UK House of Commons reached a deal to appease those lawmakers, Reuters reports, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government agreeing to modify the Online Safety Bill to ensure its passage. It now appears that tech company executives found to be "deliberately" exposing children to harmful content could soon risk steep fines and jail time of up to two years.
The agreement was reached during the safety bill's remaining stages before a vote in the House of Commons. Next, it will move on to review by the House of Lords, where the BBC reports it will "face a lengthy journey." Sunak says he will revise the bill to include new terms before it reaches the House of Lords, where lawmakers will have additional opportunities to revise the wording.
Reports say that tech executives responsible for platforms hosting user-generated content would only be liable if they fail to take "proportionate measures" to prevent exposing children to harmful content, such as materials featuring child sexual abuse, child abuse, eating disorders, and self-harm. Some measures that tech companies can take to avoid jail time and fines of up to 10 percent of a company's global revenue include adding age verification, providing parental controls, and policing content.
If passed, the Online Safety Bill would make managers liable for holding tech companies to their own community guidelines, including content and age restrictions. If a breach of online safety duties is discovered, UK media regulator Ofcom would be responsible for prosecuting tech leaders who fail to respond to enforcement notices. Anyone found to be acting in good faith to police content and protect kids reportedly won't be prosecuted.
[...] "The onus for keeping young people safe online will sit squarely on the tech companies' shoulders," Donelan wrote. "You or your child will not have to change any settings or apply any filters to shield them from harmful content. Social media companies and their executives in Silicon Valley will have to build these protections into their platforms—and if they fail in their responsibilities, they will face severe legal consequences."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23 2023, @03:48AM (23 children)
So funny.. OPEC was formed by "Big Oil" to set a standard currency of trade, the petrodollar. Your politics are a silly distraction.
The world is run by business in its various forms. The flag is just a logo.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 23 2023, @05:30AM (22 children)
And you are an idiot. Big Oil lost big after OPEC was formed since they lost control of those assets, pricing power over oil, and a good portion of the supply chain.
I already gave examples where that is patently false. Now you're just making up shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2023, @01:11AM (21 children)
That is patently false, a lie, or do you really pretend to believe your nonsense? You did nothing of the kind. The only difference amongst them all is how they dress themselves up. It's strictly business
More bad comedy... They are the same, they "lost" nothing. The ticker tapes all confirm you are just plain wrong like always
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 24 2023, @05:03AM (20 children)
I believe my observations of reality, dimwit. Your level of rationalizing after the fact is way too common. But the rest of us don't have to believe, for example, that it's part of IBM or Microsoft's master plan to have their software products and profits undermined by the NSA. Nor that the various Big Oil firms schemed to lose their valuable assets in the Middle East in exchange for having oil priced in dollars - which it was anyway and which isn't very valuable to business when you actually think about it (currency exchange is trivial). More on that last point below.
They lost assets in the Middle East like exclusive, cheap access to oil fields, pipelines and refineries, and such. And what I think is particularly bone-headed about your argument is that you think that petrodollars are somehow a really big deal for business. The vast majority of businesses, even banks, don't give a flip if you value oil in petrodollars or giant stone wheels. What they care about is whether it's stable and predictable.
The US Government is the enormous party that cares. Pricing oil in dollars generates a great deal of soft power for the US. It's not business cooties driving this.
I find it remarkable that you made this huge case for me and still just don't get it. Sure, business has a lot of power. But the US government is what benefits from the petrodollar. There's a lot of examples like that where things happen because governments want it. But of course, you have to be paying attention in order to see them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2023, @07:40PM (19 children)
Yes it is. The US is a business, and the business of the US is business, it's like any other enterprise. It's fun to watch you drown yourself in false nonsensical details trying to separate corp from gov't, but you will never do it, because it's impossible, they are mere facets of the worldwide conglomerate
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2023, @01:35AM (18 children)
So some government idiots burned a bunch of corporate profit. The narrative fits you well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2023, @03:13AM (17 children)
Yes, very funny, and so very superficial and shallow, and your source of information is ironic... What is happening is just the tidal ebb and flow of accounting units, there are no "losses". ITAR, like any other prohibition, is beneficial to somebody
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2023, @04:39AM (16 children)
Billions of dollars in costs (over a few year period!) just because some politicians wanted to look tough on foreign spying. You keep whistling pass that graveyard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @02:58AM (15 children)
Billions more in receivables, kickbacks, subsidies, bailouts.. balance is maintained. You are proffering fairy tales
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @03:32AM (14 children)
Once again you ignore who benefits and who controls the benefits. Government created the problems - billions of dollars in costs and lost sales for 15 years just because someone wanted to virtue signal. Now, according to you they get to dole the solutions out too. You just told me where the power really is - in government, and yet you still don't understand what you keep acknowledging post after post. They created the costs and they created the schemes to get around the costs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2023, @08:24PM (13 children)
... for some, immense profits for others. Find where the profits go, and you will find the government's master.
All in service to the corps that finance them. Money drives all decisions. Money is what creates and destroy governments
You still fail to separate corp from gov't
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @11:35PM (12 children)
You're blowing smoke. Some if not all of that immense profits goes to government sources. They get reelected. They get empire building.
Right. Even your arguments betrayed you. And if we look at what really happened, the corps "that finance them" got screwed. And government got to magnanimously provide the solution to the problem they created. There's no immense profits for unnamed corporations here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28 2023, @05:24AM (11 children)
No they didn't. If that were true, they would not be financing them today, we would have an entirely different government. You are just in denial of the symbiosis and the sameness. Money makes the world go 'round
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 28 2023, @06:29AM (10 children)
CIRCULAR LOGIC ENGAGE! Those corps are so powerful that if the government really were running over them roughshod, like the US government or OPEC does right now, then those powerful corps would have changed those governments. Since they haven't done so, clearly our lying eyes are wrong here and the corps really are in charge.
Well, reality disagreed. That's that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28 2023, @09:06PM (9 children)
No they don't, they have put nobody in the poorhouse, they are in full compliance, the corps have no reason to change anything, business is good, the ticker tapes belie everything you say. You're just rerunning old fairy tales in your head. Government serves and protects business, because it is a business
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2023, @01:56AM (8 children)
US industry is an obvious counterexample. A lot of it went bankrupt over the past half century. Ever hear of the Rust Belt? Steel and textiles went poof! The Big Three are hollow shells of their original selves. Nowadays, coal power is on the run because of green ideology. It's easy to claim corps are winning, when you ignore the many losers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2023, @05:22AM (7 children)
You are delusional. The American people lost plenty. The corps lost nothing, they just moved their operations and accounts offshore.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2023, @07:18AM (6 children)
Except of course, for the numerous examples I already gave which already show the error of your words above. It's not just that you are blatantly wrong, but also the profound primitive immaturity where you just insist on the same small set of statements no matter what. I've seen four year olds come up with better arguments than that and more importantly adapt to challenges and obstacles. I'm not going to give you a lollipop just because you one-note whine.
What I think is particularly remarkable about this whole thing is that the rest of us still don't know what you think a corp is. All we know is that you are of the opinion it's something other than those powerful government agencies you refuse to acknowledge exist. A person who can't even express simple concepts or understand their readers' point of views at a basic level, isn't going to have some deep insight into the world's power structure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2023, @01:47AM (5 children)
You provide nothing to argue. Your "numerous examples" are nothing but superficial claptrap, purely anecdotal to local events. Everything you say has already been debunked by professionals.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 30 2023, @03:07AM (4 children)
My numerous examples merely needed to be right. I hit that: most of the largest corporations in the world are state-owned; I gave numerous cases where government acted unilaterally and often frivolously to cost corporations money (you then mumbled that ambiguous someone must be making massive profits somewhere); and you acknowledged that government gives out vast sums to corporations - that's demonstrated control of those purse strings.
It's time to give up. You clearly haven't thought about this a bit and you can't provide even the slightest evidence for your claims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2023, @11:34PM (3 children)
Heh, too bad they aren't, not even close. You're just wagging the dog. Globally everything remains the same, piracy with a trademark and a badge
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:15AM (2 children)
How did I know you would make yet another zero content post?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:13AM (1 child)
Everything you know is wrong
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:42AM