Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday January 20 2023, @04:09PM   Printer-friendly

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now 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: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2023, @01:56AM (8 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 29 2023, @01:56AM (#1289148) Journal

    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.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29 2023, @05:22AM (#1289159)

    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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 29 2023, @07:18AM (#1289164) Journal

      The American people lost plenty. The corps lost nothing, they just moved their operations and accounts offshore.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2023, @01:47AM (#1289227)

        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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 30 2023, @03:07AM (#1289234) Journal

          You provide nothing to argue. Your "numerous examples" are nothing but superficial claptrap, purely anecdotal to local events.

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2023, @11:34PM (#1289395)

            My numerous examples merely needed to be right.

            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)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2023, @03:15AM (#1289422) Journal

              Heh, too bad they aren't, not even close.

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:13AM (#1289434)

                Everything you know is wrong

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:42AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2023, @05:42AM (#1289438) Journal
                  Cool narrative bro. But there's this relativity of wrong [upenn.edu] thing you don't get. You haven't provided a bit of evidence for anything you've claimed. I have. Rational person will side with the evidence, even if it's not perfectly right.