Censored!

[Steve R.]

I believe the law covers everything, although quite how we are supposed to monitor private conversations is beyond me. I've got to create a comprehensive audit of the site, the risk, technological solutions I have created and so on. I don't even know where to start. The whole thing is a nightmare, which is why some forum owners are closing down to avoid legal jeapordy.

Would this mean ("comprehensive audit of the site") purging the site of old posts?
That would be an impossible task.

 

[Jon]

I don't know.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It would be a constant purge, and who really knows what's offensive.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

When does this law take place and what is Musk and Zuck going to do about it.

 

[Steve R.]

who really knows what's offensive

No one. The term "offensive" is totally subjective. That degenerates into a meaningless term since anything can be defined as "offensive" depending on one's viewpoint.

 

[AccessBlaster]

No one. The term "offensive" is totally subjective. That degenerates into a meaningless term since anything can be defined as "offensive" depending on one's viewpoint.

It's scary times.
I'm surprised J.D. Vance made it out of Munich after his Greta Thunberg joke.

 

[moke123]

For those who aren't familiar with the Act

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50

Online Safety Act: explainer

www.gov.uk

 

[Darrell]

You're welcome. I did my best. Sadly, censorship has taken over the UK and jeopardises the livelihood of people like me, while ignoring all the crime going on elsewhere.

Seriously, what is happening to your country..? Surely there is a breaking point soon, where you gather in masses and storm the parliament..

 

[Pat Hartman]

It would be a constant purge, and who really knows what's offensive.

In a totalitarian state, which is where the UK is heading, "offensive" is whatever the PTB SAY is "offensive" so the reality is, if for some reason the PTB take a dislike to you or the forum, they'll come after you no matter what you do. Stand on the street corner like the man arrested for praying and you're toast.

If you are afraid, why not just sell the site to someone (or a consortium) in the US and take residuals? You are doomed if someone who is mad at you complains about anything. I think that is pretty much the entire point of this type of censorship. You are unwilling to stand up and fight but others may be willing to take on the risk for such a valuable tool. It really doesn't matter if you shut down the non-technical sections and even delete all the posts. You have no way to control the innocuous things that people say when they are posting.

NEVER FORGET. The meaning of "offensive" is whatever the PTB say it is. Look at how the US courts were weaponized against conservatives who supported Trump. if you hated Trump, you could burn cop cars and town halls and get away with it. If you made the mistake of walking in an open door where a cop was waving you in on Jan 6th, you could have spent the last 4 years in jail without bail. There is nothing fair about totalitarianism.

 

[moke123]

Musk and Zuck going to do about it.

What can they do? They can't vote in the UK.

I wouldn't doubt many are going to withdraw from that market, very much like Pornhub did to Texas. Either that or comply with the law. Comes down to what is cheaper.

Thinking about it in the context of my vr golf game and the business model of the quest headsets it's seems pretty complicated. Who's responsible? The Developer or Meta? I play with a ton of guys from the UK. When a kid tries to join our game we usually boot them. Problem is you don't know it's a kid until they say something. Everyone lets a random expletive fly when they miss that easy putt. Not sure how you'd handle things that happen in real time. I belong to a discord channel with the developers so I may go ask them their thoughts.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I asked Chatty to summarize the UK Online Safety Act, passed in October 2023. This paragraph caught my eye.

1. Protections for Lawful Speech​

• Platforms cannot be required to remove content that is legal but merely offensive or controversial.
• The law explicitly protects political debate and democratic discourse, meaning platforms must not censor lawful speech just because it is unpopular.
• Ofcom, the UK’s regulator, must ensure that enforcement does not lead to unintended censorship.

 

[Jon]

I asked Chatty to summarize the UK Online Safety Act, passed in October 2023. This paragraph caught my eye.

1. Protections for Lawful Speech​

• Platforms cannot be required to remove content that is legal but merely offensive or controversial.
• The law explicitly protects political debate and democratic discourse, meaning platforms must not censor lawful speech just because it is unpopular.
• Ofcom, the UK’s regulator, must ensure that enforcement does not lead to unintended censorship.

Political debate also covers religion, and there is much talk about blasphemy laws in the UK now, via the backdoor. And then you get accused of hate speech, an offence. They can turn anything that is "merely offensive", into a hate speech classification, in my view.

 

[Minty]

My view is that our super efficient, money and resource rich government, won't have anything like the time or inclination to actually police this act except in really extreme cases.

I'm a member of a forum that has some very interesting points of view expressed by a number of participants.
It's an adult place to vent and be somewhat inappropriate. It couldn't be more "anti-woke" if it tried!
The site is definitely UK based, and the owner/s admins aren't bothered due to reasons above.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

What can they do? They can't vote in the UK.

I wouldn't doubt many are going to withdraw from that market, very much like Pornhub did to Texas. Either that or comply with the law. Comes down to what is cheaper.

Thinking about it in the context of my vr golf game and the business model of the quest headsets it's seems pretty complicated. Who's responsible? The Developer or Meta? I play with a ton of guys from the UK. When a kid tries to join our game we usually boot them. Problem is you don't know it's a kid until they say something. Everyone lets a random expletive fly when they miss that easy putt. Not sure how you'd handle things that happen in real time. I belong to a discord channel with the developers so I may go ask them their thoughts.

According to Jon, if a UK citizen is affected, it doesn't matter where the platform is located. I can't see Musk or Zuck tolerating this.

 

[Jon]

According to Jon, if a UK citizen is affected, it doesn't matter where the platform is located. I can't see Musk or Zuck tolerating this.

This means US companies also have to comply with the legistation, since the internet gives global access. I believe the EU wants to upgrade their own laws. Then how do we deal with all this? Each country or block having their own rules. It would be nearly impossible for all those small businesses to comply. It is like reducing a motorway speed limit from 70mph to 5mph, criminalising everybody in the process.

 

[Isaac]

Vance has come down hard recently in some speeches about this issue, good for him. Hopefully they think twice about it.

Jon do you have any insights you can share as to your own personal opinion, after consideration, of examples of what kind of speech that may already be on this site that you would want to exclude going forward?

The reason I ask is that I know I am one of the members that posts on all kinds of 'delicate' subjects, so I'm planning to self moderate and try to make sure I don't cause you any harm from this - but due to that, a summary of what qualifies as should-be-excluded.....in your own words, might be helpful, if it's not too much trouble.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I moderate on a tax pro forum and the owner declared no political posts even though the forum these posts were on were only visible to the members.

 

[Jon]

Vance has come down hard recently in some speeches about this issue, good for him. Hopefully they think twice about it.

Jon do you have any insights you can share as to your own personal opinion, after consideration, of examples of what kind of speech that may already be on this site that you would want to exclude going forward?

The reason I ask is that I know I am one of the members that posts on all kinds of 'delicate' subjects, so I'm planning to self moderate and try to make sure I don't cause you any harm from this - but due to that, a summary of what qualifies as should-be-excluded.....in your own words, might be helpful, if it's not too much trouble.

Currently unknown, but could be things like excluding any talk about religion, Islam etc. Or genders. Basically, stopping all the things we like talking about!

 

[Mike Krailo]

Inconceivable!

 

[Steve R.]

There seems be a significant number of recent independent stories that do not apparently appear linked at first blush. Nevertheless they imply an expanding pro-censorship theme. For those of use who ascribe to conspiracy theories, it's troublesome.

German prosecutors tell '60 Minutes' it's a crime to insult people online as government raids offenders' homes

"60 Minutes" did a lengthy report on Germany's efforts to stop offensive rhetoric online, ranging from riding along with police raids to speaking with state prosecutors.

www.foxnews.com

Germany has been raiding the homes of those it believes to be making offensive statements online. CBS rode along with six armed officers as they raided a suspect’s home and seized his electronics.

JD Vance slams CBS host for claiming free speech was ‘weaponized’ in Germany to carry out Holocaust during argument with Marco Rubio

“No, I have — I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide,” Rubio shot back.

nypost.com

CBS journalist Margaret Brennan was rebuked Sunday after she claimed that free speech was “weaponized” in Germany to carry out the Holocaust during a back-and-forth with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

VP Vance's Munich speech praised as 'Churchillian' moment as CBS host faces criticism for response

Jonathan Turley praised VP Vance for his Munich Security Conference address, criticizing European free speech laws, criticizes response from CBS anchor Margaret Brennan.

www.foxnews.com

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley praised Vice President JD Vance for criticizing German censorship laws during his speech to the Munich Security Conference, where the vice president called out organizers for banning both far-left and far-right wing parties. Turley also reacted on "America's Newsroom," Tuesday to a CBS host blaming the Holocaust on free-speech.

What is also interesting with the pro-censorship narrative. The altruistic assertion for banning free speech is based on the need to combat so-called "far right extremism". Yet, one never hears about the need to combat something to reign-in "far left extremism". "Far left extremism" has resulted in the deaths of millions of people all in the name of protecting the "people" who the left claim to work for.