advertisement


C4 QAnon The Cult Of Conspiracy

Tony L said:
I’m sorry, I just do not trust them given they are in the process of criminalising much public protest. It is not a huge jump from there to restricting things they can try to paint as extremists e.g. Momentum, Socialist Workers Party, Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion etc etc etc. I see the movement of travel. Thankfully the internet exists largely beyond their reach so they’d unquestionably fail even if they tried, but don’t assume they are not dumb enough to try.

PS I’m not necessarily arguing against the Online Safety Bill either, though I do think any attempt to ‘teflon desk’ any responsibility for the criminal behaviour of people onto social media businesses is a bit much. The tools to do most of this exists, hate speech etc, yet the police routinely do not act to protect people even after multiple reports.
Click to expand...
This present government is not trustworthy, I agree. But it has (until recently) enjoyed an unassailable majority and probably thinks/thought it could ram through powers if it chose to. It hasn't chosen to.

Again, what you argue boils down to 'let's abandon any attempt to regulate, because it might go wrong' while simultaneously disregarding the ways in which, sans regulation, it is already going wrong. Which is odd, because you were the one who started this thread, pointing out how it is going wrong. And you say you aren't necessarily arguing against the OSB, while at the same time arguing that online regulation is a terrible idea. Your position is incoherent, but you don't see it. Yet you criticise others of being blinded by their own POV.
 
KrisW said:
Apologies for jumping back a day or two, but I just wanted to point out that the UK does actually have this freedom enshrined in law. The 1998 Human Rights Act is the latest instrument that implements the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory (and was instrumental in drafting). Article 10 of that Convention, included as Schedule 1 of the 1988 Act, says this:



(full list here: Human Rights Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) )

This is the problem with the UK constitution, from being scattered across centuries of common law, it has a lot of “Unknown Knowns”: something that you have, but don’t know you have. These rights are actually a fairly recent addition (1953), but I wonder how many UK citizens would be surprised to know that it’s the law of the land.
Click to expand...
And the problem with the HRA is that 2) often undermines 1). Thus, for example under 1) we have the right to freedom of expression, but under 2) the government can curtail such rights as and when it sees fit (try pleading freedom of expression if you breach a super injunction and see how far it gets you).
 
Joe Hutch said:
And the problem with the HRA is that 2) often undermines 1). Thus, for example under 1) we have the right to freedom of expression, but under 2) the government can curtail such rights as and when it sees fit (try pleading freedom of expression if you breach a super injunction and see how far it gets you).
Click to expand...
Most human rights are qualified. Even the right to life is qualified.

And in order to use Art 10 to overturn a superinjunction, you'd need to show that the public interest in overturning the injunction overrides the purposes of the injunction. If you had a compelling case, you'd win. It has happened.
 
The UK government's default position is to cover up and conceal, and if necessary destroy uncomfortable evidence. The public's right to access government information, even if it's decades old, is often curtailed, as is the case with the papers of Lord Mountbatten. Add to this the UK's draconian libel laws, and freedom of speech in this country is honoured more in the breach than the observance.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Most human rights are qualified. Even the right to life is qualified.

And in order to use Art 10 to overturn a superinjunction, you'd need to show that the public interest in overturning the injunction overrides the purposes of the injunction. If you had a compelling case, you'd win. It has happened.
Click to expand...

You'd also need deep pockets, plenty of time, and legal training or the assistance of a 'pro bono' lawyer on mate's rates.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Again, what you argue boils down to 'let's abandon any attempt to regulate, because it might go wrong' while simultaneously disregarding the ways in which, sans regulation, it is already going wrong. Which is odd, because you were the one who started this thread, pointing out how it is going wrong. Your position is incoherent, but you don't see it. Yet you criticise others of being blinded by their own POV.
Click to expand...

My point is far more nuanced than I appear able to put into words. It is a very complex and nuanced subject and it absolutely needs to be viewed as a global tool that exists above the reach of nation states. Remove that and you remove the ability for the disenfranchised to speak truth to power. I end up banging heads with people who do not seem able to see beyond UK borders and somehow think social media is about us, our politics, our government. It may be helpful to think of it from the perspective of someone in a persecuted group in Iran, Russia, Belarus, Saudi, Syria or wherever. The argument for “regulation” will be pushed at least as forcefully by Putin, Assad and the rest of them, they desperately want to use it as a tool to spy on their population, and it is clearly essential it remains outside of their reach. Maybe try drawing a comparison to Wikileaks. It is essential it exists beyond the grasp of the nations it exposes. We need to value this freedom even if it comes with quite a high price tag.
 
Tony L said:
It is a very complex and nuanced subject and it absolutely needs to be viewed as a global tool that exists above the reach of nation states. Remove that and you remove the ability for the disenfranchised to speak truth to power. I end up banging heads with people who do not seem able to see beyond UK borders and somehow think social media is about us, our politics, our government. It may be helpful to think of it from the perspective of someone in a persecuted group in Iran, Russia, Belarus, Saudi, Syria or wherever. The argument for “regulation” will be pushed at least as forcefully by Putin, Assad and the rest of them, they desperately want to use it as a tool to spy on their population, and it is clearly essential it remains outside of their reach. Maybe try drawing a comparison to Wikileaks. It is essential it exists beyond the grasp of the nations it exposes. We need to value this freedom even if it comes with quite a high price tag.
Click to expand...
That last bit is, in essence, what the NRA says about the second amendment. It's not a credible argument there, and I don't think it flies very well in this case, either. You're not 'free' just because the bars of your cage are not visible to you. The way social media currently functions (I won't say 'works') doesn't give 'freedom to receive and impart information' because the receive bit is moderated through algorithms which are in the control of people who are not required to explain themselves to anybody. And 'imparting' information does, to some considerable degree, rely on 'receiving information'.

So what you characterise as a freedom isn't really a freedom. WE have a freedom already, and we have a tool, but the tool is, actually, undermining and distorting that freedom, but subtly. Boiling a frog.
 
Tony L said:
I’m sorry Jim, I’ve a huge, huge amount of respect for you in other fields, but you are coming across as spectacularly arrogant, condescending and patronising here. I’m getting to the point where I am reluctant to engage further. You are on the verge of turning into exactly the sort of entirely self-proclaimed authority those of us who exist outside of the mainstream have spent our whole lives kicking against. Clearly clueless
...
Click to expand...

Good Grief! You accused me of being "spectacularly arrogant" - then went on as you did! Inc things like commenting on RISC OS - which I suspect you may have little knowledge of in its current form, or main programs.

Have you read the book I suggested? Have you ever used, say, !TechWriter or have any idea how useful it is for technical authors?

I'll stop trying to disagree with you as I don't want to upset you. Apologies for having done that. Others can form their own views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top