Comment by mjburgess
4 months ago
What is the meaning of "illegal content" given in the OSA? What will social media platforms be forced to censor (, remove, ..) ... let's take a look:
Table 1.1: Priority offences by category ( https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/onli... )
Disucssion of offenses related to: prostitution, drugs, abuse & insults, suicide, "stiring up of racial/religious hatred", fraud and "foreign interference".
So one imagines a university student discussing, say: earning money as a prostitute. Events/memories related to drug taking. Insulting their coursemates. Ridiculing the iconography of a religion. And, the worst crime of all, "repeating russian propaganda" (eg., the terms of a peace deal) -- which russians said it, and if it is true are -- of course -- questions never asked nor answered.
This free-thinking university student's entire online life seems to have been criminalised in mere discussion by the OSA, there may have been zero actual actions involved (consider, though, a majority of UK students have taken class-A drugs at most prominent universities).
This seems as draconian, censorious, illiberal, repressive and "moral panic"y as the highs of repressive christian moralism in the mid 20th C.
We grew up with the internet being a fun place where fun things happen and you don't need to take it so seriously. It was the symbol of freedom. Then internet evolved into a business center, where everything is taken extremely seriously, don't you dare break the etiquette. It's a sad change to witness, but it is what it is.
It was once in a lifetime. Some things are best when not everybody (but especially lawyers) is aware of them.
Maybe the future will be places guarded by real life trust.
I'm no fan of this act but your characterisation is highly misleading.
To pick two examples from the document you linked:
Discussion of being a sex worker would not be covered. The only illegal content relating to sex work would be if you were actively soliciting or pimping. From the document:
* Causing or inciting prostitution for gain offence
* Controlling a prostitute for gain offence
Similarly, discussion of drug use wouldn't be illegal either per se, only using the forum to buy or sell drugs or to actively encourage others to use drugs:
* The unlawful supply, offer to supply, of controlled drugs
* The unlawful supply, or offer to supply, of articles for administering or preparing controlled drugs
* The supply, or offer to supply, of psychoactive substances
* Inciting any offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
That's very different to criminalising content where you talk about being (or visiting) a prostitute, or mention past or current drug use. Those things would all still be legal content.
Those are indeed against the law. The issue is what these platforms are required to censor on behalf of these other laws.
Recall that we just spent several years where discussion of major political issues of concern to society were censored across social media platforms. Taking an extremely charitable interpretation of what government demands will be made here isn't merely naïve but empirically false.
And the reason I chose those kinds of illegal activities was to show that these very laws themselves are plausibly oppressive as-is, plausibly lacking in "deep democractic" support (ie., perhaps suriving on very thin majorities) -- and so on.
And yet it is these laws for which mass interactive media will be censored.
This is hardly a list with murder at the top.
> [..] as the highs of repressive christian moralism in the mid 20th C.
What makes you pick the mid-20th century as the high point of repressive christian moralism? That doesn't seem even close to the high point if you look back further in history.
I was specifically thinking of the censorship of mass media which took place in the west from the 20s-90s, which enforced a "family values" kind of christian moralism. Prior to the 20s, mass media wasn't particularly censored (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Code_Hollywood):
USA : * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...
UK : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chamberlain
> From 1737 to 1968, the Lord Chamberlain had the power to decide which plays would be granted a licence for performance; this meant that he had the capacity to censor theatre at his pleasure.
UK : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty
> To assist local authorities in identifying obscene films, the Director of Public Prosecutions released a list of 72 films the office believed to violate the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
I'm supposing they mean
as the highs of (repressive christian moralism in the mid 20th C.)
and not
as the highs of (repressive christian moralism) in the mid 20th C.
It's a cheapshot at Christianity. That's all it is.
You're right. He should have mentioned the Victorian era (1837–1901) as a clear precedent of repressive moralism. Though there are still echoes of it today, where Christians want to ban any sort of criticism of their morality.
It is odd that stirring up hatred is fine, as long as it does not pertain to religion, race, sexual orientation
This is because use of this data could create significant risks to the individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms. For example, the various categories are closely linked with:
- freedom of thought, conscience and religion; - freedom of expression; - freedom of assembly and association; - the right to bodily integrity; - the right to respect for private and family life; or - freedom from discrimination.
- freedom of thought - freedom of expression - freedom of assembly and association
Then political views should be protected in the same manner?
Further, would this mean that even mentioning: Problems with child abuse in the Catholic church are forbidden. Problems with LGBT rights in some Islamic groups.
Since both can be seen as spreading hatred of people based on religion.
What about spreading hatred about fat people? Why is that not included?
This response is only intended to point out problems with such censorship as this bill defines.
Spreading or receiving hateful harassment is wrong regardless of the why it should all be banned. Or hateful harassment should be protected under freedom of speech.
To make a law that allows hateful harassment sometimes and makes it illegal in others is inherently not sustainable Since it will almost certainly have to keep expanding as other vulnerable groups are identified and thus deserve equal protection.
Where does it say discussion of those offences is illegal content? It says "content that amounts to a relevant offence". Frustratingly that is nonsensical: content surely cannot "amount to an offence" in and of itself. Offences have elements, which fall into two categories: actus reus and mens rea. And "content" cannot be either. Perhaps posting some content or possessing some content is the actus reus of an offence but the content itself does not seem to me to sensibly be able to be regarded as "amounting to an offence" any more than a knife "amounts to an offence". A knife might be used in a violent offence or might be possessed as a weapons possession offence but it makes no sense to me to say that the knife "amounts to an offence".
Either way, the point of that document in aggregate seems to be that "illegal content" is content that falls afoul of existing criminal law already: (possession and distribution of) terrorist training material is already illegal and so it is illegal content. But saying that you committed an offence is not, in and of itself, an offence, so saying you took drugs at university doesn't seem to me like it could be illegal content. Encouraging people to do so might be, but it already is.
Maybe I missed the bit where it says discussing things is illegal, so correct me if I am wrong.
Not your lawyer not legal advice etc etc
> This free-thinking university student's entire online life seems to have been criminalised in mere discussion by the OSA
There's nothing illegal about hosting a forum. The problem is that you as the site operator are legally required to take down certain kinds of content if and when it appears. Small sites with no money or staff don't have the resources to pay for a full time moderator. That cost scales with the number of users. And who knows whats in those 2.6M historical posts.
From TFA:
> The act will require a vast amount of work to be done on behalf of the Forums and there is no-one left with the availability to do it
Maybe an LLM can carry some of the load here for free forums like this to keep operating?
> Maybe an LLM can carry some of the load here for free forums like this to keep operating?
It can't give you any guarantees, and it can't be held liable for those mistakes.
And it misses the point that the law seems to, or could be used to, criminalise the simple discussion of unpleasant (to some) topics.
Without free discourse...well, I think it'd be real bad
1 reply →
This seems to be what the anti-Section 230 folks are going for. The UK just...went ahead and did it?
All you need to do is have a think about what reasonable steps you can take to protect your users from those risks, and write that down. It's not the end of the world.
1.36 Table 1.2 summarises the safety duties for providers of U2U services in relation to different types of illegal content. The duties are different for priority illegal content and relevant non-priority illegal content. Broadly they include:
a) Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content and minimising the length of time that such content is present on the service;
b) Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to design and operate systems in a way which mitigates and manages the risks identified in the service provider’s risk assessment;
c) A duty to operate the service using proportionate systems and processes designed to swiftly take down (priority or non-priority) illegal content when they become aware of it (the ‘takedown duty’); and
d) A duty to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design and operation of the service to mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence
---
That's a bit more than "have a think"
That is false. The post you replied to virtuously linked directly to the UK government's own overview of this law. Just writing down "reasonable steps" [1] is insufficient - you also have the following duties (quoting from the document):
- Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content and minimising the length of time that such content is present on the service;
- Duties to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to design and operate systems in a way which mitigates and manages the risks identified in the service provider’s risk assessment;
- A duty to operate the service using proportionate systems and processes designed to swiftly take down (priority or non-priority) illegal content when they become aware of it
- A duty to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design and operation of the service to mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence.
- The safety duty also requires providers to include provisions in their terms of service specifying how individuals are to be protected from illegal content, and to apply these provisions consistently.
Even if the language of this law was specific, it requires so many so invasive and difficult steps, no hobbyist, or even small company could reasonably meet. But it's anything but specific - it's full of vague, subjective language like "reasonable" and "proportionate", that would be ruinous to argue in court for anyone but billion dollar companies, and even for them, the end result will be that they are forced to accede to whatever demands some government-sanctioned online safety NGO will set, establishing a neverending treadmill of keeping up with what will become "industry standard" censorship. Because it's either that, or open yourself to huge legal risk that, in rejecting "industry standard" and "broadly recognized" censorship guidance to try to uphold some semblance of free discussion, you have failed to be "reasonable" and "proportionate" - you will be found to have "disregarded best practices and recognized experts in the field".
But, short of such an obvious breach, the rules regarding what can and can't be said, broadcast, forwarded, analysed are thought to be kept deliberately vague. In this way, everyone is on their toes and the authorities can shut down what they like at any time without having to give a reason. [2]
[1] Good luck arguing over what is "reasonable" in court if the government ever wants to shut you down.
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41523073
> "foreign interference"
That is a very tricky one to manage on an online forum. If an American expresses an opinion about UK policy, in a literal sense that is literally foreign interference. There isn't a technical way to tell propagandists from opinionated people. And the most effective propaganda, by far, is that which uses the truth to make reasonable and persuasive points - if it is possible to make a point that way then that is how it will be done.
The only way this works is to have a list of banned talking points from a government agency. I'd predict that effective criticism of [insert current government] is discovered to be driven mainly by foreign interference campaigns trying to promote division in the UK.
This runs into the same problem as all disinformation suppression campaigns - governments have no interest in removing the stuff everyone agrees is untrue - what is the point? the flat earthers are never going to gain traction and it doesn't matter if they do - the only topics worth suppressing are things that are plausible and persuasive. The topics most likely to turn out to be true in hindsight.
> The only way this works is to have a list of banned talking points from a government agency.
How so? The "obvious" solution to me, from the perspective of a politician, would be to 1. require online identity verification for signup to any forum hosted in your country, and then 2. using that information, only allow people who are citizens of your country to register.
(You know, like in China.)
That won't stop foreign disinformation. They'll just pay some local to say it.
And China's system doesn't stop disinformation; it promotes disinformation. It it designed to make sure that only China-sponsored disinformation is available. If you want a system for that it is a solved problem; it just isn't a good idea.
1 reply →
The British legal system is a common law one like the U.S I believe, so it would be up to court interpretation.
Foreign interference would probably be interpreted as an organized campaign of interference being launched by a foreign power.
>This runs into the same problem as all disinformation suppression campaigns - governments have no interest in removing the stuff everyone agrees is untrue
at one time everyone agreed Anti-Vaxx was untrue, and now it's American government policy but still just as untrue.
The legislation follows the general structure of the health and safety act a couple of decades ago. That also caused a big right wing press crisis, and then we all sort of moved on, did a bit more paperwork, and now fewer people die in factory accidents. It's really quite helpful to start practically implementing this stuff rather than philosophising about it.
Yeah it's all a series of no biggies. But one day citizens in your sinking ship of a country will be looking overseas at countries like Afghanistan in longing as they flip ends of the leaderboard with you.
In the linked PDF, where does it say you can't discuss using drugs?
Table 1.1: Priority offences by category
I might have missed something, but I can't see where it says you can't discuss using drugs. The table lists the following:
• The unlawful supply, offer to supply, of controlled drugs
• The unlawful supply, or offer to supply, of articles for administering or preparing controlled drugs
• The supply, or offer to supply, of psychoactive substances
• Inciting any offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
> This seems as draconian, censorious, illiberal, repressive and "moral panic"y as the highs of repressive christian moralism in the mid 20th C.
Given what has happened to the US as a result of unbridled free broadcast of misinformation and disinformation, we definitely need more "draconian, censorious, illiberal, repressive" rules around the propagation of such media.
Moral panic is EXACTLY what's called for!
You have captains of industry and thought leaders of the governing party throwing fucking nazi salutes, and this is broadcast to the masses! Insanity to defend free speech after the country is circling a drain as a result of said free speech.
[dead]
[flagged]
The point the person you are responding to is saying is that even discussing this is, under his interpretation, "illegal content". Which presumably would make your comment illegal content. I am not sure I agree but either this law is very poorly communicated to the public, or it is batshit insane authoritarian nonsense, if that is what people are taking away from it, but either way it is a major fuckup.
Well it's not obviously, otherwise the text of law would be illegal content too. It's just another bad faith interpretation of this kind of laws that I very often see on American-centered socials.