OFCOM to be given wide ranging powers that would kill off the likes of ARRSE

Guido sums up the "woke erarti" thereat to websites ,ike ARRSE with sligghtly un-PC views:


GUIDO _OFCOM CENSORSHIP

The highlights of the new legislation includes:

  • Ofcom will create guidelines to instruct any company with ‘user-generated content’ about how to manage online censorship. This includes comments sections on websites like ARRSE…
  • Ofcom will be given the remit to draw up and adapt the details of how its internet regulation works. Taking away power from accountable politicians and giving it to faceless bureaucrats.
  • Companies (such as OliveNet, the holding company of ARRSE) will be expected to remove "illegal" content (basically anything that is a hate non-crime under the 2010 EA).
  • Ofcom will also create rules for content that “is not illegal but has the potential to cause harm”.
    • The Government claims Ofcom will take a less serious approach with legal speech, however the Government has confirmed legal speech is in scope for censorship.
    • It is often not immediately clear what is illegal and what is legal speech, meaning regulation will force major companies to take an overly-censorious approach in the face of fines, jail times, and website blocks.
  • The “risk-based and proportionate” approach gives high levels of discretion Ofcom staff. ARRSE readers may be interested to note that Ofcom’s new chief executive is a “Diversity & Inclusion Champion” for the civil service, and we all know how balanced and even-handed that lot of PC-Nazis are.
 
Guido sums up the "woke erarti" thereat to websites ,ike ARRSE with sligghtly un-PC views:


GUIDO _OFCOM CENSORSHIP

The highlights of the new legislation includes:

  • Ofcom will create guidelines to instruct any company with ‘user-generated content’ about how to manage online censorship. This includes comments sections on websites like ARRSE…
  • Ofcom will be given the remit to draw up and adapt the details of how its internet regulation works. Taking away power from accountable politicians and giving it to faceless bureaucrats.
  • Companies (such as OliveNet, the holding company of ARRSE) will be expected to remove "illegal" content (basically anything that is a hate non-crime under the 2010 EA).
  • Ofcom will also create rules for content that “is not illegal but has the potential to cause harm”.
    • The Government claims Ofcom will take a less serious approach with legal speech, however the Government has confirmed legal speech is in scope for censorship.
    • It is often not immediately clear what is illegal and what is legal speech, meaning regulation will force major companies to take an overly-censorious approach in the face of fines, jail times, and website blocks.
  • The “risk-based and proportionate” approach gives high levels of discretion Ofcom staff. ARRSE readers may be interested to note that Ofcom’s new chief executive is a “Diversity & Inclusion Champion” for the civil service, and we all know how balanced and even-handed that lot of PC-Nazis are.
How do they propose to enforce this legislation on sites based entirely overseas?
 

endure

GCM
I see that the report has been written by that well known impartial organisation the Adam Smith Institute.
 

endure

GCM

According to the link they would also be able to fine companies for not meeting your content standards??
It's just politicians who have no idea how the internet works bullshitting again.

They think they can control it like they do the press so they wave their willies around until someone explains that they are powerless which bursts their little power bubbles.

There's nothing that politicos of all flavours hate more than being told they're powerless :mrgreen:
 

Steamboat

War Hero
It's just politicians who have no idea how the internet works bullshitting again.

They think they can control it like they do the press so they wave their willies around until someone explains that they are powerless which bursts their little power bubbles.

There's nothing that politicos of all flavours hate more than being told they're powerless :mrgreen:
It just smacks of censorship, which is a scary thing.
 

endure

GCM
It just smacks of censorship, which is a scary thing.
It smacks of stupid people talking about things they don't understand which isn't particularly scary at all really
 
It just smacks of censorship, which is a scary thing.
Agreed. A number of Labour MPs still seem unable to understand why their pledge of free internet for all was not a roaring success. One of the reasons being, I suggest, that many people felt deploy uncomfortable about a government controlling the on/off switch and filters for it.
 
So you're telling me shitcuntery would be reduced, and the old and bold can return to the 1950s, leaving the rest of us in peace?

Failing to see the drawback...
 

endure

GCM
I agree, but the whole concept just seems like Facebook jail on a Chinese level.
You REALLY REALLY must get over the impression you seem to have that the UK us a throbbing hive of censorship and oppression.

We might not have the 1st Amendment but we have a much more potent weapon in ridicule...
 

mrdude

War Hero
People will just use things like IRC and The Dark Web instead - or base their sites/servers outside of UK, or just even have private sections on forums - I don't think the people that write these articles have any idea about the technology behind the internet - they should stick to their day job of writing crap and annoying people.
 
Isn't 'the internet' part of this problem?

Irrespective of any religious guidelines, I would suggest that treating others as you wish to be treated is a pretty reasonable way to go about life. With the advent of the internet and anonymity, it is now possible for people to say things to people (ok, online) that would earn them a punch on the nose. There seems to have been a real loss of perspective in that disagreement does not mean abuse, and equally some people feel that they can say things without consequence.

People disagree in pubs and around dining tables all the time. It does not end in calls for people to be banned from there forever (NAAFI stories notwithstanding). But some think that people do not have the right to question their thinking, others think that there are no consequences to their words. In suggesting that the internet be a 'nicer' place, the only option offered is censorship. Not good. Not that I'm bright enough to think of a solution, merely observing that the internet seems to bring out the worst in rather too many people.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top