> People in the UK will be better protected from illegal harms online
What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated).
If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the internet run by people who can't afford the time/cost of lawyers in order to comply with and refute claims of breach of this legislation?
Also 'online harms' pertaining to 'eating disorders'. What content promotes eating disorders?! Is there a single site that authors/proponents of this regulation can point to that literally 'promotes eating disorders'? How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not? See: chilling effect [1]
There are numerous sites and social media pages on all the major platforms that literally promote anorexia. That you’ve never heard of them should perhaps encourage you to take a more curious and less combative approach to this topic.
is asking for a tiny bit of evidence (this is gentle curiousness; the antithesis of combative). Earnestly, are you able to provide one site that 'promotes eating disorders', so I can be educated?
If the answer is 'any site with charismatic too-slim people', isn't that extremely difficult to administer, and possibly become horribly discriminatory, for example if a site has a user profile of a beautiful but illegally[1] slender person, doesn't that 'promote eating disorders'? Would a site admin be legally compelled to block that user, or at least censor their profile pic?
I literally don't know what's legal vs illegal in this sphere, and suspect 99% of others are the same, and that probably includes the legislators themselves. Those claiming to know precisely what's il/legal in this context are probably overconfident.
If you search slang for anorexia and bulimia (ana and mia, respectively), it comes up. The slang helps remove the stigma and feels more friendly/cool. Thinspo/thinspiration is another term used by that community. "Help me love ana".
With that search, there are sites that come up [1]. These terms are also used on reddit, instagram, etc for people to share tips (to be better anorexics/bulimics).
> This website is for support for those with an eating disorder who feel alone and by themself with this issue.
Where are people with anorexia and bulimia supposed to get support/information if forums about the topics are untenable?
Many can't beat the condition, and there's potential benefit in learning to accept and live with it.
I'm not saying the site is unequivocally good, just that it's not unequivocally bad, therefore onerous regulation that has huge side-effects on information sharing to curb something that's arguably net-beneficial is dubious and shouldn't be pursued without strong evidence that 1. It will work as intended, and 2. It will actually be beneficial.
In general, the internet has shifted away from this "laissez-faire" line of thinking.
A site that helps people live with these disorders means more people dealing with negative effects of eating disorders like hair loss, ruined teeth, suicide/mental illness, and cardiovascular damage. These effects in turn increase healthcare costs for the government via the NHS.
Bombarding anyone with these disorders with information to get better is far better for society. If people can't change, then this strategy is better for the people who can, who would otherwise get stuck in a community supportive of unhealthy behavior.
You can't call it unequivocally good or bad, but the doctor's treating the disorder can. The government bean counters have. The studies that these groups produce do (simple search brings up dozens). The politicians fighting for these bills have and will call it good.
(I liked the more free internet, but it doesn't exist anymore and here we are.)
> Where are people with anorexia and bulimia supposed to get support/information if forums about the topics are untenable? Many can't beat the condition, and there's potential benefit in learning to accept and live with it.
Sending an anorexic to a pro-ana site is like sending someone with major depressive order to a pro-suicide site. These sites are not support groups for people struggling to cope with anorexia, they’re sites that tell you tips for overcoming your body’s defences to starving it to death
I don't believe in banning websites but that website is unequivocally bad.
It's a website that reinforces all the cognitive distortions of anorexia. It's the equivalent of a website for depression that says "You know how you feel like life isn't worth living, you're right it isn't, everyone who tells you that with treatment it will get better is lying to you. Here's a bunch of inspirational blog posts about how wonderful suicide is and 10 ways to kill yourself."
Anorexia is not a very stable condition, you can't really just accept it and live with it. Anorexia is built on a positive feedback loop. Obsession with thinness drives low body weight, and low body weight increases the obsession. Most anorexics get worse when not being treated. This is one of the reason it has such a staggeringly high mortality rate.
If you come from an angle of ‘I’ve never seen it therefor it’s just whack a mole’ don’t be surprised if people read it as simple rejection rather than curiosity. Using language like ‘Is there a single site?’ doubles down on it.
Young children being treated for eating disorders as inpatients in hospitals almost always have been in contact with some kind of eating disorder glorification.
But the article doesn't give a single site or name a single community; it provides zero evidence of its claims.
> Camille, a 20-year-old who has struggled with an eating disorder since middle school, described her community as initially intended to be a safe space but ultimately spiraling out of control due to algorithmic influence
If these claims are true, why not simply demonstrate it; at least state the name of the community so readers can cross reference (to ensure it's not 'boogyman' | typical alarmist-bait), or show us screenshots, or create a dummy twitter account and scroll down the feed as evidence of 'algorithmic influence'. That's 15 minutes work. Why doesn't the journalist do that? Is it possible these things aren't nearly as bad as they claim?
Algorithms will promote what the user clicks on and engages with. Simply: three dots -> Not interested in this post. That retrains the algorithm. And if people are seeking harmful content, they'll find it with or without algorithms, with or without twitter, with or without the internet! Are we banning books next? And conversation? What about reasoning in one's own mind, that too?
Perhaps it is because censoring the content is more important to the authors than citing the "dangerous" content.
>Is it possible these things aren't nearly as bad as they claim?
Under the premises of the censors, you shouldn't examine or question their claims. This is for your own safety. Instead, you should implicitly trust the authority figures to dole out trustworthy information.
Approaching the topic with the tools of rational inquiry is a form of wrong-think.
If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.
Do you do this with everything? Search down examples of child sexual abuse material and murders before you believe they exist?
I don’t think it a “dubious” claim at all - you’ve been on the internet there is a community for _everything_ it’s not surprising there is a community for this.
Traditionally the method is there are some things that people just assume exist and for things outside that circle they require some smidgen of evidence to believe in. It is a bit like me saying I believe there are people in the Arctic (never really seen evidence of it, but seems reasonable) vs. pixies (if I'm being asked to believe in pixies, I'd like to see some evidence).
The idea that there are sites promoting eating disorders does seem to me plausible by default, but nomilk does allude to a good point that without examples it is hard to talk about harms. These sites, if they exist, might be quite difficult to find without going and looking for them. I don't remember ever seeing a hint of such a site.
I suppose the difference for me is I've not seen any examples of Child sexual abuse online. Its obviously a bad thing, so steps taken to prevent that directly are a good thing. When you start restricting everyone, in order to stop that harm, then you need to start quantifying risks.
This isn't arresting murderers, this is restricting the sale of rope that murderers might use on their victims. or to get more specific. this isn't banning clubs where murderers can get together. this is imposing checks on all clubs to make sure there aren't any murderers in them.
If it reasonable for the boy scouts to do checks on their members to make sure that a few of them aren't planning a murder? should the boy scouts be responsible if a few boys do go and murder someone? a murder that was planned in the scout hut?
This is restricting the sale of "how to murder people" handbooks, even at garage sales. Therefore every garage sale proprietor is burdened to make sure they aren't selling a handbook explaining how to murder people, even if they got a load of miscellaneous items from an anonymous person.
> challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach
I would bet ignoring dubious claims is the default. Challenging and questioning any claims is a better default but I don’t think it is a common default reaction by many people.
I didn't read his questions nearly as combative as I read yours. And I say that as someone who's very aware of and very adverse to the idea and tactic of concern trolling.
I've spent enough time working with teams dedicated to combatting proana, and other S/SH issues, so I know pretty well how significant a problem it is. If I'd only read the above non-answers I'd probably be likely to take the side of the person you responded to.
If you think he's being combative, I'd hope you'd defuse it with redirection, instead of overt hostility. Especially if one of the issues you care about is how harmful proana, anorexia, S/SH and adjacent issues are, I'd assume you knew you need to start with compassion and understanding.
He’s not concern trolling he’s just being contrary with the inputs because he fundamentally disagrees with law that is the topic here. First, question the existence of EVERYTHING in a bad faith way.
I think you’ve misread that I have any stake at all in proana/anorexia promotion - I just know it exists and the “online 10 hours a day for 10 years” guy who hasn’t come across it went straight to ‘is there a single site’ rather than I dunno, googling it.
> There are numerous sites and social media pages on all the major platforms that literally promote anorexia.
Although probably a just cause I'd say that the western world does have an obesity problem though, not an anorexia one. So a better example would be all the sites encouraging people being lazy and fat and eating junk while labelling anything criticizing the unhealthiness of obesity as supposedly engaging in "fat shaming".
I mean: even using the term "fat shaming" is encouraging fat people to stay fat. And that's promoting eating disorders IMO.
So: fighting anorexia, sure. But we got bigger fishes (literally) to deal with if the (laudable) goal is to fight eating disorders.
>the western world does have an obesity problem though, not an anorexia one
It has both, and they are linked. It is a false ontology to place them in opposition, just because one is "too fat" and the other "too thin".
It's also very arguable that obesity is the "worse" problem. Yes it causes negative health outcomes, and is more widespread, but anorexia is more immediately and dramatically harmful, even fatal, and disproportionately affects teenagers during a critical growth phase, often causing irreversible disfigurement.
Also, it's become pretty clear that anorexia embodies a particular kind of dysfunctional dynamic between body perception and diet (one that is gaining recognition in other forms of dietary restriction, as sometimes seen in e.g. athletes and people obsessed with various categorizations of "natural" or "pure" foods). The vast majority of obese people aren't building an elaborate system of memes and rituals to force themselves to overeat because they look in the mirror and see themselves as thinner than they really are.
The anorexia problem is part of the obesity problem. Young girls (and increasingly, young boys) see all the pressure to be skinny and at the same time are surrounded by food designed to make them fat. They respond by swearing off food entirely. They are terrified of becoming fat, and literally see their bodies as fat even as they are about to die of starvation.
Fixing the numerous causes of obesity would definitely help. But it's not made easier by the existence of "pro-ana" social media which encourages young anorexics to reinforce each other's dangerous attitudes to food.
When I watch UK streaming services (ITVx) I get bombarded with adds for junkfood takaway services. The obesity promotions are just staggering. (Outside that I mostly watch YouTube with a premium sub, so maybe I'm just unaware as to how this compares to non UK media services)
> What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated).
As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, with two MPs murdered in the last decade.
You and I have the luxury that we can just not be on Twitter - but when you're an MP, unless you're in a very safe seat you've got to meet voters where they are, not where you'd like them to be.
So from an MP's perspective? In one hand they've got a report about revenge porn, cyber-bullying, 4chan /pol/ and pro-anorexia facebook groups. In the other hand they've got their phone where someone's just told them to kill themselves.
They believe in these "illegal harms" because they've got a front row seat, and experience them on a daily basis.
> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats, with two MPs murdered in the last decade.
1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws?
2. They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this.
> 1. Aren’t such threats already covered by existing laws?
The Online Safety Act isn't about making these things illegal. It's about making it more difficult to do the illegal things in the first place. To take an analogy: money laundering legislation exists to make it harder to use the proceeds of organised crime in legitimate life. Being a drug dealer is already illegal, yet we don't use that as an argument against such laws and regulations.
"The purpose of the system is what it does." 99% of people are not drug dealers, yet we still experience the deadweight loss of KYC and AML. Therefore AML exists because agents of the state like to screw with us, waste our time, and steal our cash.
So your position is that we should allow criminals to launder the proceeds of violent and organised crime (with all the victims it causes) into the legitimate economy because…
Your response is similar to someone who opposes privacy activists and their fight for E2E encryption saying "so your position is that children should be sexually exploited online". It's an absurd caricaturization of a nuanced set of arguments with deeper ramifications.
No, a person who opposes heavy-handed, invasive KYC and AML laws does not argue that genuine organized crime figures and terrorists should do however they please with their money. The argument is instead that fighting these figures and their transactions shouldn't be designed in such a way that it also penalizes the vast majority of people who are doing nothing more illegal than tripping up some bullshit lazy, rote paranoid financial legal framework.
Also, like many other kinds of privacy, financial privacy should be a right that isn't exclusive to government black budgets and well-connected elites.
>> So your position is that we should allow criminals to launder the proceeds of violent and organised crime
> Your response is similar to someone who opposes privacy activists and their fight for E2E encryption saying "so your position is that children should be sexually exploited online".
Re-read my accusation. I never stated that you support committing crimes, I stated that you believe that, once the crime is committed, the money can be entered into the legitimate system.
With that said, let's look at your clarification:
> No, a person who opposes heavy-handed, invasive KYC and AML laws
> their transactions shouldn't be designed in such a way that it also penalizes the vast majority of people
I need to see evidence that the "vast majority" of people are being "penalized" by this system. The most "inconvenience" I ever faced was having to provide bank statements when applying for a mortgage to prove the deposit was legitimately my money. There was a post just last week from patio11 that makes me doubt your claim that the "vast majority" of people are inconvenienced by AML. In addition, I watched this video by a former financial services advisor [1] that also suggests to me that your claims are wildly overblown.
> Also, like many other kinds of privacy, financial privacy should be a right that isn't exclusive to government black budgets and well-connected elites.
Weirdly "well-connected elites" are the people most inconvenienced by AML, KYC and PEP regulations (see above references), so I think your grasp of the issue is not aligned with reality.
>Re-read my accusation. I never stated that you support committing crimes
No, you said essentially exactly that, that a person opposing AML and KYC is automatically supporting "scary" crime:
"So your position is that we should allow criminals to launder the proceeds of violent and organised crime"
The evidence of many, many people being penalized by AML and KYC is abundant. Either you're deliberately being obtuse or just haven't paid attention. On this site alone, posts and attending comments very, very regularly appear describing the numerous ways in which ordinary people and small businesses face financial difficulties and account freezes explicitly because of AML rules, sometimes in their worst, entirely algorithmic forms. This has applied with bank accounts, payment processing firms and perhaps most infamous of all, Paypal, which is almost universally famous for its bullshittery on freeing "suspicious" funds and transactions.
You saying that because you've had no problems, then there probably is no problem is like someone who's never personally been harassed by the police while driving saying that reports of police brutality against marginalized individuals are probably absurd. Good for you for turning anecdote into evidence.
Patio11's post, which I've seen, also does no favors to your argument. Using a mountain of verbiage, it elaborates how and why the crap I describe happens. The post also seems to justify the banks that do it as poor victims of something that they're obviously complicit in for the sake of their profitable bottom lines (since it's easier to just freeze someone out with no explanation than actually devote resources to better, more transparent support for customers who find themselves shafted by some mandated financial suspicion process)
If you really think that well connected elites are especially hamstrung by AML, KYC and PEP regulations, you should really take a closer look at several major financial leaks such as the Panama Papers and others.
> The evidence of many, many people being penalized by AML and KYC is abundant.
Then provide evidence that it's affecting 99% or even just "the vast majority" of people.
> You saying that because you've had no problems, then there probably is no problem is like someone who's never personally been harassed by the police while driving saying that reports of police brutality against marginalized individuals are probably absurd. Good for you for turning anecdote into evidence.
No, I'm saying "I had no problems, therefore the claim that the 'vast majority' or '99%' of people have this problem will need to be substantiated."
> Patio11's post, which I've seen, also does no favors to your argument. Using a mountain of verbiage, it elaborates how and why the crap I describe happens.
I never said it doesn't happen. I specifically said it doesn't happen to "the vast majority" or "99%" of people. Patio11's post is very clear that, by definition, this does not happen to "the vast majority" of people.
> If you really think that well connected elites are especially hamstrung by AML, KYC and PEP regulations
I posted a link from a financial advisor that explains clearly that this is exactly what happens. In response, you have yet to provide evidence that these regulations affect the vast majority of people in any meaningful way.
> They weren’t murdered on Twitter, so I fail to see how the Online Safety Act would have helped prevent this.
I mention that because in some online communities threats of rape and murder are bandied about jokingly. That 12 year old on Fortnite voice chat isn't really going to fuck your mom! That twitter joke trial where someone threatened to blow up an airport was ridiculous. Some might wonder - why can't these twitter-using politicians ignore a few murder threats from neo-nazis and islamists, like the rest of us?
The reason is the real, non-joke murders by neo-nazis and islamists.
Wouldn't it be easier to get the jump on them by not threatening them in the first place? How does stopping the verbal threat also stop the real life attack?
Not to say that I wish harm on anyone or think anyone deserves to be threatened. The point is more that if the reasoning for this is as you say, then the laws they're putting in place don't really make sense. It's like if someone was going around poisoning the water supply and they outlawed talking about it instead of just protecting the water supply.
> As I understand things, MPs who are on Twitter regularly get anonymous threats of rape, murder etc https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63330885 - credible threats,
I am sure threats of violence are already illegal. If those people are in the UK, they should be prosecuted. If they are not in the UK they is not threat. I don't believe any if these online threats BTW are credible.
What these MPs do is frequently make outlandish statements, which then gets them a bunch of hate (Jess Phillips has done this her entire political career) and useful idiots will shout their mouth off online. These MPs then point to all the "hate" they are getting. There is even a meme demonstrating this very effect:
I believe the individual was deemed at risk of radicalisation.
> You and I have the luxury that we can just not be on Twitter - but when you're an MP, unless you're in a very safe seat you've got to meet voters where they are, not where you'd like them to be.
They don't need to be on Twitter. Twitter isn't their local constituents. They have surgeries for this very reason. Very few people on Twitter are relevant to what happens on election day in their constituency.
> So from an MP's perspective? In one hand they've got a report about revenge porn, cyber-bullying, 4chan /pol/ and pro-anorexia facebook groups. In the other hand they've got their phone where someone's just told them to kill themselves.
Even if that is true that doesn't mean we restrict everyone's rights because a minority are engaging in illegal/immoral acts.
> They believe in these "illegal harms" because they've got a front row seat, and experience them on a daily basis.
That is what they say to sell the narrative that they need to censor social media. If you look over the last 20 years. It is as if nobody has learned anything from the early 2000s and the war on terror. They will exploit (or create) any crisis.
You can disagree with the position, whilst accepting that MPs have been murdered, and MPs do get threatened online.
What specific level of power hunger makes a threat to life acceptable?
Further, I wasn't in favour of these proposals, but if you have people on HN of all places thinking its acceptable to threaten people, maybe we do need this law.
Every law that the MPs create is itself a threat against the people. A prescriptive law can only be described as "Do what I say, or I will hurt you." Agents of the state create laws, and then take your money and pay that money to men with guns to come after you if you fail to comply.
Murder is already illegal, and threatening to murder someone is already illegal. Any further legislation, the burden of proof is on them not on me or the parent poster. Otherwise one day they might claim that me taking a shit will lead to their murder and have my toilets removed.
Im not saying the burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying murder is legal.
I'm saying that making sarcastic comments suggesting that MPs deserve to be murdered or threatened isn't acceptable.
Its a completely separate issue from the law theyve introduced, which as I said, I'm not in favour of, and I agree they need to make the case before they remove your toilets, I've already made such a comment elsewhere in this thread.
They’re talking about thinspo. Was pretty popular and survived search bans on many platforms. To save you a search, it’s mostly about getting thing legs that do not touch and overall ~40kg body type.
How's thinspo different to fat-acceptance communities? (I have nothing against either, I think people ought to be free to pursue information on their body-type)
As with everything it depends on the communities you run with. The core tenet of fat acceptance is that your weight doesn't define your value as a human. Proana which is short for pro-anorexia, also known as thinspo (thin inspiration) has the core tenet of advocating and encouraging an eating disorder as how you'd obtain value. The point of thinspo is to provide people inspiration and motivation to starve themselves, which is otherwise unnatural for humans to do. if you found a community that advocate overeating as the aesthetic ideal that would be as toxic. with the caveat being that being underweight is more dangerous from a health standpoint than overweight is. again, it all depends on the community and exactly what they're advocating for.
you'd be more attractive if you were thiner that is healthy, is a lot more toxic of an idea than being fat doesn't mean there's something wrong with you.
Depending on the level of fat being accepted, that is also encouraging an eating disorder, is I believe GP's point.
Like don't shame someone a bit 'overweight' they're just thicc and body positive sure fine whatever, but so what they're 'obese' they're an obese human is as unhelpful as encouraging anorexia. ('overweight' & 'obese' being well-defined terms of BMI range)
I guess one is acceptance and another is driving oneself into starvation. If fat communities encourage becoming fat by eating more/worse, they are as delusional. The key idea of thinspo and other look-related movements is to become someone who you biologically aren’t by extreme measures. Some people are naturally thin-built, for them it’s sort of normal. For others it’s basically a destructive body modification which is only temporary. Thinspo is not pursuing information, they are pursuing the body type itself. I liked thinspo type before it had a name, but only when it’s natural and stays within reasonable effort. What’s the point of preferring someone who is constantly on the edge and will snap out of it eventually. This movement should not exist basically, cause it does no good.
Anorexics aren't happy with their body. If they go to a site where they find acceptance and understanding, thats good?
And on the other hand, it used to be the case that Models were stick thin. If the fat acceptance crowd succeeds, and fat becomes the standard of beauty and people try and emulate that, thats bad.
The difference is that Anorexics don't accept themselves, and try to achieve an unhealthy weight. Obese people are trying to gain acceptance for the unhealthy weight they are.
The danger is that acceptance is an overloaded term. It isn't just accepting one individual who is already fat. Its shifting culture to the point where it becomes a standard for beauty, which is where people start emulating it.
> he 15 different kinds of illegal harms set out in Ofcom’s draft risk assessment guidance are: Terrorism offences; Child
Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (CSEA), including Grooming and Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM); Encouraging or
assisting suicide (or attempted suicide) or serious Self Harm; Hate offences; Harassment, stalking, threats and abuse;
Controlling or coercive behaviour (CCB); Drugs and psychoactive substances offences; Firearms and other weapons
offences; Unlawful immigration and human trafficking; Sexual exploitation of adults; Extreme pornography offence;
Intimate Image Abuse; Proceeds of crime offences; Fraud and financial services offences; and the Foreign interference
offence (FIO).
——-
Online harms are always going to be impossible. Same as crime.
Parts of the internet are already being destroyed, and will continue to be destroyed.
Further in the past, we can look to the “Adpocalyse” on YouTube caused by a glut of terrorist content on social media and it being monetised by ads from major brands.
To your last question: that’s why they’re submitting their plans to Ofcom, so they can get into compliance. The link even highlights that regulation is based on risk. Have a larger platform or want to operate in a greyer area? You need to show how you’ll comply in more detail.
I hadn't seen this site but will check it out. Thank you for providing some evidence! (really dislike the idea of boogymen! - so seeing a real site is refreshing).
> Would you want your children or young adults spending time there?
Suicide is a difficult topic. I'd never want anyone (related or otherwise) to be in a position where ending their life is their best option, but then I support euthanasia (a subset of suicide), so I certainly support people obtaining information that could help their situation, even if their situation is difficult, dire and worthy of enormous compassion.
The problem is it’s become an entire of subculture of people, almost cult like, who are not only accepting of euthanasia but are actively pro-suicide. I think a lot of people would still be alive if this community didn’t exist. Most of them seem to have mental issues rather than being terminally ill. Also young people are especially vulnerable to being brainwashed by these sorts of things.
I'm assuming this is the site mentioned in this video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C3y6SsGAWks it might be best to remove the actual link so people in a bad mental state don't end up there. Cc @dang
Have only watched 2 minutes, but this looks like actual evidence that a) harmful sites may exist, and b) people may use them and be worse of from their access to them. I'm not sure it will convince me banning access to information is a good idea, but really appreciate you sharing it, as it's the most promising evidence provided yet.
> Is there a single site that authors/proponents of this regulation can point to that literally 'promotes eating disorders'
Yes, Tumblr has quite a bit of this content. You're looking for terms like proana, thinspo, meanspo, mia, b/p, various misspellings of anorexic to avoid filters, and ironically "not pro just using tags."
If you want to see the content just create a Tumblr account, search proana, click past the eating disorder hotline message, and scroll through. It goes on forever. Fair warning, it's depressing.
>How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not?
I remember there were stories about GDPR at the time that some site simply decide to block all IPs from EUR, and some sadly because they believe they dont comply, simply shut down the site.
In a world ( well US at least ) where the trend is moving to deregulate things. UK decided to quite literally regulate everything. This is sad.
I dont think Banks and Finance should get less regulations ( May be in certain areas ). But there are certainly industry and sectors that needs less regulation.
To put it in a software development terms, a lot of laws and regulations need a major refactor.
How would this special court work? Can anyone including amateur scientists access it freely? Are the arguments public?
What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have." The fact that it's clear makes it difficult for the government to shut down opposition political speech.
I also think scientific inquiry should be an open process.
Similar to how you regulate any mass media channels (TV, Radio, etc). You have a regulator in place, for example, anyone with +10.000 followers, or who gets +10.000 views should be considered a person of influence and be liable for their claims.
I agree with you, I think everything should be made public, including influencers' income statements.
> What's nice about free speech is it's a simple rule, "any citizen can speak about and promote any opinion they have."
Thankfully there are laws in place, and the point is more laws should be in place to make people liable for disinformation.
Yes, I'd rather be where opposing views are allowed.
Remember when Covid vax was promoted as it'd prevent you from spreading the disease, or that they were "safe" (no heart related side effects).
People don't win when government officials are guardians of "the truth".
You want to give the power to the people that make the laws to also decree what is true or not? This is going to turn out well.
I don’t think that having institutions that can legislate the truth is compatible with free and just societies. Political power and democratic majorities do not decide the truth. if you think otherwise I don’t believe there is common ground to be found.
They don't, no billionaire can put you in jail for believing/saying something different that they want you to believe.
And let me get this straight, you think that having an institution that legislates the truth is protection against billionaires usurping that power? Who has the money to lobby those institutions to do their bidding? Me and you or the billionaire?
> They don't, no billionaire can put you in jail for believing/saying something different that they want you to believe.
They can make your living unsustainable, some can de-platform you, and let's not kid ourselves they can make your life miserable with this new billionaire cult following. We know they can get away from a lot of things, and they can stay out of jail. We're yet to see what will happen when they capture the government.
I don't get this worshipping of tech billionaires and the Market. Is it under the illusion that the market will serve us, and some will be fortunate to get the scraps of value?
> And let me get this straight, you think that having an institution that legislates the truth is protection against billionaires usurping that power? Who has the money to lobby those institutions to do their bidding? Me and you or the billionaire?
For the US, that boat has already sailed. You already have tech billionaires who legislate the truth—look at Twitter, and what happened once Elon set Twitter to push MAGA propaganda[0]—that became the truth. He was successful at it and now is seeking to influence other elections[1].
What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated).
If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the internet run by people who can't afford the time/cost of lawyers in order to comply with and refute claims of breach of this legislation?
Also 'online harms' pertaining to 'eating disorders'. What content promotes eating disorders?! Is there a single site that authors/proponents of this regulation can point to that literally 'promotes eating disorders'? How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not? See: chilling effect [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect