Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #OnlineHarms

Most recents (6)

The #OnlineHarms proposal seems to be centred around four core fallacies:
Fallacy 1: the "#WildWestWeb" fallacy, that current law does not apply to online behaviour and speech.

It does, and, as the Law Commission found, there are situations in which online speech is regulated in a way that offline speech is not.
Fallacy 2: that computer systems operated by private companies, to which limited access is granted on a discretionary basis, are "public spaces".

Hard to know where to start with this one.
Read 7 tweets
The Internet: Broken or About to be Broken? @cyberleagle opens #SCLConf2019
Well, it’s broken. And the list of reasons why it’s broken is pretty endless. Even @timberners_lee thinks so! But the Internet is still a good and liberating thing overall - there is probably more good than bad
It would be foolish to think that state-defined social good can be achieved through the manipulation of technology or regulation for that matter. Legislation which mandates that technology regulates freedom of expression to achieve such aim is dangerous
Read 11 tweets
Just kicking off at the @computersandlaw #digitalmedia law masterclass - first up, #TV, #tech and regulation
Interesting time seeing traditional broadcasters move into the streaming space - is it the beginning of the end of linear broadcast TV as we know it!? 🎵 Streaming killed the TV star 🎵
Broadcast TV still accounts for 71% of viewing time - but more subscriptions to streaming services than pay-TV
Read 44 tweets
A few thoughts on the #OnlineHarms White Paper. It has a "vision" of a "A free, open and secure internet [and] Freedom of expression online" "where companies take effective steps to keep their users safe".

In 102 pages how free expression will be protected is not explained.
There is a list of harms: "Harms with a clear definition" and "Harms with a less clear definition". These are roughly "illegal" versus "legal but unwanted". (p31)

Content may be legal and harmful yet will remain legal to publish unless you are a platform. Why?
Probably because it's very difficult to establish the harm from the content, or it would be contentious to ban that content.

This should signal the complexity and difficulty in balancing free expression and content takedown. This is not discussed.
Read 14 tweets
Working my way through today's #onlineharms White Paper. The Tories' intention to regulate the internet was a major red flag in their 2017 election manifesto. Obviously the discourse has changed since then, but we'll see if they've learned the required lessons.
The report's fairly unequivocal in its presentation of the Russian Government as a foreign policy and cyber-security threat. We've heard ministers state as much for some time, but it's always striking to see it presented so starkly.
The @guardian gets an unexpected feature too for their broad-spectrum research into targeted abuse of their writers. Again, it's something we've all know for a while, but good to see it featuring in such a report.
Read 15 tweets
The "initial" list of online harms. " design, neither exhaustive nor fixed. A static list could prevent swift regulatory action to address new forms of online harm, new technologies, content and new online activities." #onlineharms
Guess they haven't been reading the right blogs.…
And to think I warned of this 7 years ago...…
Read 4 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!