,
17 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
A very few comments on the Online Harms White Paper - maybe more later
This comment must absolutely delight Zucks eyes. No monitoring of private commas! So all he has to do is follow up the strategy already advertised of moving everyone to WA/ Messenger. Could they have been talking to each other? 😀 
Para 3.30 appears to contemplate creation of an independent tribunal system for hearing complaints of 44% of the UK population. Wow. Time to retrain as a mediator. The ICANN UDRP experience ( panels funded by industry favoured industry, duh) might be instructive here.
Most of the introduction seemed to ascribe the troubles of the world to platforms in ways that were quite breathtaking. Is it really the fault of platforms that the UK prison system can't stop people smuggling smartphones into jails?
And no a "specific monitoring requirement" combing for particular types of illegal content is still v clearly a general monitoring requirement - see Scarlet v SABAM where only ( c) infringing content was being searched for ( but hey the EU seems to be having same mistake, so?)
Clarifying "expedient takedown" ( p 66 ) is indeed a vg idea for codes of conduct which should have been done oh 17 years ago?
I'm delighted to discover the existence of an SME called SuperAwesome 😀 Everything is awesome except well almost everything on the Internet..
And cutting to the chase - 6.4 enforcement includes powers to issue civil fines for breach of the duty of care. There is no possible way I can see this is not in breach of ECD arts 12-15 however dressed up.
I have heard recital 48 ( not mentioned) as the justification - but it only justifies application of a duty of care to illegal content - not harmful such as disinformation.
So I guess it's a good thing we're leaving the EU huh?
However the penalty in 6.5 - of blocking an entire platform from UK users for a small percent of its content( dream on - but let's assume it could work) - seems likely to also breach the ECHR art 10 ( see Turkish YouTube case) - so I guess we'd better leave that too?
I also refer as usual to ECD art 4(1) - information society service providers shall not be made subject to prior authorisation or other req having "equivalent effect". In other words, no licensing by codes of conduct w draconian enforcement penalties. Again time to leave..
( for anyone wondering - this specifically doesn't apply to telcos and broadcasters - art 4(2).)
Exec summary ; I know there are problems and I can see the Uk is working on solutions. But please don't try to pretend this is compliant with E Comm Dir cos that's MY Directive and it ain't 😀
Also reinventing court structures for 2 bn people is not the easiest way to crack a nut. I thought it when Zuck announced his FB Supreme Court and I think it now for the UK.
Alternately - NON tightly defined content? So FB needs to scan your private messages for harmful but NOt illegal content??
