Government considering regulating social media

[Argus]

So we're getting mouth noises from the government again about regulating social media for 'bad words'. This is coming in concert with government controlled media like the CBC continually pushing the message there is a huge white supremacy movement out there somewhere ready to destroy the country. Weak minded people on the Left are running around waving their arms in the air and shrieking in terror, and so something must be done!

OTTAWA—The Canadian government is "actively considering" regulating social media giants and believes that self-regulation of the platforms has failed.

Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould told the Star and BuzzFeed News that "all options are on the table" when it comes to applying domestic rules to international social media giants like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter.

Now if you want to see where such things lead, look to the U.K.

How does the Government propose that the UK's online space becomes the safest in the world? By introducing rules against 'unacceptable' content. Like 'safe spaces', the word 'unacceptable' should ring alarm bells. Unacceptable to whom? In future, internet users will not be allowed to 'undermine our democratic values and principles'. Offenders will be punished with huge fines and by naming and shaming the senior management of offending companies.

Maybe this all sounds a little… Chinese? Or Russian? Saudi Arabia has a similar prejudice against people who voice 'unacceptable' opinions. Within a few pages of the executive summary, an average reader might begin asking some of the basic questions any would-be reporter is trained to ask in their first week at work in a newsroom: what, who, where, when and why? What is going to be regulated? The broad answer is bad stuff.

But 'bad stuff' encompasses a huge range of material from things that are already illegal (terrorism, hate speech, child pornography etc) to more nebulous concepts. These include 'echo chambers' and 'filter bubbles', for example – which mean individual web users meet only a narrow range of views – and online harms 'which undermine our shared rights, responsibilities and opportunities to foster integration'. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6919537/ALAN-RUSBRIDGER-woman-banned-Facebook-posting-two-photos.html

[Guest]

Some of the stuff coming out of the UK these days makes me despair for my home.  I believe you posted about the lady arrested for misgendering someone on Twitter.  Insanity.

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Some of the stuff coming out of the UK these days makes me despair for my home.  I believe you posted about the lady arrested for misgendering someone on Twitter.  Insanity.

I don't believe they have actually charged her yet. She was arrested, though, and held for hours.

 But  yes, a lot of the stuff is kind of hard to take. The police calling people up because they like something on Facebook? The police coming to your door because you made an offhand comment on the internet that wasn't illegal?  Wow. 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by Argus

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't believe they actually jailed her for that. But yes, a lot of the stuff is kind of hard to take.

 

This from a random search...

A mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to a transgender woman as a man online.

Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with an activist on Twitter over so-called 'deadnaming'.

The 38-year-old, from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken and remains under investigation.

More than two months after her arrest on December 1, she has had neither her mobile phone or laptop returned, which she says is hampering her studies for a Masters in forensic psychology.

It's madness.  Where are the damn courts?

[QuebecOverCanada]

The UK isn't the UK anymore.

The police did not want to investigate grooming gangs to not appear racist.

This is not what Churchill has fought for.

[Yzermandius19]

58 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

The UK isn't the UK anymore.

The police did not want to investigate grooming gangs to not appear racist.

This is not what Churchill has fought for.

Churchill fought to preserve the empire and in doing so killed the empire, womp womp. Warmonger comeuppance.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Churchill fought to preserve the empire and in doing so killed the empire, womp womp. Warmonger comeuppance.

It was the Leftists in the Labour party who killed it. Just as it is leftists here who want to kill free speech.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

Chris Selley points out the insanity of allowing an ideologically driven government to decide what goes on the internet.

What’s going on on social media isn’t some unanticipated perversion or abuse of free speech. It is free speech. As a Facebook or Twitter customer — or indeed, a National Post subscriber — you are free to complain to management. As a citizen, if a politician comes by offering to help out with the problem, you should order him off your lawn.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-government-has-no-business-regulating-social-media

[Greg]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

ideologically driven government to decide what goes on the internet.

They can try but it's kind of pointless with the proliferation of SSL and VPNs on the market right now. Government firewalls can't stop encrypted communications, the best they can do is shut down the IPs associated with VPNs - which is what Netflix and China often do...  But even then, customers will simply switch to dedicated (rather than shared) IPs, which make it  virtually impossible to track down someone contravening the censors firewall.

Quote

But that number is still so huge it makes precious little difference to the vast number of available IP addresses, and any service provider that thinks that they shouldn’t be planning to give every tiny customer a /48 slice of the IPv6 address space should think again. You can and you should. There is enough /48 IPv6 address prefixes available to give every person on the planet about 4000 allocations before IANA has to release some more of the 80% of the space which is still undefined! [source]

So don't be too outraged, simply go buy a VPN service from a reputable provider and surf till your heart's content.

[Argus]

28 minutes ago, Greg said:

They can try but it's kind of pointless with the proliferation of SSL and VPNs on the market right now. Government firewalls can't stop encrypted communications, the best they can do is shut down the IPs associated with VPNs - which is what Netflix and China often do...  But even then, customers will simply switch to dedicated (rather than shared) IPs, which make it  virtually impossible to track down someone contravening the censors firewall.

So don't be too outraged, simply go buy a VPN service from a reputable provider and surf till your heart's content.

That will only get you so far when all the ideologically impure material is removed by censors under government orders. And when those who offer up such material are quickly banned. China has demonstrated you actually CAN censor the internet if you want to. 

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

It was the Leftists in the Labour party who killed it. Just as it is leftists here who want to kill free speech.

No. Churchill broke the back of the empire, due to warmongering, so they had to give it up. Blaming Labour because of the mess Churchill dumped in their lap is partisan hackery.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

No. Churchill broke the back of the empire, due to warmongering, so they had to give it up. Blaming Labour because of the mess Churchill dumped in their lap is partisan hackery.

By 'warmongering' are you referring to his leading them against the Nazis and their allies?

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

By 'warmongering' are you referring to his leading them against the Nazis and their allies?

Yes. It was Britain who declared war on Germany both times, using neutral countries as an excuse, that weren't worth fighting a world war over. The real reason they declared war on Germany is allied with Ottoman's and Italians, which threatened the route to India.

By trying to "preserve" the empire, Winston destroyed it. Nelson ha-ha.

Edited April 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

Sad, yet true. Silly Churchill, most overrated world leader of the 20th Century, by far. If history were not written by the victors, he wouldn't be lionized as he is, he'd be reviled. He was a truly terrible leader.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[egghead]

6 hours ago, Greg said:

They can try but it's kind of pointless with the proliferation of SSL and VPNs on the market right now. Government firewalls can't stop encrypted communications, the best they can do is shut down the IPs associated with VPNs - which is what Netflix and China often do...  But even then, customers will simply switch to dedicated (rather than shared) IPs, which make it  virtually impossible to track down someone contravening the censors firewall.

So don't be too outraged, simply go buy a VPN service from a reputable provider and surf till your heart's content.

So only rich can know more

Edited April 16, 2019 by egghead

[egghead]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

That will only get you so far when all the ideologically impure material is removed by censors under government orders. And when those who offer up such material are quickly banned. China has demonstrated you actually CAN censor the internet if you want to. 

Same as north korean, they turns it into Intranet.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Sad, yet true. Silly Churchill, most overrated world leader of the 20th Century, by far. If history were not written by the victors, he wouldn't be lionized as he is, he'd be reviled. He was a truly terrible leader.

You wanna keep this ridiculous alternate world history crap out of this topic, please?

[Yzermandius19]

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

You wanna keep this ridiculous alternate world history crap out of this topic, please?

You brought him up, if you don't want to talk about Churchill, don't talk about Churchill.

I don't give Churchill a pass just because he fought the Nazi's, you can if you want to, but that doesn't mean I am talking alternate history.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Argus]

23 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You brought him up, if you don't want to talk about Churchill, don't talk about Churchill.

No, I did not, and the person that did only mentioned him in passing.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

No, I did not, and the person that did only mentioned him in passing.

Oh well, I'm sure Charles Anthony will be along to delete those posts any minute now. Quit your whining.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[turnerfait]

I bought a new phone for my grandmother as a present for her anniversary.