UK lawmakers are looking for ways to push censorship and reduce privacy.
DIDI RANKOVIC
UK’s authorities continue with the push to bring ever more censorship and surveillance to the country.
During two hearings organized by the Science, Innovation, and Technology Committee, a part of an inquiry into what are considered harmful algorithms and misinformation, demands were heard, mostly from MPs from the ranks of the ruling Labour Party, to censor PM Keir Starmer AI-generated memes, but also Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate.
And the committee heard yet more attacks on end-to-end encryption.
One of the hearings involved Google’s EMEA Managing Director of Trust & Safety Amanda Storey, and the other X’s Senior Director for Government Affairs Wifredo Fernandez, Director of Public Policy for Northern Europe at Meta Chris Yiu, and Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs at TikTok UK and Ireland Ali Law.
Labour MP Emily Darlington brought up a Starmer meme that is very popular on TikTok, which shows the prime minister “jumping into a boat full of migrants in front of Downing Street.”
Darlington seemed worried users might think this is actual footage of Starmer (“no sign or disclosure of AI,” she complained) but really, took this as an opportunity to suggest that algorithms should be programmed, in this case by TikTok, to downrank, i.e., censor content and crack down on memes simply because they are critical of Starmer.
Labour and Co-operative MP Paul Waugh turned his attention to X, branding Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate “a far-right influencer and a self-styled misogynist,” respectively – and, accusing them of spreading “harmful content online.” Waugh wanted Wifredo Fernandez to explain why they had been allowed back on the platform.
Fernandez did explain, saying that after Elon Musk bought Twitter, previously suspended accounts were allowed back – “so long as their (platform) violations did not violate the law.” Not an answer that satisfied Waugh – but how could it, in a country that has “non-crime hate incidents.”
Waugh was also the one who went after encryption during this hearing, suggesting that the technology is only useful to criminals such as pedophiles, and asking the Meta representative this type of question: “Isn’t it true that you’ve turned Facebook Messenger into Epstein’s own pedophile island?”
Another Labour and Co-operative MP, Lauren Sullivan, joined the attack on encryption and online anonymity from another but equally common angle – “misinformation.” And she also showed disdain for free speech.
“So freedom of speech, does that mean freedom of consequence? (…) Those people (who “said and done some pretty horrendous things”) will be held accountable and you won’t be protecting them through their anonymity by this privacy and encryption?” she asked Chris Yiu.
“Where content breaks the rules, there are consequences,” he told Sullivan.
SOURCE: Reclaim the Net
See Related Article Below
UK: Ofcom Pushes for Expanded Online Censorship Under the Guise of Combating Misogyny
Ofcom expands Online Safety Act enforcement to target online misogyny, raising concerns over vague definitions and increased censorship in the UK.
DIDI RANKOVIC
The Office of Communications (Ofcom), a regulator in charge of enforcing UK’s sweeping censorship law, the Online Safety Act, is bringing up the issue of misogyny, specifically in terms of online harassment, to pile on more pressure on social media companies.
Ofcom issued a press release explaining what it intends to “tackle” here, by means of censorship.
Ofcom wants to extend this to public figures such as journalists and politicians as well, prompting fears that members of the public might face yet another hurdle while trying to exercise their right to criticize these persons.
Ofcom’s proposals as to how this might be implemented are fully in line with the wording and tactics we’ve been seeing over the last years in the US, and beyond, with tech companies (it now turns out, in many instances attempting to protect themselves from previous government’s pressure).
Namely, make “definitions” of what is harmful as vague as possible – and then, by extension, the enforcement.
A lot of things, once you give it a moment, could fit into this Ofcom “definition” of what tech platforms are now supposed to address: “Detected misogyny, nudity or content depicting illegal gendered abuse and violence.”
Sounds great at first – but what is it, precisely? We’ve heard of faulty algorithms perplexingly designating social media users as “abusers.”
Critics think the wording of Ofcom’s latest “mission statement” might be just another way for the regulator to obfuscate the real issue (namely, of genuine online abuse) – as a guise to usher in an even stronger grip on UK online users’ speech.
From there on, demanding censorship of legal content, shocking as it might appear, goes hand in glove:
“For legal content, in some cases, providers may also seek to limit the circulation of such content through persuasion, removal, and reduction.”
Doesn’t end there, either. Social media should “set safer standards.”
This is basically along the lines of “pre-crime” – except, in this case, there isn’t even a crime. It sounds like “pre-pre crime.”
“Reduce the circulation of content depicting, promoting, or encouraging online gender-based harms,” urges Ofcom.
And here’s where the supposed worry about misogyny “automagically” blends into what’s peddled as a magnitude-broader issue of, “gender-bias.”
Yet these terms are, for some reason, used interchangeably by Ofcom.
“Tackling gender-based online harms can have a significant impact on the online experience of women and girls, including positively impacting their ability to express themselves freely.”
SOURCE: Reclaim the Net
*****
Do YOU Have a Secret Gov File?
The government is developing AI software to monitor social media for so-called ‘non-crime hate incidents,’ which some believe should be abolished rather than rebranded, as it infringe a on free speech and lead to unnecessary police involvement over non-offences, especially when vast resources are being directed towards managing these incidents instead of tackling serious criminal activity.
Concerns are raised regarding the use of AI to flag social media posts that could lead to investigations, labelling users as potential threats to national security without proper justification. The potential for misuse of such technology could result in individuals being wrongly targeted for expressing opinions that may be mischaracterised as dangerous, perpetuating a cycle of surveillance and privacy violations.
Summary provided by AI
WATCH:
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
So Starmer very publicly lied to Trump about the UK’s freedom of speech. Nah. PMs don’t do that sort of thing, do they?