The evils of the new 'Online Safety Bill'.. Are you ready for TOTAL censorship in the UK?

originally posted by: Missterious
Itll be like living in Communist Canada.

they'll be buying their rights soon enough as its not communism its actual fascism..

the essence of modern indulgences in shaping our concepts of rights as a commodity to buy/sell.. highlights what is happening not as communism but as a form of fascism.

Meta (Facebook / Instagram) to move to a "Pay for your Rights" approach

The Wall Street Journal reported that Meta plans to move to a "Pay for your Rights" model, where EU users will have to pay $ 168 a year (€ 160 a year) if they don't agree to give up their fundamental right to privacy on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. History has shown that Meta's regulator, the Irish DPC, is likely to agree to any way that Meta can bypass the GDPR. However, the company may also be able to use six words from a recent Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling to support its approach.

originally posted by: nickyw
the essence of modern indulgences in shaping our concepts of rights as a commodity to buy/sell.. highlights what is happening not as communism but as a form of fascism.

Meta (Facebook / Instagram) to move to a "Pay for your Rights" approach

The Wall Street Journal reported that Meta plans to move to a "Pay for your Rights" model, where EU users will have to pay $ 168 a year (€ 160 a year) if they don't agree to give up their fundamental right to privacy on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. History has shown that Meta's regulator, the Irish DPC, is likely to agree to any way that Meta can bypass the GDPR. However, the company may also be able to use six words from a recent Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling to support its approach.

It appears it's more of a 'get consumer consent first' and 'add-free and pay less choice' type of scenario:

One of the main goals is to break up the "closed environment where you are in a way locked in and you cannot go elsewhere, " said Alexandre de Streel, a professor of European law at the University of Namur and an academic director at CERRE, a think tank in Brussels.

"Consumers will be better off because you will pay less and will be able to move more easily from one one platform to another," de Streel said. "So that's the endgame."

For example, under the DMA tech companies can't stop consumers from connecting with businesses outside their platforms.

That could put pressure on Apple to open its App Store further. Video game maker Epic Games and music streaming service Spotify have both complained that Apple wouldn't let them bypass its Apple Pay payments system to avoid paying its 30 per cent commission for subscriptions. Apple has since eased some of its longstanding restrictions.

Messaging services will be required to work with each other. That means Telegram or Signal users could exchange texts or video files with WhatsApp users.

Platforms are banned from ranking their own products or services higher than their rivals in search results. So, Amazon isn't allowed to make its own-brand products easier to find than those from third-party merchants. The ecommerce giant already started giving European buyers more visible choices when it settled an EU antitrust probe last year, by offering them a second "buy box" with a different price or delivery offer for the same product.

Online services can't combine a user's personal data to build up a profile for targeted advertising. That means Meta can't mix together a user's data from Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp services without clear consent.

Essential software or apps such as web browsers can't be installed by default along with the operating system, in the way Google's Chrome comes bundled with Android phones. Consumers will instead be given a choice screen for search engines and browsers to use on their devices. Google noted that it's already doing this and said it would remind European users of their choices.

Meta said it's studying the commission's announcement, which had no impact on its services. Amazon said it will work with Brussels on its implementation plans.

Microsoft said it accepted being named as a gatekeeper and welcomed the Commission's decision to consider its request to exempt some of its services, including its Bing search engine and Edge browser.

TikTok "fundamentally" disagrees with the commission's decision, EU public policy chief Caroline Greer said on X. The video sharing app, which entered the European market about five years ago, has "brought choice" to an industry largely controlled by incumbents, she said.

Violations could result in fines of up to 10 per cent of a company's annual global revenue, and up to 20 per cent for repeat offenders, or even a breakup of the company.

someone called me a "nanny poo poo head" and im crying. can the UK government please help me?? whaaaa

the UK could give out free spots of tea to help calm those that were hurt by the imaginary words and images on their screen

dont worry, daddy gov is here to coddle us LOL

The problem is that once there is a backdoor people will look for it and like the clipper chip it soon goes out of date faster than a hungry person at an all you can eat buffet.

a reply to: quintessentone

Talk about missing the point.

There’s a big difference between being removed from Facebook and going to jail.

The problem is ignorance of what our lawmakers are putting into policy. Most people in the UK do not know whats in the bill.

If they start arresting people, then it will only highlight how Orwelian the UK has come and then there will be push back.

originally posted by: Debunkology
The problem is ignorance of what our lawmakers are putting into policy. Most people in the UK do not know whats in the bill.

If they start arresting people, then it will only highlight how Orwelian the UK has come and then there will be push back.

and as there is no functional police force it's not a battle the state can win..

a reply to: quintessentone

it appears is quite a weak argument in support of the current state of affairs.. i get most want to remain oblivious.

Its all an extension of a world addicted to people trafficking and into corporates buying/selling people under various schemes like eor where companies can lease their own employees back in the same way companies sell their carparks to 3rd parties who then fine shoppers..

we live the extreme version of economic liberalism that is a small step from fascism or a step away from its siblings Nazism and Stalinism..

our society is stuffed, the Nazis got sterilisation and euthanasia of the different over the political line in the 30's just as Canada has today.. we have those who says there is an acceptable number rapes on hospital wards, all the way to those who think rape is over in moments so isn't even a issue to worry about,

Even here in the sycamore tree three thread we had posters who wanted a 16 year old kid cut in half even though there was no way he could have cut the tree down.. which screams to the vengeance driven society we live in.. the Nazis thrived on blame too..

that speaks to the anger across our society as did the thread about trump suggesting looters be shot, where it seems many just prefer to mutilate others as though cutting humans into bits is the more evolved thing to do..

a society that can do that can buy/sell not only buy/sell the intangible rights of others but also their agency.

there is no appears about it as we live in a society that embraces human trafficking, slavey, mutilation, sterilisation and euthanising the different.

at best this society has 12 months before the implosion will become unstoppable.

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: Debunkology
The problem is ignorance of what our lawmakers are putting into policy. Most people in the UK do not know whats in the bill.

If they start arresting people, then it will only highlight how Orwelian the UK has come and then there will be push back.

and as there is no functional police force it's not a battle the state can win..

They can win because they are relying on the apathy of the British people, and the amount of British people completely hooked and dependent upon the system, they will fight to keep it rather than against it. The most dangerous people are not the police, or the government. It's Joe Public.

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: Debunkology
The problem is ignorance of what our lawmakers are putting into policy. Most people in the UK do not know whats in the bill.

If they start arresting people, then it will only highlight how Orwelian the UK has come and then there will be push back.

and as there is no functional police force it's not a battle the state can win..

As we have recently seen with the shooting in SW London, it only took a couple of days between armed police laying down their weapons and MSM reports the army were ready to step up.

a reply to: teapot

They're back on duty now.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

You have a bit of an unjustified downer on us Brits.

Let's see if you are right.

Won't hold my breath, mind.

originally posted by: quintessentone
If someone doesn't like their social platform's TOS or censoring algorithms, which probably use empirical scientific evidence and not opinion or conspiracy theories, then go somewhere else.

It amazes me that you have so missed the WHOLE point of this thread and the possibility of massive overreach of government agencies in the lives of everyday people in their everyday opines about this and that and whatever......and FREE SPEECH.

anyone who is fact-checked for 'misinformation' on social media channels should be ARRESTED by the UK police & charged under the malicious communications act.

The statement of precedence is so general and non-specific which allows the possibility of criminal overreach by government and government approved organizations. Basically, if you piss off the wrong person, you're in trouble.

And FIO, this is a caution for all countries and all people. The awesomeness of the world wide web to reach people with good news, bad news, any items of delectable opinion, whatever, could get almost anyone thrown in jail or fined. And of course, it would never apply to most of the elites and their ilk.

The world has truly become a place of divisiveness between the government and the people. The government no longer represents the people. It is an organization with many tentacles created to control, oppress and suck money from the billions on this planet.

I sure hope I'm never arrested or fined for this statement but if I am, I will stand by it.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Your attitude, has been noted, citizen.

originally posted by: quintessentone
This bill has been worked on for a while and this is why it was needed in the first place:

The Online Safety Bill started with a document called the “Online Harms White Paper,” which was unveiled way back in April 2019 by then-digital minister Jeremy Wright. The death of Molly Russell by suicide in 2017 brought into sharp relief the dangers of children being able to access content relating to self-harm and suicide online, and other events like the Cambridge Analytica scandal had created the political impetus to do something to regulate big online platforms.

Social media is ruining kids lives and the so called "online safety bill" is not going to change that. There is a HUGE epidemic of kids suffering from depression.
Back in the 90s when I was growing up, the internet was basically the dark web. It was far easier to access the worst stuff out there. The difference is that we didn't grow up with our eyes glued to the phone getting dopamine hits every 5 minutes, ruining the brain.
If the government REALLY cared about children then social media platforms would be restricted to adults only. But no, they'd never do that. If you think this bill is about "saving children" then your naivety is staggering.

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: quintessentone
This bill has been worked on for a while and this is why it was needed in the first place:

The Online Safety Bill started with a document called the “Online Harms White Paper,” which was unveiled way back in April 2019 by then-digital minister Jeremy Wright. The death of Molly Russell by suicide in 2017 brought into sharp relief the dangers of children being able to access content relating to self-harm and suicide online, and other events like the Cambridge Analytica scandal had created the political impetus to do something to regulate big online platforms.

Social media is ruining kids lives and the so called "online safety bill" is not going to change that. There is a HUGE epidemic of kids suffering from depression.
Back in the 90s when I was growing up, the internet was basically the dark web. It was far easier to access the worst stuff out there. The difference is that we didn't grow up with our eyes glued to the phone getting dopamine hits every 5 minutes, ruining the brain.
If the government REALLY cared about children then social media platforms would be restricted to adults only. But no, they'd never do that. If you think this bill is about "saving children" then your naivety is staggering.

Yes I think that is a large component of this bill and they referenced cases that prove it and I wait for evidence before I jump to conclusions, unlike many here. Staggering naivety is not accepting facts as many here do.

Extremists' noses are out of joint because they won't be able to continue their reactive knee jerk vitriol and death threats when they get butt hurt by others' opinions that don't jive with theirs.

Rumble is still turned 'on' so all is well on the conservative platform front.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: quintessentone
This bill has been worked on for a while and this is why it was needed in the first place:

The Online Safety Bill started with a document called the “Online Harms White Paper,” which was unveiled way back in April 2019 by then-digital minister Jeremy Wright. The death of Molly Russell by suicide in 2017 brought into sharp relief the dangers of children being able to access content relating to self-harm and suicide online, and other events like the Cambridge Analytica scandal had created the political impetus to do something to regulate big online platforms.

Social media is ruining kids lives and the so called "online safety bill" is not going to change that. There is a HUGE epidemic of kids suffering from depression.
Back in the 90s when I was growing up, the internet was basically the dark web. It was far easier to access the worst stuff out there. The difference is that we didn't grow up with our eyes glued to the phone getting dopamine hits every 5 minutes, ruining the brain.
If the government REALLY cared about children then social media platforms would be restricted to adults only. But no, they'd never do that. If you think this bill is about "saving children" then your naivety is staggering.

Yes I think that is a large component of this bill and they referenced cases that prove it and I wait for evidence before I jump to conclusions, unlike many here. Staggering naivety is not accepting facts as many here do.

Extremists' noses are out of joint because they won't be able to continue their reactive knee jerk vitriol and death threats when they get butt hurt by others' opinions that don't jive with theirs.

Rumble is still turned 'on' so all is well on the conservative platform front.

You don't know for how long Rumble will be on. The same is true for ATS. All these platforms could just vanish the online safety bill.

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: quintessentone
This bill has been worked on for a while and this is why it was needed in the first place:

The Online Safety Bill started with a document called the “Online Harms White Paper,” which was unveiled way back in April 2019 by then-digital minister Jeremy Wright. The death of Molly Russell by suicide in 2017 brought into sharp relief the dangers of children being able to access content relating to self-harm and suicide online, and other events like the Cambridge Analytica scandal had created the political impetus to do something to regulate big online platforms.

Social media is ruining kids lives and the so called "online safety bill" is not going to change that. There is a HUGE epidemic of kids suffering from depression.
Back in the 90s when I was growing up, the internet was basically the dark web. It was far easier to access the worst stuff out there. The difference is that we didn't grow up with our eyes glued to the phone getting dopamine hits every 5 minutes, ruining the brain.
If the government REALLY cared about children then social media platforms would be restricted to adults only. But no, they'd never do that. If you think this bill is about "saving children" then your naivety is staggering.

Yes I think that is a large component of this bill and they referenced cases that prove it and I wait for evidence before I jump to conclusions, unlike many here. Staggering naivety is not accepting facts as many here do.

Extremists' noses are out of joint because they won't be able to continue their reactive knee jerk vitriol and death threats when they get butt hurt by others' opinions that don't jive with theirs.

Rumble is still turned 'on' so all is well on the conservative platform front.

You don't know for how long Rumble will be on. The same is true for ATS. All these platforms could just vanish the online safety bill.

Then again they may never vanish. There is no sense in worrying about something that might not happen, but will most likely not happen.