'Why I am seeking to stamp out online echo chambers of hate'

[Nearly Sane]

I think it's difficult to frame this in a way that isn't going to be problematic as regards 'free' speech.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/online-echo-chambers-hate-facebook-bill

[ad_orientem]

What's an echo chamber?

[SteveH]

I don't know know know know...

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know know know know...

Good one!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

[jeremyp]

I think it's difficult to frame this in a way that isn't going to be problematic as regards 'free' speech.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/online-echo-chambers-hate-facebook-bill

Dammit, I'm in several closed Facebook groups and none of them have any content like that described in the article. Why do I choose such boring groups?

[Roses]

I had a FB account which I rarely used, and reserved for family only. I deleted my account a few months ago when I became concerned about the problems associated with it.

[Rhiannon]

I guess that if closed Facebook groups are, well, closed, then they will just up sticks and go elsewhere. I don't think this is about stopping free speech though, it is saying that certain types of speech aren't welcome on certain platforms. It's like people being allowed to smoke but not in a workplace.

[Udayana]

I think it's difficult to frame this in a way that isn't going to be problematic as regards 'free' speech.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/online-echo-chambers-hate-facebook-bill

Maybe that is why there is no draft or other bill documentation? Or just expected to get short shrift as backbencher's bill?

I agree with Rhi though, it is not clear that it would stop "free speech". Publishers and carriers of data should have legal responsibility, as appropriate, for the material transmitted. What is appropriate or not is what needs to be defined.
   

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe that is why there is no draft or other bill documentation? Or just expected to get short shrift as backbencher's bill?

I agree with Rhi though, it is not clear that it would stop "free speech". Publishers and carriers of data should have legal responsibility, as appropriate, for the material transmitted. What is appropriate or not is what needs to be defined.
 

I suspect the hope is that the govt might pick it up as a piece of legislation and that the bill is effectively a lobbying tool here. That said, I think that any attempt to write legislation on this and take it through parliament isn't going to be easy even with govt behind it.

No one has argued that it would stop free speech. The whole question of how we treat social media is complex, for example , as per the other thread on EU laws


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15810.msg747810#msg747810

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I think it's difficult to frame this in a way that isn't going to be problematic as regards 'free' speech.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/online-echo-chambers-hate-facebook-bill

I agree. What about anti European feelings being encouraged by that ugly git who runs Wetherspoons? Not I would set foot in one of his vile establishments, of course.

[jeremyp]

Not I would set foot in one of his vile establishments, of course.

Objectively speaking they’re not vile, unless it has been a while since the last refurb.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Objectively speaking they’re not vile, unless it has been a while since the last refurb.

You should try the one at Crystal Palace.

(Actually no, don't, just take my word for it, I wish you no harm).