The government thinks it’s holding big tech to account with this bill. In reality, they’ll just say thank you very much and ban anything remotely controversial, that’s right of centre and when the Tories complain, they’ll tell them they’re just following the laws they imposed.
Instead of taking away big techs right to censor, we’re handing them the legal authority to do so.
Why not just treat them like the publishing platforms they are and let people sue if they can prove harm in a court of law? That seems a lot better than the government deciding if something online might cause someone harm with no proof. And causing distress is NOT harm.
SS
Paul Sorrenti
2 years ago
being offended occasionally is good for your health. If the utter [REDACTED]s who drafted this bill don’t consider that when defining ‘care’ then they can stick this bill up their [REDACTED]
CW
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago
I don’t really see how I could agree with a Duty of Care – type bill because I am a subscriber to UnHerd and, hopefully, anybody can say anything on UnHerd (maybe). My number 1 concern is that I don’t want anything to do with American companies because I think that American ideas are poisonous to life.
But a question pops into my head. How do we decide who should be protected and who should not? For example, if an aged person says that that trans people are not real, presumably that would be treated as hatred or insulting behaviour. But if a trans person replies by something like, “Shut up you old fart. You should just die.” – is that also insulting?
As I get older, a straight, white, married, semi-retired person, I am aware that anyone can legally say something rude to me but maybe I can’t give back what I get. If I am semi-deaf, people can call me a deaf old coot. How would the lines be drawn?
I think it’s clear the lines would be firmly drawn according to the so called ‘woke’ ideology that has taken over the tech companies, so an old white person who says that biological sex matters would be regarded as contravening the duty of care to trans people.
WC
William Cameron
2 years ago
What is totally dismal is that on every side we see censorship -but very little defence of free speech.
Giving big tech the right to censor is like giving the keys of the kingdom to BLM.
Last edited 2 years ago by William Cameron
DM
Douglas McCallum
2 years ago
Sad to say, there is precedent for this bill. The SNP pushed through the Scottish Parliament a rightly much criticised Act for Suppression of Free Speech; they of course call it an act to control ‘Hate’ speech. The bill enshrines all the usual woke ideologies but more dangerously it has no accountability. It is the SNP Government which will decide what is allowed, and this will be enforced by criminal prosecutions launched by the State Police. (Separate police forces were abolished by the SNP, together with any pretence of local or accountability, and the new monolithic Police Scotland is wholly answerable to the SNP Government and its appointees.) The Scottish act is recklessly far reaching and ill-defined, and it even criminalises things one might say in the privacy of one’s own home.
If anyone thinks censorship is an idea of the Right – think again! As amply demonstrated in recent years (BLM, trans-fanaticism, vicious ‘cancellation’ of disagreement, CRT, wilful distortion of history, etc.) ideologically-driven people of the Left are currently the leaders in censorship. The SNP (and the Greens) pushed through the Scottish censorship law proudly as a measure of ‘progressiveness’. In the end, only the Scottish Conservatives voted against the bill.
EB
Edward De Beukelaer
2 years ago
Maybe we have to keep repeating to the world: power corrupts, POWER CORRUPTS, P O W E R C O R R U P T S …. !!!!! if they will hear this…
DS
David Simpson
2 years ago
and the solution is so simple. Identify everyone who comments on social media, and make it easy to prosecute them for libel, slander, defamation and damages (where eg I lose my job because you started or supported a twitter frenzy). The only duty of the online providers should be to check the identity of the commenter. If that turns out to be duff, make FB, Twitter, whatever liable
Report this comment
This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.
I think this correct.
The government thinks it’s holding big tech to account with this bill. In reality, they’ll just say thank you very much and ban anything remotely controversial, that’s right of centre and when the Tories complain, they’ll tell them they’re just following the laws they imposed.
Instead of taking away big techs right to censor, we’re handing them the legal authority to do so.
Why not just treat them like the publishing platforms they are and let people sue if they can prove harm in a court of law? That seems a lot better than the government deciding if something online might cause someone harm with no proof. And causing distress is NOT harm.
being offended occasionally is good for your health. If the utter [REDACTED]s who drafted this bill don’t consider that when defining ‘care’ then they can stick this bill up their [REDACTED]
I don’t really see how I could agree with a Duty of Care – type bill because I am a subscriber to UnHerd and, hopefully, anybody can say anything on UnHerd (maybe). My number 1 concern is that I don’t want anything to do with American companies because I think that American ideas are poisonous to life.
But a question pops into my head. How do we decide who should be protected and who should not? For example, if an aged person says that that trans people are not real, presumably that would be treated as hatred or insulting behaviour. But if a trans person replies by something like, “Shut up you old fart. You should just die.” – is that also insulting?
As I get older, a straight, white, married, semi-retired person, I am aware that anyone can legally say something rude to me but maybe I can’t give back what I get. If I am semi-deaf, people can call me a deaf old coot. How would the lines be drawn?
I think it’s clear the lines would be firmly drawn according to the so called ‘woke’ ideology that has taken over the tech companies, so an old white person who says that biological sex matters would be regarded as contravening the duty of care to trans people.
What is totally dismal is that on every side we see censorship -but very little defence of free speech.
Giving big tech the right to censor is like giving the keys of the kingdom to BLM.
Sad to say, there is precedent for this bill. The SNP pushed through the Scottish Parliament a rightly much criticised Act for Suppression of Free Speech; they of course call it an act to control ‘Hate’ speech. The bill enshrines all the usual woke ideologies but more dangerously it has no accountability. It is the SNP Government which will decide what is allowed, and this will be enforced by criminal prosecutions launched by the State Police. (Separate police forces were abolished by the SNP, together with any pretence of local or accountability, and the new monolithic Police Scotland is wholly answerable to the SNP Government and its appointees.) The Scottish act is recklessly far reaching and ill-defined, and it even criminalises things one might say in the privacy of one’s own home.
If anyone thinks censorship is an idea of the Right – think again! As amply demonstrated in recent years (BLM, trans-fanaticism, vicious ‘cancellation’ of disagreement, CRT, wilful distortion of history, etc.) ideologically-driven people of the Left are currently the leaders in censorship. The SNP (and the Greens) pushed through the Scottish censorship law proudly as a measure of ‘progressiveness’. In the end, only the Scottish Conservatives voted against the bill.
Maybe we have to keep repeating to the world: power corrupts, POWER CORRUPTS, P O W E R C O R R U P T S …. !!!!! if they will hear this…
and the solution is so simple. Identify everyone who comments on social media, and make it easy to prosecute them for libel, slander, defamation and damages (where eg I lose my job because you started or supported a twitter frenzy). The only duty of the online providers should be to check the identity of the commenter. If that turns out to be duff, make FB, Twitter, whatever liable