I just wish I knew what an online harm actually was

Funny to see the online harms bill positioned as a blow against big tech when it will give them the power to make sweeping decisions on enforcement while simultaneously making it much harder for smaller competitors
Rule of politics: displays of strength are often signs of weakness. Online harms delegates many aspects of justice to tech companies. It's effectively an admission that the state can't do the work itself
This might be only practical way to proceed, given the scale of the challenge. But as the tech companies are going to be writing their own rules, then enforcing them, it embeds the existing way of doing things to an astonishing degree
The duty of care idea comes from health and safety, but I think the best analogy is financial market regulation pre-2008. It's trying to answer the question: how do we protect people* without interrupting the existing way of working?

*Defined as: keeping stories out of the news
A tech industry source gets in touch:

"I was involved in the consultation and it was pretty crazy
The two big messages were:
1. Could you first define and then solve this problem for us please?
2. Don’t worry, we won’t do anything to inconvenience you"
Perhaps I'm being overly negative. This is not an easy area to legislate. Govt needed more tools to deal with some parts of the internet

I just can't help see this as the product of a process where everyone ran around saying "something must be done!", but never worked out *what*
Yep https://t.co/mY8c00brE3
Good example of what I'm talking about: use of AI for moderation. Fraught with difficulty, but tech companies love it. Oliver Dowden was just asked about it in the Commons

He advised the MP "to go along to some of these tech companies and see the advances that they're making"
I am sympathetic to the government's dilemma here. It's not easy. But the potential for unintended consequences is v.high

In his speech Dowden said tech companies should try to "engineer the harm out of their platforms from the very outset"

I have no idea what that means either
A piece from last year on online harms, focusing mainly on cyberbullying

I like to be constructive, so I suggested a concrete proposal for action. If the government had taken my advice back then, it'd be a lot better off right now
https://t.co/Jo6iBz2rLC
Good question from @DamianCollins in the debate: will Ofcom be able to audit the transparency reports from tech companies? Oliver Dowden say they will

But will Ofcom be auditing a quarterly pdf or an API with data it defines itself?
Another good question, this time from @darrenpjones. Didn't get answered, but there you go
https://t.co/hjSbskGEmY

More from For later read

The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1

And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.

Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2


When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.

The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3

In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it


Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.

The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.

You May Also Like