đŸ§” So today we’ve got the Government’s vision for online harms legislation. It’s a landmark day for all of us who’ve worked for this for years. Some quick early (personal!) thoughts:

This is a systemic Duty of Care, with a requirement to risk assess - regularly - for reasonable foreseeable harms and to act on them. Supported by Codes but that serve as guardrails, not a prescriptive checklist
There’s a broad requirement on all services to tackle illegal content and to take measures to protect children. Worried that age assurance may be expected to do a lot of heavy lifting instead of proper moderation for legal but harmful, but we’ll see
The biggest weakness: enforcement measures. Criminal sanctions & named persons have deference value - that’s why industry pushed back strongly. But not for at least 2 years and even then only covering failure to comply with the regulator. If Govt thinks this is really enough...
Investigatory powers are OK (particularly pleased to see the inclusion of skilled persons reviews 😉). But the balance between investigatory powers and duties isn’t where it needs to be to drive culture change
It’s a bold and necessary step to have encryption and private messaging services in scope. It reflects the threat vectors for CSA, and regulation wouldn’t appropriately tackle child harms otherwise
An intriguing reference to Ofcom co-designating regulatory powers đŸ€” But otherwise the Govt approach to user advocacy - leave it to Ofcom, without creating a funded user advocacy body - isn’t a level playing field and needs tightening in the Bill
There’s a MASSIVE gap around arrangements for platforms to tackle the cross-platform nature of risks, and to address material which facilitates CSAM. Regulator needs an approach that recognises the harm ecosystem and adopts an approach earlier in the abuse pipeline
This is an approach which rightly majors on children, but it arguably should have a broader focus for societal harms. We’re getting a real time lesson in disinformation, with the failure of platforms to moderate antivax an emerging and obvious public health risk
Is this world leading? We’ll see the #DSA later today. And on the surface, it has weaker enforcement powers than Ireland. But it’s still an important package, and there’s lots to fight for in the months ahead
One final thought: big shout out to some wonderful people that have worked tirelessly on this in past or current lives: @martha_kirby1 @_rosyrosyrosy @ga_hill @RuschenHannah @CharCallear. Heroes don’t always wear capes, but if you see them, you definitely owe them a pint

More from Government

1.
Act of 1871
This is VERY Long but it will end with a MEGA BOOM!
Bookmark it and read it in small bits to digest it all.

This info, comes from some reputable anons and my own digging, compiled together as a superthread!
InevitableET, IPOT... to name a few.

2.
https://t.co/udep5WEYUp
https://t.co/bnzeQek6zv


3.
The TL; DR version is they, by military force, and illegitimate legislature, amended the constitution against the will of The People and legally tricked us into becoming unwitting indentured slaves of human capital and resources to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the corporation)

4.
Republic vs Democracy
-They needed to get away from the Republic and create a Democracy in order to drive us towards socialism and inevitably a dictatorship (National Socialist Party aka NAZI)


5.
Flag
I don't normally do threads like this but I did want to provide some deeper thoughts on the below and why having a video game based on a real world war crime from the same people that received CIA funding isn't the best idea.

This will go pretty in depth FYI.


The core reason why I'm doing this thread is because:

1. It's clear the developers are marketing the game a certain way.

2. This is based on something that actually happened, a war crime no less. I don't have issues with shooter games in general ofc.

Firstly, It's important to acknowledge that the Iraq war was an illegal war, based on lies, a desire for regime change and control of resources in the region.

These were lies that people believed and still believe to this day.

It's also important to mention that the action taken by these aggressors is the reason there was a battle in Fallujah in the first place. People became resistance fighters because they were left with nothing but death and destruction all around them after the illegal invasion.

This is where one of the first red flags comes up.

The game is very much from an American point of view, as shown in the description.

When it mentions Iraqi civilians, it doesn't talk about them as victims, but mentions them as being pro US, fighting alongside them.

You May Also Like