‘But Prof Livingstone noted that it was “possible that the companies are over-blocking to undermine the Act”‘ – no, @livingstone_s, Reddit simply does not editorialise user content

Sonia is quoted by the BBC:

[…] an expert in children’s digital rights at the London School of Economics – said that companies might “get better over time at not blocking public interest content while also protecting children” as the law beds in over time.

She echoes conspiratorial thinking that platforms…


…that platforms are actively seeking to undermine the online safety act. My experience is that the platforms just want to work out some way to survive without incurring the disruptive and expensive wrath of regulators.

It is the people – individual citizens – who are actively seeking to undermine the online safety act. The problem is: the people don’t want obstacles to be in their way, and they are choosing paths of desire to walk around obstacles in the most efficient way.

It should not be and is not obligatory for sites like Reddit to editorially label individual content semantically – this is pornographic, that is not – when instead they can merely offer entire forums for being “adults only” thereby restricting the content to everything within.

Professor Livingstone possibly does not realise that she is proposing all platforms must assume a duty to label content individually with respect to a bunch of localised moral categories (violence, nudity, drugs, each with different definitions in different jurisdictions) – a challenge which not merely is problematic from a perspective of civil liberties and national jurisdictions, but also is prone to error and not economic to implement for any large platform.

Overblocking stems as a consequence of platforms legitimately restricting access by forum rather than individual content labels, and it is short-sighted and foolish of anyone to have not realised this before demanding age verification be applied to platforms.

Further demanding that all major platforms should now reappraise and reimplement their software to meet child safety activist notions of “how the internet ought to work” – a semantic web labelled and policed by platforms – is not proportionate nor realistic, and (however bizarrely) may actually be legally actionable in some jurisdictions.

Tech giants blocking some Ukraine and Gaza posts under new online rules – BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3l0e4vr0ko

Fediverse reactions

Comments

3 responses to “‘But Prof Livingstone noted that it was “possible that the companies are over-blocking to undermine the Act”‘ – no, @livingstone_s, Reddit simply does not editorialise user content”

  1. @alecm exactly as you say! It seems that the a big part of the problem is that the guidelines around what needs to be blocked and how blocking needs to be enforced are as clear as mud and even with folks like @neil doing amazing work trying to seek clarity and provide advise, people would (understandably) prefer to err on the side of caution.

    Maybe we can bastardise Hanlon's razor here: "never ascribe to malice [of the website owners], that which can be adequately explained by stupidity [of the Government]"

  2. @alecm exactly as you say! It seems that the a big part of the problem is that the guidelines around what needs to be blocked and how blocking needs to be enforced are as clear as mud and people would (understandably) prefer to err on the side of caution.

    Maybe we can bastardise Hanlon's razor here: "never ascribe to malice [of the website owners], that which can be adequately explained by stupidity [of the Government]"

  3. @alecm
    This seems highly relevant to Australia's new online child protection regime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *