47 Comments

1. 

   @benson5468

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   YouTube already do a fine job of sensor you

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   @joefothergill6303

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   So if someone takes an illegal drugs in a nightclub do you prosecute the nightclub?

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   @phoenix2k390

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   The internet is a minefield, parents should be looking after the kids and what they are viewing on there, the government is not your baby's daddy.

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   @stopthegreed7388

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   It's so they can protect themselves from us

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   @oxenford539

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   you completely failed to bring up the main reason why this is such an awful, awful idea. companies providing these online spaces (youtube, facebook, etc) would have to change in a large way if they wanted to continue being open to those in the UK. either achieve the impossible and monitor and prevent all illegal content (completely ridiculous and achievable), or be held accountable when anything slips by them. many companies – especially smaller ones without the means to achieve this – will just block access to those in the UK as it will be easier and cheaper than complying to new regulations.

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   @patavinity1262

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   We don't "protection" from free speech, it isn't even legitimate to use that word. If someone says something you don't like, that's just too bad. You have to be a grown-up and accept it.

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   @jod125

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   Users should protect themselves. If they can't, their parents should. If they still can't, they shouldn't be using the platform.

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   @Fyrethorne

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   Parenting belongs to parents. No-one else should be determining how children are raised or what they learn. If anything, we should be holding the parents responsible. Restricting thought has only ever played to the benefit of established powers.

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   @lv2draw1

   December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

   Its the whole debate over whether online platforms are public or priviate spaces. If they're priviate then its the owners job to regulate but if its a public space any issues fall on the individual posting.

   Personally i feel that internet spaces count as public spaces. So strict regulation is akin to and open to abuse by censorship.

   I understand that internet spaces can be seen as a nebulous concept as they are this odd mix of public and priviately owned spaces. The sites are run by corporations however, the service they provide is akin to a park, a bar, a community centre or any other public space where people can come together and discuss and do things together.

   Log in to Reply
10. 

    @KathyClysm

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    I love how so many people online used EU's Article 13 to advocate for Brexit, because it would destroy the Internet, and now this….I'd love a video comparing the two papers

    Log in to Reply
11. 

    @martinrowlandsreptiles8477

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    give people fines i bet another way make money if different kind views others not agree

    Log in to Reply
12. 

    @Philiptanzer

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    The companies are regulating already, but they are doing so with vague rules and seem to either be selectively blind or have their eye focused on very particular targets. The government demanding the companies make their rules explicit and then give us the option of appealing to Ofcom if they are either not following their own rules seems a sensible compromise (because as it stands the companies can just ignore your objections – they won't be able to do that if there is a legal body you can complain to).

    Log in to Reply
13. 

    @colinmunro3158

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Freedom of speech is more important than protecting people from feeling hurt, provided it doesn’t cause other harm. This is because the most important discussions are often painful to discuss by their very nature. If topics like slavery, racism, sexuality and mental health were censored because someone feels hurt about it, than we wouldn’t have many of the privileges of living in a democratic society. I’d rather have the freedom to make my own decisions than be satisfied with the choices I’ve made.

    Log in to Reply
14. 

    @ioannisimansola7115

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    – Yes Prime Minister
    – Thank you Sir Humphrey

    Log in to Reply
15. 

    @carmelclarke1

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    It's the parents job to police their child's online activity. Not the government, Facebook or any social media app

    Log in to Reply
16. 

    @personalsong7632

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    The DCMSC doesn't know how algorithm works if this come to law. Just go out with the UK market

    Log in to Reply
17. 

    @germansnowman

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    We got the first taste of this with the COPPA fiasco.

    Log in to Reply
18. 

    @ashanarchy7255

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    The Tory party constantly lies. Having them regulate social media is a horrible idea.

    Log in to Reply
19. 

    @joeldezwaan1149

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    My worry is when money is attached to that free speech. Harmful information like anti-vaccination campaigns and fake news that are putting money in Facebook's pocket makes Facebook complicit to the misinformation and harm caused by these campaigns.

    Log in to Reply
20. 

    @DaDunge

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    7:28 How they do something is not really relevant, they'll come up with something. The other two points are viable but this is like a company owning a billion cruise ships and saying they can't keep people safe on all of them.

    Log in to Reply
21. 

    @forwardslash1486

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Thank God for brexit were Britain can make up it's own silly rules with affecting any of us.

    Log in to Reply
22. 

    @Languslangus

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    You dont have freedom of speach online.

    Log in to Reply
23. 

    @axepagode33626

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Google is not going to take responsibility for the content loaded to their platform. There is way too much to monitor it all. The UK and EU are going to find themselves cut off from the rest of the world on their own private networks.

    Log in to Reply
24. 

    @satoau1

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    a lot of sensible comments about parents needing to take responsibility, but it is the government's job to make it easier for parents. video and movie rating is a good example, so is broadcast tv. it doesn't make sense for every parent in the country to go through the tv guide for every channel for the next few hours every time their kids want to watch tv. it's much more efficient that the government ensures there's nothing potentially disturbing on during morning and afternoon hours.
    the way to do that over the internet is absolutely impossible though. you can't regulate sites in another country, so the best you could do is offer an app for parents to download which enables viewing only of sites the government has rated ok for children. even this isn't without problems though, because even youtube is full of seemingly innocuous stuff that turns out to be dangerous. kids have already died copying stuff they found in youtube (heating up food in an aluminium can for example- sounds like weekend learning, turns out to be a death trap), and there are also tons of videos that make out to be cute cartoons but turn really gruesome or sexual in the middle.
    sure parents should be responsible, but also we can't expect them to watch every single video in its entirety before their kids watch it. we also need to encourage more parenting, as we all depend on those kids much more than most people on the internet care to admit. who's going to buy all the stuff we're making if nobody wants to have kids anymore? my business would definitely close without many customers.

    Log in to Reply
25. 

    @dean1100110

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Why does the government have to parents your children for you? Don't let your child on the internet unsupervised

    Log in to Reply
26. 

    @dean1100110

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Oh man did we just dodge and nanny State bullet

    Log in to Reply
27. 

    @saltysaltmaker3848

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    They should spend their money on important things, not on this nonsense.

    Log in to Reply
28. 

    @kpeteho6ot

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    I think its a very bad idea to let a multinational business set the rules on how citizens in your country should behave. It can have a detrimental effect to national sovereignty. Businesses as general are there to make profit (not to care about people well-being). It is the government's job to regulate businesses, operating within its country and protect their citizens.
    With that said I would propose the following structure: The social media firm creates some lightweight default rules available globally. For those countries that are not satisfied with them, the firm should provide a full suite of tools to police the social network. In a similar manner to the real world police force, each interested country creates police cyber units as big as needed. Parliament votes on the rules that are to be enforced online. Even a referendum could be called for the rules' final approval. It should't be necessary everything to be under surveillance. The police unit could respond to signals or moderate certain places online as requested. Anyway, it would be up to the government to determine the scope of the cyber unit.
    A lot of people may have to be hired and trained to enforce the country's online rules, but that can go some way, offsetting the expected loss of jobs by automation. The social media firm will remain only a platform and will bear zero liability.

    Log in to Reply
29. 

    @ugh_dad

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    UK: Continues on with Brexit to protect the democratic will of the people.
    Also UK: Immediately starts monitoring and regulating communication channels.
    (Not judging, we've been doing this for like 15 years here in the states, welcome to the prole party)

    Log in to Reply
30. 

    @useodyseeorbitchute9450

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    A while ago I've heard people explaining that the whole point of Brexit is getting away from Brussels authoritarian tendencies…

    Log in to Reply
31. 

    @ericbischoff9444

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    On the route to censorship and dictatorship, protection of children and against terrorism are the usual excuses.

    Log in to Reply
32. 

    @Randomstuffs261

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Oh God, can't wait to take down every website I visit by claiming that they hurt my feelings

    Log in to Reply
33. 

    @england6317

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    The government may not be limiting what you can say but the companies are. The government does need to create laws on this again

    Log in to Reply
34. 

    @england6317

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    I hate the fact that youtube Facebook cencore everyone they dont agree with freedom of speech is none existent on line because of these BS left wing companies

    Log in to Reply
35. 

    @Th3_Gael

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Instead of censorship the government should look into protecting our data, perhaps even stopping companies collect it without paying the government first.
    About time they did something useful like increasing the countries coffers rather than worrying about what's online

    Log in to Reply
36. 

    @pedrolopes3542

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Dictatorship?

    Log in to Reply
37. 

    @Teelirious

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Don't know why they would. If it weren't for social media, half these fascist shits wouldn't be in power.

    Log in to Reply
38. 

    @donach9

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    I'm not sure the Government should be getting into the details of what individuals post on social media, BUT, they should be making the social media companies act in a consistent manner in accord with the principles of natural justice.

    Log in to Reply
39. 

    @piraterubberduck6056

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Facebook constantly monitors data to filter it through their algorithms. The issue is that they state that they don't do that in order to get away with hosting any uploaded illegal content. This isn't right for anyone and the law is not up to date with the internet. This needs to be debated.

    This needed to be debated properly for the last 15 years.

    Log in to Reply
40. 

    @robeagleR

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    SOME of these things, Yes. But the majority of them ; No.

    Log in to Reply
41. 

    @tomkite1933

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    I can't speak for everyone, but personally I think this type of news is a breath of fresh air, partly because it isn't sensationalist news. Instead of click bait you bring some great discussions about fundamental principles and values. Thanks for doing what you do, and keep up the amazing work.

    Log in to Reply
42. 

    @milton7763

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    It is not just about protection of citizens vs freedom of expression. It is also about:
    – Who gets to decide what is appropriate, harmful, etc?
    – what is technically and organizationally/ logistically feasible

    You can have the best theoretical solution, but of there’s no way of implementing it in a realistic way it won’t work. Oh and you may want to check out some of the documentaries and investigative reports into what it’s like to be a content checker for YouTube or Facebook. I pretty psychologically grinding job with all the sick content you have to watch

    Seems to me the EU directive got it quite right: you can’t possibly monitor all incoming content before uploading. Just make them responsible once they become aware. At least for illegal content.

    Still leaves the question on who you want to decide what is harmful

    Log in to Reply
43. 

    @julianshepherd2038

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    When they came for the BBC I did nothing
    When they came for the Civil Service I did nothing
    When they came for the courts independence I did nothing
    When they came for the social media
    When they came for me there was no one left to save me.

    Log in to Reply
44. 

    @matthiaswalker38

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    There is plenty of software that the PARENTS can use to monitor and control Internet content for the sake of THEIR children

    Log in to Reply
45. 

    @krzysztoftryka399

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Whatever is NOT illegal – is LEGAL. A person accused of illegal activity remains innocent until PROVEN otherwise in the COURT OF LAW. These are the two main principals which should be at the core of any country considering itself democratic with the rule of law. Any deviation from these principles is a step toward totalitarianism.

    Log in to Reply
46. 

    @rvanzo925

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    Nope, there should be no regulation. That’s censorship.

    Log in to Reply
47. 

    @someguy4405

    December 22, 2023 at 1:42 pm

    “Oh, at least the government won’t censor us. Too bad the companies will.”

    Log in to Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment Login