Bill to stamp out 'online echo chambers of hate'

[Zhora]

Good to see someone taking a stand against the spread of online hate. I wonder which sites might fall foul of such a bill.

www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/online-echo-chambers-hate-facebook-bill

There goes 4chan.

you kidding? that's us that is
you know, literal violence and all that

We need an online police force really.

Secret groups on Facebook seem to be the main focus of this. Interesting article, I wonder whether this idea has any chance of being turned into law.

If the Times are to be believed, there's a certain facebook site run by a Goldsmith's lecturer that might well qualify?

Doesn't matter who the 'main focus' is supposed to be. A 'hate site' will be designated such by those with the most power. Look at who is being deplatformed at universities. Look who is being blocked on Twitter.

I've just commented on another thread about this.

ITS A RIDICULOUS IDEA.

Online echo chambers are normalising and allowing extremist views to go viral unchallenged. These views are spread as the cheap thrill of racking up Facebook likes drives behaviour and reinforces a binary worldview. Some people are being groomed unwittingly as unacceptable language is treated as the norm. Others have a more sinister motive.

and

Through Facebook groups (essentially forums), extremists can build large audiences. There are many examples of groups that feature anti-Muslim or antisemitic content daily, in an environment which, because critics are removed from the groups, normalises these hateful views. If you see racist images, videos and articles in your feed but not the opposing argument, you might begin to think those views are acceptable and even correct. If you already agree with them, you might be motivated to act.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with this? Why do you think there are efforts to make WPUK open.

What about any number of support groups for women? Like ones for health. Or rape. Etc etc. We've seen examples of single sex facebook groups ALREADY being targetted by trans activists in various ways, by language policing or shouting transphobia.

The most ridiculous thing about it, is also that this is COMPLETELY unworkablein practice.

Its fine to go after Facebook, but it misses the point completely that OTHER PLATFORMS ARE AVAILABLE.

I also would LOVE to know how this is compatible with private twitter accounts and DO enlighten me as to how this works with twitter mass block lists? You know, the entire point of these filters being TO CREATE ECHO CHAMBERS?????

What get me is this is being supported by Jess Phillips (amongst others). I might understand her naivety or stupidity over this, if she was not a regular twitter user like a lot of Conservative Dinosaurs. But she's not. I might understand it if there wasn't a shed load of publicity over the Green Party debacle going on at the moment too. But there is.

The potential for the misuse of this is HUGE. And very very scary. Its an authoritarian government's wet dream. It is the dream of big lobby groups with a sinister agenda. It stiffles the possibility of debate in other ways. It means the idea of the net being a free place is very very questionable, and leads to the rise of the power of the censors.

I am really failing to see how this bill which seems to be aimed solely at Facebook, is going to improve anything anyway.

The worst thing is, I bet the Conservative Party will be loving the idea of this bill and it'll get waved through parliament, because it really is in their interests. And it won't necessarily improve debate at all. It will just silence people and marginalise and iscolate certain vulnerable groups.

Yes, 'the internet is bad', is a really attractive policy but by god think about it, and what the REAL potential outcome of this, and what horrors it could unleash too. Think about the power it gives to who is appointed the censors - and think about who they are.

*Why do you think there are efforts to make WPUK labelled a hate group.

We already have laws to deal with online posting of racist, hateful and inciteful posting,

What exactly is this bill proposing? That FB allows access to law enforcement to all secret set groups on their platform?

Who decides what’s a hateful echo chamber under this bill? What would happen to members of such a site?

Example: stormfront (or similar) chat forum, on private setting. Yes, it’s full of highly unpleasant opinions, but as a private forum it’s private chat. Members who don’t post but are just members - whatvpenaloties for them? What penalties for just being an unpleasant racist dick? Private opinions, no matter how awful, are private.
The law breaking line would be, say, organising vandalism of a church/mosque/synagogue. Or organising a march with intent to comitt violence.

Where are we free to speak online? Who decides what’s hateful? Remember there are people who think a bunch of women discussing the GRA is the most hatefullest thing ever and would definitelyvuse such a law to attempt to close this place.

4chan? Full of idiots, but it’s not illegal to be an idiot. Sub forums etc where people share, say, revenge porn images are illegal - we already have laws for that.

How much policing of speech and thought do we tolerate?

So it’s a no from me on this one. Enforce the laws we have.

I am so fed up with left authoritarianism.

It effectively banning assembly

Imagine if your right to assemble offline was policed in such a way.

Nope. Dreadful idea.

Online echo chambers are normalising and allowing extremist views to go viral unchallenged. These views are spread as the cheap thrill of racking up Facebook likes drives behaviour and reinforces a binary worldview.

The word “binary” is the massive, give-away, red flag here. That word comes straight from queer theory, which posits that sex is not binary. In no time flat, would any view that humans are a sexually dimorphic species be officially labelled hate speach.

This is blaming social media for the actions of politicians who have deliberately used language and tactics to polarise politics.

They are abdicating their own responsibility and actions that have facilitated a lot of this.

Various politicians have legitimised certain online facebook groups which are dubious - BY BEING MEMBERS OF THEM!!

Online groups reflect politics in general most of the time.

Sort out points of conflict and unrest and you'd have less problems.

Doesn't matter who the 'main focus' is supposed to be. A 'hate site' will be designated such by those with the most power. Look at who is being deplatformed at universities. Look who is being blocked on Twitter.

This. Terrible idea and will be weaponised against women.

The word “binary” is the massive, give-away, red flag here. That word comes straight from queer theory, which posits that sex is not binary. In no time flat, would any view that humans are a sexually dimorphic species be officially labelled hate speach.

YY I clocked that immediately too.

The potential for the misuse of this is HUGE. And very very scary. Its an authoritarian government's wet dream. It is the dream of big lobby groups with a sinister agenda. It stiffles the possibility of debate in other ways. It means the idea of the net being a free place is very very questionable, and leads to the rise of the power of the censors.

Where are we free to speak online? Who decides what’s hateful? Remember there are people who think a bunch of women discussing the GRA is the most hatefullest thing ever and would definitelyvuse such a law to attempt to close this place.

Red and Bowl sum this up much better than I could and I completely agree - who decides who's beyond the pale? Who benefits from curtailing free speech and differences of opinion?

Chuckling a bit now - imagine how uncool Tor browsers are going to be when all the woke kids suddenly realise that a bunch of MUMS are using them to chat amongst themselves about recipes and biology.

So basically they want to close the internet?

And yes, in light of the targeting of GC women/rad fems over the last few years I have no doubt this would be used against women who do wrong think.

We don't need this sort of authoritarian legislation. We need something akin to the 1st amendment to the American Constitution. Freedom to say what you want, however unpalatable, so long as you're not plotting or inciting actual violence.

And we need genuine, credible threats of actual real-world violence to be prosecuted using the legislation we already have on the statute books (not just twitter threats to blow up airports, but twitter threats to rape and murder women).

So basically they want to close the internet?

Pretty much.

That's the level of understanding we are seeing from politicians here.

Yes, it won't be the obvious people.

It will be the groups who are labelled as "far-right hate groups" like WPUK, FPFW, Let a Woman Speak, Man Friday and even MN's FWR.

That bill is an asinine, unworkable, and unscaleable as South Yorks Police tweet:

twitter.com/syptweet/status/1039087365128708096

This coming from the party currently no confidencing MPs who have complained about anti-Semitic social media posters, who have been arguing for free speech.

It's a trojan horse bill.

What's proved to be a great way to radicalise people in the UK in the last ten years? Marginalising their political voice and telling them to shut up score pretty highly as it goes.

The effect would just be to drive people underground.

Or are we proposing we just go full on Russia or China here?

People who argue for this sort of thing don't realise that they would be handing great power to this government and any future government (or judiciary). As opinion moves in years to come their own ideas and beliefs may no longer fall within the acceptable and they will find themselves criminalised.
I agree with the poster above who says we need a second amendment type law to set out protected speech. At the moment our free speech is a negative right - whatever left over when all the prohibited speech has been taken out. The laws on the are confusing and overlapping.