« Modular Autoembed Script in Python
The UK's idea of policing the internet
The largest topic on your forum... »

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
The UK's idea of policing the internet
« on October 19th, 2011, 04:45 PM »
Have a read of http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/19/proposals_on_defamation_law/

It has interesting consequences for us (well, me in particular :P)

I think the whole anonymous thing is going to bite people in the arse before long, personally, but one thing I do find interesting is the notion of publishing a complaint next to a post itself. That essentially means publishing the report-to-moderator stuff as freely as regular posting. I see two problems with this.

Firstly, it seems to me that the complainant will have to identify themselves, which if I were to - say - report a post because I find it offensive, I'm essentially telling the world that I personally have a problem with a post. While that's not a great example, imagine a forum with more sensitive discussions, e.g. personal abuse support. I certainly wouldn't want my name attached to a publicly-visible complaint.

Secondly, can we say spam magnet? Posts can be moderated but complaints don't appear to be such.

Sure, we can indicate 'type of complaint', such that personal complaints don't need to be made public and can be restricted to intra-forum matters, e.g. reporting spam, personal offence, and leave libel ones public. But that won't solve the spam bot problem, since they'll just learn to select 'libel' to have their crap posted publicly.


Thoughts?
When we unite against a common enemy that attacks our ethos, it nurtures group solidarity. Trolls are sensational, yes, but we keep everyone honest. | Game Memorial

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #1, on October 19th, 2011, 06:11 PM »
Doesn't it mainly imply that anonymous posters won't be able to post libel without identifying themselves?
It's too heavy to be applied everywhere but I'm not shocked. I'm probably getting too old to be :P

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #2, on October 19th, 2011, 06:16 PM »
No, it implies that anonymous posters can post libel still but that the risk is carried much more broadly by the host, since a single complaint about some libel can lead to a site *shutdown* request being sent to the host, which the host would have to comply with if it's a UK based host. (UK based user operating a site on a US server... not so clear but I figure the site owner could legitimately be the subject of the order.)

The problem is crap like this is getting into the legal system by lawmakers who have no idea or understanding of the consequences - and it'll be people like me who have to enact the outfall. I'll have to provide some support for this in Wedge if I run sites using it :/

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #3, on October 19th, 2011, 06:59 PM »
Well, I'm not sure... I thought I read about webmasters having to request proper identification from anonymous trollers, and if they didn't provide it, they would be obliged to delete the post.
A few years ago we also had many cases in France where webmasters were sued for hosting libel on their comment forms (even when posted by identified users, and without a prior request to delete said libel.) Many websites actually shut down their comments areas until the decision was reversed or something. It happened several times... Now it seems to have cooled down.
Anyway-- the UK way of doing it, while not terrific, is definitely better than being exposed to lawsuits like that...

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #4, on October 19th, 2011, 07:11 PM »
Herein lies the problem: I could wake up one morning to find my host had received a request overnight to shut down a site, without prior warning. At least a lawsuit can be contested, whereas such a request theoretically might not be able to - if the host is suspended, under the terms of suspension it may not always be possible for a site operator to get it unsuspended, if say access to the CMS is tied to domain name and the entire domain is taken down, unless the host is willing to do the work for you or otherwise help you, you're stuffed.

Also note that while the focus is anonymous posters, the term 'anonymous' is incredibly vague these days where everyone can create a new pseudonym with about as much anonymity as would be possible - in everything but name, really.

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,079

billy2

  • Trying to earn brownie points for a lads trip to the Red Sea. Minus 1 already - just for asking!!
  • Posts: 350
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #6, on October 19th, 2011, 09:10 PM »
By the time a notice to 'remove' is enforced, the post will be all over the net anyway. Another pointless piece of bureaucratic rubbish.
<br /><br />cough, cough.

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #7, on October 19th, 2011, 09:36 PM »
Yup, yet another piece of stupidity, designed by people who don't have to implement it and don't understand or care about the actual consequences that will arise - though they'll be so quick to pat themselves on the back about how they cleaned up the web.

billy2

  • Trying to earn brownie points for a lads trip to the Red Sea. Minus 1 already - just for asking!!
  • Posts: 350
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #8, on October 19th, 2011, 09:40 PM »
I note they mention TripAdvisor', as far as I am concerned, forewarned is forearmed.
(spell checked but it still looks wrong)

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: The UK's idea of policing the internet
« Reply #9, on October 19th, 2011, 09:48 PM »
I'm still waiting for guidance on how the notion of opt-in for cookies is supposed to work given the changes in the spring about it, again another fine mess of being seen to be tackling problems without understanding the problem or the consequences of the "fix".
« Modular Autoembed Script in Python
The largest topic on your forum... »