Ctrl-Alt-Speech: How The Online Regulators Stole Christmas
from the ctrl-alt-speech dept
Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.
Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.
In this week’s round-up of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike and Ben cover:
- Social media platforms have work to do to comply with Online Safety Act, says Ofcom (The Guardian)
- LFGSS and Microcosm shutting down 16th March 2025 (the day before the Online Safety Act is enforced) (LFGSS)
- The GamingOnLinux Forum is shutting (GamingOnLinux)
- Australia leads the world in setting new standards for online child safety (eSafety Commission)
- How will Australia’s under-16 social media ban work? We asked the law’s enforcer (NPR)
- Fentanyl Almost Killed Michael Brewer. Now He Wants Snap to Pay (Bloomberg)
- Telegram Moderation Overview (Telegram)
- U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to TikTok ban (CNBC)
This episode is brought to you with financial support from the Future of Online Trust & Safety Fund. While Online Regulators may have stolen Christmas, Ctrl-Alt-Speech is going to try to take a short holiday break and will return in early January.
Filed Under: australia, content moderation, ofcom, online safety act, supreme court
Companies: snapchat, telegram, tiktok
Comments on “Ctrl-Alt-Speech: How The Online Regulators Stole Christmas”
With the Online Safety bill in the UK and the law in Australia, we’re now witnessing the slow death of the open internet.
At least that’s how it’s coming off as.
Re:
please take your defeatism else where
Re: Re:
Sorry, I’m trying to.
I just wish there were less bad tech regulation going around.
Re: Re:
Stating a fact instead of pretending everything is working in our favor is defeatism. Guess we know who’s the child here. Better get started on how to bypass these laws because no amount of antagonizing random users was going to change the outcome in Australia and the UK and you do know the make up of congress next year right? And they still want the kids online safety act?
Re: Re: Re:
there’s a difference between concerns and defeatism
Re: Re: Re:
Except that’s not what he did. He opined that the bills are causing/will cause the slow death of the internet, when there’s currently no evidence to support that claim.
He’s putting the cart before the horse in relation to the consequences. That’s defeatism.
Re: Re: Re:2
I guess the UK bill should be more seen as an example on how not to go about making internet safety bills.
I just worry about that kind of “screw the little guy” mentality spreading.
Re: Re: Re:3
Politicians have always had bad ideas regarding things they don’t understand, and they will continue to have them until the end of time.
It’s not technically a “screw the little guy” mentality, but more of a “this bill will inadvertently screw the little guy but we didn’t think of that when we wrote the bill” mentality.
Re:
Look, it’s easy to look at what’s happening on the internet and think that’s the trajectory will inevitably lead to cataclysm. Destined to be enshitted, as people around here say. But the truth is that there is nothing set in stone. KOSA was believed to be rushed to the finish line, and yet we were able to beat it back, despite the overwhelming support it had.
The internet never dies, it merely changes, for better and for worse.
Re: Re:
I suppose even in the worst case, it might not necessarily stay broken forever, either.
Re: Re: Re:
Similairly, chat control continues to fail to even make it to the parliament.
Re: Re: Re:
“Broken” implies that it won’t work anymore. That’s not what’s going to happen even if those bills are passed.
Re: Re:
The internet has looked down the barrel of its death before, and it will do so again.
But nevertheless, it’s still here. Peoples’ desire for connection, forming groups and expressing themselves online is too strong to be wiped out.
Re: Re:
Definitely a worsening in the UK.
Though according to other commenters, that seems to be on-brand for the country.
Well in the case of the industry standards they’ve been on the books since June of this year so they’ve likely already adapted to what eSafety expects of them compared to Ofcom in the UK.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Any thoughts on Aaron and Jay?
Re:
Yeah I got one. Take that shit over to blue sky where it belongs.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I’d like to hear from a Bluesky Board Member about his thoughts on the T&S failures of the site.
Re: Re: Re:
Here ya go you fucking muppet.
https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social
Re: Re: Re:
And you can reach Mike over on blukesky, you fucking muppet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’d like to ask him somewhere that he can’t just instablock people.
Re: Re: Re:3
So you admit you’re aware you can just block people you don’t like on Bluesky, but you choose not to utilize that feature. Seems like a you problem. For those of us not on Bluesky, you choosing to spill over to Techdirt is like having your neighbors fight in your living room while you’re trying to watch TV. You’re just being selfish and self-important.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’d just like to know what Mike thinks about the current clusterfuck around Aaron and Jay. The non-answers from Bluesky Trust & Safety and Jay regarding Aaron’s behavior have been damning in many a way.
Re: Re: Re:5
So message Mike. The comments section is a public forum, not your personal messaging space.