Seeing this from the UK I find it amusing that the First Amendment or Section 230 doesn't actually protect free speech at all in the US. Things we thought were set in stone can easily be blown away by a slight breeze.
There's no guarantee SCOTUS or any other American courts will rule these kind of laws unconstitutional. Looking at this from outside as a Brit, it seems to me that basically at this point the constitution seems worthless.
Individual bills may be voted down or run out of time, but they're like the waves of the ocean. They'll keep coming until one day one will top the sea defences & get through.
Yep. A likely similar outcome to the UK's Online Safety Act. When we're old, we'll reminisce about how when we were young you could pretty much say anything online. Like when you could smoke anywhere.
We have the Online Safety Act in the UK to gut the internet for us. What will happen I think is the balkanisation of the internet will finally happen along national & geopolitical lines. In some US states (due to age verification laws) Pornhub is no longer available. More blocking & no small websites, just the tech giants like Facebook, Amazon, etc. All by design.
Actually mainstream newspapers have been the main cheerleaders for this law (presumably as it supposedly shackles Big Tech) with barely a murmur of criticism. Virtually all MPs voted in favour.
Ironically, I remember an Ofcom representative saying several years ago that social media was already 95% of the way to meeting the requirements of this law.
British governments have traditionally like dealing with a few big organisations, not lots of small ones. So the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
The UK government wanted this to be world leading legislation. It is intended to apply to any service that even a single British person can access (even if the service attempts to block all UK residents). How that is practically enforced is anyone's guess. I doubt Ofcom will try. But they do have the power to block non-conforming websites. Ofcom have too much power & responsibility. They already cover TV, radio & the postal system. Now this as well. A Ministry of Truth.
Yes, pretty much. I think the whole point of the law is to impose broafcast-style regulation on the internet. Why else give Ofcom (our media & communication regulator) responsibility?
It is not a surprise the government would want to tightly regulate an allegedly ungoverned online space, as it has form in the past. Historically, Great Britain (contrary to popular belief) hasn't been a beacon of free speech. I think the Americans implementing the First Amendment speaks volumes in that regard.
Whenever a means of spreading ideas has become popular, it has been subject to tight regulation. We had seditious libel in the 18th century to stop revolutionary speech. We had heavy newspaper taxes in the 19th century to stop the spread of cheap newspapers. Theatre censorship was active from 1737 to 1968 under the Lord Chamberlain.
Radios (even crystal sets & car radios) required a licence until 1971. Pirate radio stations (despite being listened to by 23 million people) were criminalised.
So the OSA is on form for the UK.
I wouldn't be as optimistic to say that British politicians will realise their folly. The Chinese have massive online censorship, but they still have a vibrant technology sector worth billions. British governments tend to double down when they pass bad laws. This will be with us for decades.
News websites are specifically exempt. Ofcom will collect fees from any company that wants to operate in the UK. They think they'll need £40 million to regulate the internet. It also sounds like the smaller operators (e.g. Gab, Parler & Bitchute) because they contain more problematic content will be leant on more heavily. Facebook is 95% of the way there apparently.
Listen to the Regulate Tech podcast on Podbean. Someone who's worked with Ofcom said that may well be the case. He said if a service provider decides they don't want to conform to UK law, then they won't be allowed to operate here. It was hard to tell if he was a fan or not, but he did say that imagine if dozens of countries decided to impose competing regulations on the various tech companies. You'd end up with dozens of national internets rather than a worldwide web. But that does seem to be the current direction of travel.
The service providers (Google, Facebook, etc.) are expected to fund Ofcom's expansion. Not just through fines apparently either. Plus they'll do the actual work.
The likely outcome is age verification for most, if not all websites. Either the government hasn't really thought this through, or they have & don't care about the result.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by mikep1984.
Seeing this from the UK I find it amusing that the First Amendment or Section 230 doesn't actually protect free speech at all in the US. Things we thought were set in stone can easily be blown away by a slight breeze.
How Do We Know How Scotus or Any Other Court Will Rule?
There's no guarantee SCOTUS or any other American courts will rule these kind of laws unconstitutional. Looking at this from outside as a Brit, it seems to me that basically at this point the constitution seems worthless.
Individual bills may be voted down or run out of time, but they're like the waves of the ocean. They'll keep coming until one day one will top the sea defences & get through.
Yep. A likely similar outcome to the UK's Online Safety Act. When we're old, we'll reminisce about how when we were young you could pretty much say anything online. Like when you could smoke anywhere.
We have the Online Safety Act in the UK to gut the internet for us. What will happen I think is the balkanisation of the internet will finally happen along national & geopolitical lines. In some US states (due to age verification laws) Pornhub is no longer available. More blocking & no small websites, just the tech giants like Facebook, Amazon, etc. All by design.
I think through a process of natural wastage & consolidation, this would happen anyway. Just speeds up the process.
Actually mainstream newspapers have been the main cheerleaders for this law (presumably as it supposedly shackles Big Tech) with barely a murmur of criticism. Virtually all MPs voted in favour. Ironically, I remember an Ofcom representative saying several years ago that social media was already 95% of the way to meeting the requirements of this law.
British governments have traditionally like dealing with a few big organisations, not lots of small ones. So the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
Sora isn't being launched by OpenAI in the UK & the EU due to laws like the DSA.
If they're accessible to Brits then they'd still be covered by these laws. Doesn't matter where you are.
I've already seen that very point suggested in the newspaper comments sections.
The UK government wanted this to be world leading legislation. It is intended to apply to any service that even a single British person can access (even if the service attempts to block all UK residents). How that is practically enforced is anyone's guess. I doubt Ofcom will try. But they do have the power to block non-conforming websites. Ofcom have too much power & responsibility. They already cover TV, radio & the postal system. Now this as well. A Ministry of Truth.
Yes, pretty much. I think the whole point of the law is to impose broafcast-style regulation on the internet. Why else give Ofcom (our media & communication regulator) responsibility? It is not a surprise the government would want to tightly regulate an allegedly ungoverned online space, as it has form in the past. Historically, Great Britain (contrary to popular belief) hasn't been a beacon of free speech. I think the Americans implementing the First Amendment speaks volumes in that regard. Whenever a means of spreading ideas has become popular, it has been subject to tight regulation. We had seditious libel in the 18th century to stop revolutionary speech. We had heavy newspaper taxes in the 19th century to stop the spread of cheap newspapers. Theatre censorship was active from 1737 to 1968 under the Lord Chamberlain. Radios (even crystal sets & car radios) required a licence until 1971. Pirate radio stations (despite being listened to by 23 million people) were criminalised. So the OSA is on form for the UK.
The Bill is Gaining Momentum
Republicans appear likely to ignore Trump & Biden has said he'll sign the bill if it passes. So I think there's a strong chance of this passing.
End of the First Amendment?
It's probably unlikely but I do wonder if at some point Congress will move to repeal the First Amendment.
End of the UK Internet
I wouldn't be as optimistic to say that British politicians will realise their folly. The Chinese have massive online censorship, but they still have a vibrant technology sector worth billions. British governments tend to double down when they pass bad laws. This will be with us for decades.
Re:
News websites are specifically exempt. Ofcom will collect fees from any company that wants to operate in the UK. They think they'll need £40 million to regulate the internet. It also sounds like the smaller operators (e.g. Gab, Parler & Bitchute) because they contain more problematic content will be leant on more heavily. Facebook is 95% of the way there apparently.
Re: Re:
Listen to the Regulate Tech podcast on Podbean. Someone who's worked with Ofcom said that may well be the case. He said if a service provider decides they don't want to conform to UK law, then they won't be allowed to operate here. It was hard to tell if he was a fan or not, but he did say that imagine if dozens of countries decided to impose competing regulations on the various tech companies. You'd end up with dozens of national internets rather than a worldwide web. But that does seem to be the current direction of travel.
Re:
The service providers (Google, Facebook, etc.) are expected to fund Ofcom's expansion. Not just through fines apparently either. Plus they'll do the actual work.
Re:
The likely outcome is age verification for most, if not all websites. Either the government hasn't really thought this through, or they have & don't care about the result.