We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

This is not going to work

UK online safety laws to be strengthened:

The new communications offences will strengthen protections from harmful online behaviours such as … deliberately sharing dangerous disinformation about hoax Covid-19 treatments.

Social media bosses face jail if they do not do as they are told.

Meanwhile, attempting to be the sole arbiter of truth turns out to be not quite so easy:

Facebook’s actions won’t stop The BMJ doing what is right, but the real question is: why is Facebook acting in this way?

Why, indeed?

16 comments to This is not going to work

  • bobby b

    “why is Facebook acting in this way?”

    FB’s numbers appear to have dropped a bit, and FB’s reaction will be to do what they were doing before, but harder. Let’s watch!

  • Facebook is a dinosaur. It reflects how the Internet used to work, but no longer does. The kids ain’t lining up to do Facebook, they’re on TikTok or other video sites.

    This leaves Facebook with an ageing population of boomers and Gen-X’ers who aren’t what primary advertisers want to advertise to (Funeral plan sales and other things accepted).

    So for all Zuckerberg’s rebranding as Meta and buying up tech firms like WhatsApp, it’s not going to change the fundamental that Facebook has peaked and is now declining.

  • ruralcounsel

    The UK has lost its collective mind.

    “deliberately sharing dangerous disinformation about hoax Covid-19 treatments?”

    Government should feel free to put out its own opinions about such things, and link to where verifiable data supports their arguments. Otherwise, they should stay the hell out this. Because nobody will be able to hold them accountable for their own misinformation and mistakes.

  • staghounds

    From the government press release:

    ” None of the offences will apply to regulated media such as print and online journalism, TV, radio and film.”

    “It will offer better protection for public figures such as MPs, celebrities or footballers …”

    And my favourite-

    “It will better protect people’s right to free expression online.”

  • Peter MacFarlane

    Celebrities and footballers?

    The government press release doesn’t really say that, does it.

    Please, please, admit you made that bit up.

  • Paul Marks

    So the treatments that have saved so many lives (in many countries) are “hoax” – and you can go to prison for “sharing information” about life saving treatments.

    So mentioning “on line” such books as “Overcoming the Covid Darness” by Dr Brian Tyson and Dr George Fareed (their successful treatment of over seven thousand patients with these “hoax Covid treatments”) will now be a “criminal offence”.

    Very well – I will make it easy for the police. My address is 4 Northumberland Road, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6LW. I await arrest for my “crime”.

    Facebook and the other “left coast” Tech giants love excuses for censorship (they support censorship anyway – they are “Davos” types, committed to the cultural part of United Nations Agenda 2030), but this will surely apply to individuals as well as companies – otherwise the “law” is inconsistent as well as unjust.

    I repeat – I have given my address, I await arrest for my “crime” of mentioning (on line) a book by two medical doctors about their “hoax” treatment for Covid 19 – which the forces of international “governance” most clearly say is DANGEROUS (and it is dangerous – a danger to their international governance agenda).

    As for the “fact checking” of the British Medical Journal – what surprises me is not the censorship (that is to be expected since the rise of the doctrine that Freedom of Speech is “Repressive Tolerance” which is “harmful” to “disadvantaged groups” – yes the 1960s doctrines of Herbert Marcuse and other Frankfurt School Marxists are now the language of “law” and policy in the United Kingdom and other lands), what surprises me is that the British Medical Journal published an article about how Pfizer are neglecting basic safety standards in the work on their “vaccine”.

    In the world of “Stakeholder Capitalism” (i.e. Corporate State Fascism – the belief system of Mussolini and Dr Klaus Schwab founder of the Corporate State World Economic Forum), I would not have expected an honest article to actually make it to a mainstream publication such as the British Medical Journal.

  • Rudolph Hucker

    Mark Zuckerberg could end up in jail if Facebook does not comply with new online safety laws, the Culture Secretary has warned. Nadine Dorries warned that she was putting social media giants such as Facebook on notice with her Online Safety Bill which it is hoped will force online giants to act on illegal content.

    Does anyone know how the UK would enforce this on a US-based company like FaecesBorg?

    Zuckerberg & Co have a track record of waving two fingers at the UK’s posturing.

    More likely it’s a stalking horse to increase Gov.UK control of how people behave online.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the term “the British government” – it must not be supposed that elected politicians, such as the minister Nadine Dorries, have anything more than a vague idea of what is in these “policies” and “laws” that they are told to push.

    Sadly that is not how governance works – at least not in modern times.

    The process by which officials and “experts” have taken over “policy” and “law” has been a gradual one – and it started a long time ago.

    A very long time ago – it first got started with the work of such people as Sir Charles Trevelyan in the 19th century.

    I suspect that being a “denier” (a “denier” of the theory that human C02 emissions are a great danger) will be the next target of policy and “law”.

    Remember that “Climate Justice is Social Justice” – so to be a “denier” is to be a RACIST and “racists” have no rights. They have no rights (no rights against the state) because they are against “Equity”. It is clearly against “Equity” to be a “denier” of the theory that human C02 emissions are a great threat to the world – so people who push such heresy must be punished as “racists”, as well as “sexists”, “homophobes”, “transphobes” and “Islamophobes”.

    If you deny this – the Prime Minister of Canada (or some person in the United Kingdom) will send the police to deal with you. No one is going to kick the Prime Minister of Canada (or some official at Central Office) off social media for pushing all this.

    In his most wild fantasies – Herbert Marcuse (and the other Frankfurt School types) could not have dreamt how successful their ideas would eventually be.

    It is taken a long time for the forces of Progressive World Governance to spread such things as their hatred of Freedom of Speech – but now, in many countries, even many “conservatives” nod with agreement when hearing the Frankfurt School Marxist doctrines (although without really understanding what they are hearing).

  • Paul Marks

    “This is not going to work”.

    The title is odd – as the policy will help lead to the totalitarian collectivism of the cultural part of Agenda 2030, and so (it could be argued) the policy will work very well.

    As “staghounds” points out – “It will better protect people’s right to freedom of expression on line” is IRONY (which the British are famous for) – “freedom of expression on line” is precisely what the law is intended to help destroy.

    Peter MacFarlane – of course it mentions “footballers” (meaning Association Football).

    It is part of the liefest that is spread by the BBC (and the rest of the “mainstream” media) that black Association Football players were subjected to a tidal wave of “racist abuse” after the defeat of the England Football team in the World Cup.

    This rather leaves out the fact that the footballers themselves were guilty of racist abuse – their “take a knee” antics in support of BLM which is both a Marxist and a RACIST organisation (just as racist as the KKK and other groups – just against white people). White people were themselves often forced to “take a knee” as a form of RACIST self abasement.

    Also much of the “racist abuse directed as the England football team members” came from odd accounts overseas – accounts that seem to have no connection to actual British individuals.

    In short it was, MOSTLY, a “put up job” – to give another excuse for censorship.

    I am reminded of Sir Robert Walpole (secretly) having a vile play produced (full of incest, murder, child abuse – and so on) and then presented to the House of Commons – as an excuse for his censorship Bill.

    There is a long history of this sort of trick – after all the Walpole example I have given is almost three hundred years ago.

    Credit Money going to a politically connected Corporate elite, at the expense of everyone else, is also nothing new – it also goes back about three centuries (hence the “Cantillon Effect” – named after Richard Cantillon).

  • staghounds

    Mr. M’Farlane, those are direct quotes. It’s to protect tender, and guilty, millionaires.

  • Steve

    Safety! We need more safety! Please everyone, it’s for safety! We’ll relieve you of the dangerous burden of having to make your own decisions, for your safety!

  • Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    Steve, can’t you put in ‘for the kids!’? Every increase in government powers needs a figleaf cover, and ‘for the kids!’ has worked before!

  • Paul Marks

    Shlomo Maistre – yes it is.

    Do the ministers “responsible” for these “policies” and “laws” understand them?

    No they do not. But there is such a thing as a “sin of omission”.

    They should understand what is going on and they should oppose it – if need be, by resigning in protest.

    But they do not make the effort to understand what is going on – most likely because they have a fear that something very nasty is going on (which it is) and that if they looked into it, they would have to oppose it (which would mean great personal sacrifice).

    Best not to look into things – so they can honestly say “I did not know”.

  • Paul Marks

    Short version – they do not know, because they do not want to know.