Rather than just targeting individuals who make offensive posts, the bill plans to put the onus on those who own the platforms.
But if that overall duty of care wasn't fulfilled, Ofcom could punish social media firms with fines up to £18m or 10% of annual turnover - whichever is higher.And it believes these measures would force companies into taking action to stamp out online abuse, including that directed at MPs., "effectively outsourcing internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley".
He told BBC News: "I think people sometimes write things that they would never dream of saying to somebody's face or putting their name to. I would prefer [users to be verified]."Former Labour MP Ruth Smeeth - who now runs the Index on Censorship organisation - says online trolling and abuse "was a grim but far too normal part of public life".
Mr Killock adds that, in the vast majority of cases, people using social media accounts of any sort can be traced through existing police powers, whether using real names or anonymous, because they are linked to phone numbers, IP addresses and email addresses. For example, principal analyst at tech research firm Freeform Dynamics, Bryan Betts, says there is little point in giving Ofcom powers if it did not have the capability to use them.
The analyst said one option that might be worth examining was the verification method, where tech companies can prove it is a real person signing up for an account, but not identify them - something Mr Collins seemed to allude to. But there are concerns in Whitehall that a full ban of anonymity would pose those security risks and restrict freedom of speech for those without ID.
China may be able to provide the Government with the necessary policy and means. No doubt this can be applied to those of ‘questionable’ opinions as may be the case with High Court Judges.
dataprotection joke corrupt britain
To tackle social media abuse of MPs, a a specific set of user from SM; MPs. (Likely you started to laugh thinking it was a silly joke, but after few seconds you realise that politicians are the 'de facto' main hate speakers and inspirers, and that may actually work).
Unless it includes mandatory de-radicalisation programs then no.
Are the best bills as good as those on the front line enforcing them? Creating a bill and a pretty website is the easy part, who has faith in this governments ability to enforce it?
Do MP's actually need an online presence or could there accounts edited by 3rd party media company. Any evidence the Islamic murder sent any online abuse.
Frankly, given the attitude and performance of the government, they're not criticised enough. They ought to really take onboard the criticism directed at them, particularly as it's the people who pay their salaries.
Yes because extremists will be scared of being censored by Twitter.
Nobody cares about on line abuse of MPs. Our supply lines are collapsing. Energy costs are rapidlly spiralling. Feral Refugees a sick culture and weak pathetic police kill and rape our children on mass. And politicians are busy trying to stop people speaking up anonymously.
United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: The Guardian - 🏆 84. / 53 Read more »
Source: The Guardian - 🏆 84. / 53 Read more »
Source: The Telegraph - 🏆 41. / 63 Read more »
Source: The Mirror - 🏆 136. / 51 Read more »
Source: The Guardian - 🏆 84. / 53 Read more »