Social media controls the world

[Ginger_Yellow]

Fuck me.

Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users.

[Thrag]

That policy seems a little dinghy.

[RothdaTheTruculent]

Those who do not remember Dunkirk are doomed to repeat it.

[Ginger_Yellow]

This appears to be the proposed amendment from Tory backbenchers that the quote from the culture secretary is talking about, though it’s not clear whether the government will adopt the same language.

“(3A) Content under subsection (3) includes content that may result in serious

harm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aim

of entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for those

purposes.”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would require proportionate systems and processes, including removal of

content, to be in place to control the access by young people to material which encourages them

to undertake dangerous Channel crossings where their lives could be lost.

[Tortilla]

For years I’ve had a theory that anytime a national politician is talking about protecting children, but aren’t directly talking about health/safety standards for products or food aimed at children, they are actually trying to keep the public from noticing what their actual fuckery is about. This doesn’t disprove it.

[Canuck]

Are young people being tempted to cross the Channel in small boats?

[Thrag]

I see a major flaw in this legislation. Why even mention a vessel? Clearly they did not consider the channel swimmer loophole.

[sillhouette]

@Canuck

Are young people being tempted to cross the Channel in small boats?

It’s more about giving themselves more tools to stop all the brown and foreign people boating across. Because now any news or advocacy videos about migrants on boats crossing the channel can be taken down.

[BloodyBattleBrain]

@sillhouette

Because now any news or advocacy videos about migrants on boats crossing the channel can be taken down.

Without reading any further into it, this does appear to be the case.

If true, that’s dodgy as fuck.

Also, people wanting to cross aren’t getting their info from Facebook afaik, theyre getting it from the trafficking gangs.

So stopping FB from showing boats will do…nothing to stop the problem.

But perhaps that’s not the intent.

[Ginger_Yellow]

Meanwhile in India:

Indian government wants to be judge of truth on social media

[wavey]

Classy: slips obviously conflicted idea in alongside changed gaming rules on last day of consultation period

Reading that sentence made me think I was having a stroke, but from the article I think it means:

Classy: Indian government amends a proposed IT law to insert an obviously conflicted idea, alongside changed gaming rules, on the last day of the consultation period

[Woolen_Horde]

Meta just reinstated Shitgibbon’s Facebook account

[KevinC]

He’s been banned from FB for two years. That seems like an egregious punishment for instigating an insurrection. The man has served his time and learned his lessons, it’s well past time he’s let back on!

[Telefrog]

“We’ve always believed that Americans should be able to hear from the people who want to lead the country,” Clegg told Axios. “We don’t want to stand in the way of that.”

Fuck them.

[Dejin]

NBC News implies this is a direct consequence of the Democrats losing control of the House and Facebook not wanting to deal with the Republicans dragging them in to face questioning.

The move by Meta comes weeks after the timeframe Facebook gave itself to re-evaluate the 2021 decision, and shortly after Republicans — many of whom have been critical of Facebook’s decision — regained control of the House of Representatives.

Then-House Minority Leader — and now House Speaker — Kevin McCarthy vowed to “rein in big tech power over our speech” after Facebook announced the duration of Trump’s suspension in 2021.

Facebook did say he could get suspended again. Of course, if the Republicans still control the House, they’ll be incentivized not to reinstate penalties.

Nick Clegg, president of global affairs at Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said Trump’s accounts will be reinstated “in the coming weeks” and come with “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses.”

Those guardrails will include “heightened penalties for repeat offenses — penalties which will apply to other public figures whose accounts are reinstated from suspensions related to civil unrest under our updated protocol. In the event that Mr. Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation,” Clegg said on the company’s website.

Facebook and Instagram end Trump's suspension from platforms

[Woolen_Horde]

@Telefrog

“We’ve always believed that Americans should be able to hear from the people who want to lead the country,” Clegg told Axios.

Said the British man.

[RichVR]

So assuming that they really do stick to those ‘guardrails’, how long before he’s suspended again?

Yeah I know. But he can’t stop talking shit.

[MikeOberly]

DJT has learned his lesson and will walk the straight and narrow from now on.

[scottagibson]

@MikeOberly

DJT has learned his lesson and will walk the straight and narrow from now on.

Susan? Is that you?

[Balasarius]

It’s amazing to me that everyone is letting guy who tried to stage a coup and failed to… just try again.