Statement in Short: We have one level of #phonehacking why would we want to be a society to entertain a new level of #ArtificialIntelligence breach  of Phone Hacking to Citizens data protection of security and private information.  The #OnlineSafetyBill is morally wrong on all levels, not required..  Well executed #MereditchWhittaker, I’m completely in disagreement with #UnitedKingdom unlawful behaviour with the Hidden Agendas for #Commodity game of advantage at the risk too increase #BigBother society.. #KillTheOnlineSafetyBill #KillThePublicOderBill 

Link – https://www.instagram.com/reel/CuP2wmBIE4a/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Disadvantages of the Online Safety Bill:

Our main concerns about the Bill are:

1. The Bill fails to address the problematic business model of platforms

ARTICLE 19 has repeatedly raised concerns that the business model of tech companies raises challenges in terms of power imbalances and the protection of human rights. Their business model is based on advertising and monetising users’ attention, and as a result, the companies often amplify radical, false or unpleasant content.

The fundamental flaw of the Bill, therefore, lies in its exclusive focus on content moderation and its complete failure to address the business model. In fact, if passed in its current form, the Bill would likely further consolidate the market power of the biggest online platforms and have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. We believe that solutions based on transparency, data protection and sound competition policies, including the unbundling of hosting from content curation and interoperability of large platforms, would be far more effective in making the Internet safer for children and adults in the UK.

2. The Bill outsources the decisions on illegality to online platforms

The Bill requires companies to assess and decide whether their users’ speech is legal or not. This is deeply problematic as only independent judicial authorities should be given the power to make such a determination. In addition to the legitimacy concerns of outsourcing decisions on the legality of users’ speech to private actors, we note that in the majority of cases, these assessments are extremely complex and context-dependant and should therefore be made by trained individuals. The reality is, however, that online platforms deploy algorithmic moderation systems, such as automated hash-matching and predictive machine learning tools, to conduct content moderation. As these technologies are currently not advanced enough (and may never be) to distinguish legal from illegal content in a reliable manner, they routinely identify content as illegal and remove vast amounts of legitimate content.

3. The Bill requires censorship of protected speech

The Bill, like its draft version, seeks to impose an obligation on large platforms to take down and restrict access to content that is entirely legal, but considered ‘harmful’. It is extremely disappointing that despite strong opposition from #ARTICLE19 and other human rights organisations, as well as the explicit recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, the government has not abandoned the concept of ‘legal but harmful’ content. We remind the UK Government once more that legal speech is protected speech and that legislation requiring online platforms to censor legal speech fails to comply with international freedom of expression standards. @article19org
#prrequest #BreakingNews

“No way to create a backdoor that only the good guys can walk through.”

Signal President Meredith Whittaker says the Online Safety Bill will cause “unprecedented paradigm-shifting surveillance” – in a discussion with #cathynewman and former UK Tech minister Damian Collins.

Watch the full interview here:
https://www.channel4.com/news/online-safety-bill-debate-could-it-lead-to-unprecedented-paradigm-shifting-surveillance

#GCBRandTCSL

#TheClaudesSENLaw
Stay updated with next post in regards to The Claudes SEN Law Campaign. In the next coming days. ✍🏾✊🏾📢 #TheClaudesSENLaw