UK’s Online Safety Act has been a figurative “gift that keeps on giving” when it comes to the negative way the critics of its broad provisions curtailing free online speech see it.
But now, the Online Safety Act appears to be turning into a literal blueprint for punishment without end – when it comes to free speech.
There’s geopolitics (and cynics might wonder – when is it ever not?) involved in this latest instance of an attempt to “broaden the scope” of the law, now by the ruling Labour cabinet.
“Misinformation” is what Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he wants to fight “even better” – and once again, the pretext for pushing for more stringent rules, rather, censorship – is justified by a government given to such policies justified by the “think of the children” battle cry.
But, the press favorable to this is actually all over the place – in an attempt to “broaden” the act, they bring up the UK’s riots of last summer and even the many notorious cases of Brazil’s authorities fighting “the scourge of free speech” that X had become.
Yet in reality, it looks like every stone is being turned to find a “reasonable reason” – and even if not so, somehow broaden the scope of the already sorrily broad law like the Online Safety Act – just to push X into a corner.
The obliging legacy press is trying to portray this as a matter of a financially almighty billionaire like Elon Musk – against an entity apparently impoverished and unable to, monetarily alone, stand up to him.
That would be the UK’s many-billions-over worth of His Majesty’s cabinet.
It’s a cheap play in the hope of eliciting a knee-jerk reaction, but the actual tale is not that of David vs. Goliath, where in some parallel and strange universe, the British government, with a regulator like Ofcom, is the underdog hero.
In reality, Ofcom is once again trying to, from a position of power, gain even more control over social media, specifically, automation, i.e., algorithms.
Ofcom’s chief Melanie Dawes is now talking about “considering whether it was necessary to bring in new potential measures around live streaming functionalities and recommender systems on social media sites.”
So instead, this looks like a tale of a Goliath not knowing what to do next to maintain the status quo – in the face of a David it no longer be ignored.
But that still doesn’t get this particular Goliath sounding either authentic or, well – very clever.
“What Musk is doing is not free speech, it is a businessman competing for market share in the attention economy getting attention” – this is what Dawes is cited as telling the press.
