https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/britain-internet-regulations.html
On April 7th, British regulators, backed by Prime Minister Theresa May, unveiled a
new plan to regulate web content including, but not limited to, child exploitation, false
news, terrorist activity and extreme violence. Under this plan, the government will name
regulators to issue fines and block websites and will hold executives legally liable for
harmful content spread on their platforms with the intent to target Facebook, Google,
and other large internet platforms. This legislation is largely in response to the mosque
shootings in New Zealand in March. Other countries are also considering censoring the
public from information on the internet. Mark Zuckerberg is supportive of such legislation
because it would set more clearly defined boundaries so companies don’t have to guess
about whether they need to regulate the content or not. In my opinion, although the
intentions are good, I do not think we need to regulate internet content any more. I think it
infringes upon the right to free speech, which is protected in the U.S., but not necessarily
everywhere else. Regulating internet content could lead to more government regulation
over time and could get out of control. I don’t think violence and terrorism will necessarily
decrease with internet regulation. Additionally, large companies such as Facebook and
Google have many legal resources to keep them in check and prospering, but smaller
startups can be severely hurt by such legislation. Furthermore, it isn’t fair to the British
public that American citizens have access to more information and content than they do.
What are your
opinions?
new plan to regulate web content including, but not limited to, child exploitation, false
news, terrorist activity and extreme violence. Under this plan, the government will name
regulators to issue fines and block websites and will hold executives legally liable for
harmful content spread on their platforms with the intent to target Facebook, Google,
and other large internet platforms. This legislation is largely in response to the mosque
shootings in New Zealand in March. Other countries are also considering censoring the
public from information on the internet. Mark Zuckerberg is supportive of such legislation
because it would set more clearly defined boundaries so companies don’t have to guess
about whether they need to regulate the content or not. In my opinion, although the
intentions are good, I do not think we need to regulate internet content any more. I think it
infringes upon the right to free speech, which is protected in the U.S., but not necessarily
everywhere else. Regulating internet content could lead to more government regulation
over time and could get out of control. I don’t think violence and terrorism will necessarily
decrease with internet regulation. Additionally, large companies such as Facebook and
Google have many legal resources to keep them in check and prospering, but smaller
startups can be severely hurt by such legislation. Furthermore, it isn’t fair to the British
public that American citizens have access to more information and content than they do.
What are your
opinions?
1: Do you agree that we need to regulate internet content to protect against child exploitation,
false news, terrorist activity and extreme violence?
false news, terrorist activity and extreme violence?
2: What kind of economic impact does this government regulation have?
3: The U.K. Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said, “The era of self-regulation for online
companies is over." Do you agree with this statement?
companies is over." Do you agree with this statement?
4: Who should be held responsible for explicit content on the internet? Should individual
executives of social media companies be held responsible as this legislation proposes or
should someone else?
executives of social media companies be held responsible as this legislation proposes or
should someone else?
No comments:
Post a Comment