Nov 15, 2017, 16:31 pm
* Sid Explains It All
Public (and Governments) everywhere: "Revenge porn is bad. You have to stop it"
Facebook (and websites everywhere): "That's literally impossible. We cannot possibly know the provenance of every single video ever uploaded to the site."
Public and Governments everywhere: "But revenge porn is bad and we can't stop it so you stop it or we will sue you and take your money."
Facebook: "OK if that is the way it is, you tell us which videos you want stopped and we will stop them."
Truth is, in the completely unfair situation they have been placed in, this "solution" is as good as it can get.
The "e-safety commissioner" plays along with it for exactly the same reason. If she has any IT qualifications at all she must know it won't work but, in any case, presumably she will be out of a job if something isn't done and this is something being done. And it won't be her fault when it doesn't work as she's not actually the one doing it.
"Prof Clare McGlynn, an expert from Durham Law School" and "Graham Cluley, a security consultant" play along because they get their names in the paper so that's good for their CV. It doesn't matter whether they know that what they're saying is nonsense or not, they become "well known" or even "reputed" by mere virtue of the fact that they are cited. And "experts" who are willing to give required sound bites can expect to be referred to again so it's career enhancing. And, again, it won't be their fault when it doesn't work.
The most difficult to understand is the BBC--why aren't they reporting the absurdity-- but then they are an arm of the UK government in spite of the politely maintained fiction that they are not, which is also under similar pressures from the UK public and which also feels it has to show that "something is being done". So it's no stretch to imagine that their editorial line has been dictated if not directly by their political masters then by commissioners taking it upon themselves to support the hands that feed them.
Public (and Governments) everywhere: "Revenge porn is bad. You have to stop it"
Facebook (and websites everywhere): "That's literally impossible. We cannot possibly know the provenance of every single video ever uploaded to the site."
Public and Governments everywhere: "But revenge porn is bad and we can't stop it so you stop it or we will sue you and take your money."
Facebook: "OK if that is the way it is, you tell us which videos you want stopped and we will stop them."
Truth is, in the completely unfair situation they have been placed in, this "solution" is as good as it can get.
The "e-safety commissioner" plays along with it for exactly the same reason. If she has any IT qualifications at all she must know it won't work but, in any case, presumably she will be out of a job if something isn't done and this is something being done. And it won't be her fault when it doesn't work as she's not actually the one doing it.
"Prof Clare McGlynn, an expert from Durham Law School" and "Graham Cluley, a security consultant" play along because they get their names in the paper so that's good for their CV. It doesn't matter whether they know that what they're saying is nonsense or not, they become "well known" or even "reputed" by mere virtue of the fact that they are cited. And "experts" who are willing to give required sound bites can expect to be referred to again so it's career enhancing. And, again, it won't be their fault when it doesn't work.
The most difficult to understand is the BBC--why aren't they reporting the absurdity-- but then they are an arm of the UK government in spite of the politely maintained fiction that they are not, which is also under similar pressures from the UK public and which also feels it has to show that "something is being done". So it's no stretch to imagine that their editorial line has been dictated if not directly by their political masters then by commissioners taking it upon themselves to support the hands that feed them.