Internet News

A moralist campaign group called the Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood wants Facebook to scrap its plans to launch a version of Instagram for children.

A letter from the group, signed by 99 individuals and groups including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Global Action Plan and Kidscape, claims that the image-obsessed platform is dangerous for children's health and privacy.

In the letter, the signatories point out that those under the age of 13 already on Instagram are unlikely to abandon it for a new site that seems babyish. The real target of Instagram for kids will be much younger children. Josh Golin, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood executive director, said:

Instagram's business model relies on extensive data collection, maximising time on devices, promoting a culture of over-sharing and idolising influencers, as well as a relentless focus on often altered physical appearance. It is certainly not appropriate for seven-year olds.

Plans for an Instagram for under-13s have been mooted in recent weeks. Facebook, which owns Instagram, said it would be managed by parents. It is a response to state censors who want under 13's to be banned from social media. Facbeook explained:

Kids are already online, and want to connect with their family and friends, have fun, and learn. We want to help them do that in a safe and age-appropriate way, and find practical solutions to the ongoing industry problem of kids lying about their age to access apps.

We're working on new age verification methods to keep under-13s off Instagram, and have just started exploring an Instagram experience for kids that is age-appropriate and managed by parents.

We agree that any experience we develop must prioritise their safety and privacy, and we will consult with experts in child development, child safety and mental health, and privacy advocates to inform it. We also won't show ads in any Instagram experience we develop for people under the age of 13.

Facebook's Oversight Board has announced that it is widening out the rules about who can appeal about Facebook censorship.

Since March, decisions by the company's Oversight Board regarding another user's content could only be appealed if the user was in Germany, where antitrust and privacy laws are significantly stricter than in the US. But from October on, users who wanted someone else's content removed were unable to reach the Oversight Board, as the content in question was not their own.

However, going forward, users may appeal in an effort to save posts written by others from being taken down. Facebook constantly attempts to reassure users that the Oversight Board is different from Facebook at a corporate level and is not accountable to CEO Mark Zuckerberg's company to deliver the corporate-desired response. Indeed, it has already handed down seven rulings so far, involving hate speech, misinformation, and nudity.

Facebook's vice president of integrity, Guy Rosen, praised the initial rollout of the Oversight Board in May and expressed hope that the latest development would take the site even higher. In the post, he reassured readers the feature would be usable within the coming weeks .

The Oversight Board has had the capacity to reinstate removed content since October 2020, when the Oversight Board went live. At that point, though, only an involved user could submit it for review. The individual trying to get the content restored has to answer several questions regarding Facebook's takedown policies and how they feel Facebook has run afoul of them.

Repeal Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and expunge all convictions of those whom have been persecuted under this section of the law. As well as acknowledge that the UK internet also shares our respect for peoples freedoms of speech and expression.

Over the last decade, people have been convicted [with record] under the pretence of personally/potentially grossly offensive material (of which no definition is given) over jokes and petty arguments on the internet via social media and other platforms. It is because of the increase of these cases that a growing number of people are concerned for their own online safety and the devastating real world ramifications under this section of law, that this petition has been created and signed.

A Canadian politician has proposed the banning of 'hurtful' language against politicians online. The provision is going to be included in the upcoming internet censorship bill, to be discussed in parliament in the next few weeks.

Steven Guilbeault, a 'Liberal' member of parliament has oftenn been the subject of controversy for favoring internet censorship. He said in a recent podcast:

We have seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves.

If the bill passes social media companies will have to remove posts containing hurtful words targeted at Canadian politicians. The provision is a danger to free speech not only in Canada but also the rest of the world as other governments will surely try to get away with similar censorship laws.

The Texas Senate has passed a measure that would prohibit large social media companies like Facebook and Twitter from censoring political and religious viewpoints of Texas citizens. The bill now awaits a vote in the Texas House.

Senate Bill 12 was introduced by State Senator Bryan Hughes. Titled Relating to the censorship of users' expressions by an interactive computer service , the bill would not only prohibit censorship, but would require social media companies to disclose their moderation policies, publish reports about any blocked content, and create a legal route for people to appeal any censoring or deplatforming decisions.

Senator Hughes announced the passage on Twitter:

I think we all have to acknowledge that social media companies are the new town square and a small group of people in San Francisco can't dictate free speech for the rest of us.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign the bill if it passes the House. Abbott gave his hearty approval of the bill from the beginning, appearing alongside Senator Hughes at a press conference in March to announce the legislation.

The BBFC arbitrates on contested decisions on decisions that mobile phone companies make on blocking websites to customers who have not verified themselves as over 18.

One such decision shows that the BBFC are imposing their woke morality on such decisions. A notable case is the website is Christian Voice. This group has long features on Melon Farmers for being a pretty standard christian group with a pet peeve about gay people, considered something of a biblical abomination, citing a famous verse from the Bible in the book Leviticus.

The BBFC writes about two christian websites:

Christian Voice - christianvoice.org.uk

The BBFC viewed the website on 29 March 2021. The URL leads to the UK-based campaign group which advocates for legal and political reform through a literal interpretation of the Bible. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, transgender people) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

As a result, we would classify the site at least 18.

The Good News About God - goodnewsaboutgod.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 15 January 2021. We noted that the site presents as a religious blog discussing faith and health. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, Jewish people) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18 and would classify it at least 18.

The BBFC have also pronounced that two rather political websites that are very critical of islam and judaism should also be banned to under 18s:

The Religion of Peace - thereligionofpeace.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 17 February 2021. We noted that the site presents as a current affairs website discussing news concerning Muslims and Islam. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, Muslims) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

 As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18 and would classify it at least 18.

Jihad Watch - jihadwatch.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 17 February 2021. We noted that the site presents as a current affairs website discussing news concerning Muslims and Islam. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, Muslims) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18 and would classify it at least 18.

Heritage and Destiny - heritageanddestiny.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 22 March 2021. The URL leads to a political site with articles and reviews expressing an ethno-nationalist perspective. During our sampling of the site we noted uncritical examples of Holocaust scepticism, anti-Semitism and discrimination, all of which could be interpreted as encouraging harmful attitudes towards particular groups (for example, Jewish people).

As such we would classify this site at least 18.

Russian internet censors have issued three fines to Twitter totaling 8.9 million rubles (about $117,000) for the website's refusal to remove content that encouraged people to join unauthorized protests.

Twitter has 60 days to pay.

Russian authorities last month made content on Twitter slower to load, accusing the service of failing to take down posts related to drug use, pornography and other banned topics. On March 16, Russia's internet censor threatened to fully block the service within a month if it doesn't delete flagged content.

Update: TikTok too

7th April 2021. See article from meduza.io

A Russian court has fined the video sharing platform TikTok for failing to remove content that allegedly incited minors to participate in unsanctioned protests in Moscow, reports the Russian state news agency TASS.

The 2.5-million ruble ($32,375) fine was handed down by a magistrate on charges of violating the procedure for restricting access to information that is prohibited under Russian law.

In late January, representatives of the social networks TikTok, Facebook, Telegram, and VKontakte were summoned to Russia's federal censorship agency, Roskomnadzor, over content calling for participation in the demonstrations in support of jailed opposition politician Alexey Navalny that took place across Russia on January 23. Roskomnadzor initially reported that the social networks were actively removing this content. However, the censorship agency later announced that not all of the prohibited information had been blocked, and as such, the social networkers were facing fines ranging from 800,000 to four million rubles ($10,360 to $51,800).