I reside in trepidation of the knowledge my voice will be ignored, that my education won't aid this nation and that media streams will be regulated to the point I'll be ineffective as a bona fide polemicist. My quest to you is initially some validation in regards to what you mean't by the damaging effect of social media in a recent blog. I know this is government policy via the Conservative manifesto of 2017; however this was a blanket digital approach under the umbrella'd term 'Digital Charter' explaining your governance computes the so-called online entrepreneurism; alas, barely any credible information is on such a wide subject , the Digital Charter consists of just two pages.
Corporations are increasingly concerned at what this Charter entails, all that the government has published is a data wish list; beyond nebulous if truth is to be told. By the way in regards to your recent blog; did you mean the damaging effects of social reaction / interaction online? Attempting to read between the lines, are you intrinsically affiliating wellbeing to modern day technologies; this is a rhetorical question, because with respect the ubiquitous social media interaction is now normal correspondence. To begin to safeguard the social network platforms will on par to buying out Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and make it into state-ownership, and furthermore this is pure fantasy as it delves into state controlled Socialism, a system you abhor. Although, the 'Digital Charter' does state 'innovative-friendly regulation' - this implies a complete social network rethink. Totally impossible to deliver; of the common-denominator the Conservatives are notoriously coy at nationalisation. So, I can only assume you're regulating these platforms from external means, outside the social media realm, by for example: activating judicial levers, in a bid to make social media giants to walk the plank. Henceforth, this opens up abusive stratagems for the future. Why? Technology firms are using different set of self-prescribed rules by simply offloading on 'the cloud' - you're backward in thinking if you believe you can follow the same set of rules to regulate 'cloud technologies' as you would standard cyber platforms. I doubt your parliamentarians have intravenous sources with tech-protocols, informing them of file-management habits of the capital's fiscal model (s). This information this changes daily / hourly.
Data storage is a lucrative commodity - corporates can move this about just the same with stocks and shares. I'm inclined to assume the government's Digital Charter is not what it seems.... the government cannot lead on providing the tech-sector confidence -- I'm left to ask, confidence in what? Notably, this sector has to have enough freedom to thrive, of the onus the UK is deficient in these skills -- albeit, (impending) regulatory requirements is thwarting innovation. I'll go as far to say I find the 'Digital Charter' at this present state obsolete - shockingly nothing committed to the 'Dark Web' or 'Deep Web' in means of blackmarket trade, the irony is by leaving the EU it gives the blackmarket a huge boost to irregular trading practices and worse still, engages opportunity and morale. All I can gather is your aspiration of wanting the UK to be the safest place in the world to be online is a cloud cuckoo prophecy.
Political strings is a better evaluation ------ not advocating an allegiance with the digital economy on the understanding no governed instrument enables cyber prosperity. There's no evidence, in fact I'll claim: absolute ignorance is the best pathway for UK digitalization to thrive. Much of the 'Digital Charter' endorses an assumption that greater public confidence would be assured if regulatory levers were in place, I disagree vehemently; I am certain that the British Public have greater confidence in web-servers than politicians. One of the worrisome formulaic language political minds dream up is this: *new rules for the digital economy underpinning domestic regulation and international partnership. Is this verification of a new super highway for super-capitalism that's encrypted coded unlike anything we've seen before? I mention this duly of the understanding it's the best possible basis digital innovation can thrive, and not forgetting the Conservatives want to lead the world within this tech-orientated sector. Nevertheless, you'll have to via the Artificial Intelligence route to even hit the tip of the social platform iceberg the kind of hyper-robotic intelligence unavailable for at least five years; not dissimilar to the futuristic Irish border checks. Regulating these platforms isn't about tweaking a 'Digital Charter' policy of two pages long; in retrospect it'll take a generation to formulate. As a polemicist I see a different landscape manifesting and it goes against freedom of speech and the democratic values you passionately adhere to.
Pseudo-scientists who work on supposed 'proofs' of correlation between intelligence quotient and 'inappropriateness' are criticised because of the opacity and arbitrariness of the definition of 'intelligence' let alone of its alleged and protean 'quotient' - hence, those who're vulnerable intellectually and socially rest at the core of inappropriateness ---- research exposes the vulnerable demographic tends to misinterpret at a much higher rate, yet in comparison to other demographics gets an immense amount of downtime politically from the Conservatives, why the far-right find today's Conservatism appealing. This links up to recognising inappropriate content, personally this is a political quagmire with more shades of grey than the book. An individual's 'inappropriateness' differs from anothers ------ once the State regulation interferes with social interaction it's a game-changer. And you can't put back the genie either, for what's attractive about social networks is expressing: individualism.
Once this is dampened down even an iota, the individual can claim Human Right infringement (s). Actual personal data whether collected or not has no validation on the claim - with your background I'm sure you relate to the 'individual case' or 'case by case' procedure; why judicially blanket reforms across the cyber-spectrum is extortionate to facilitate even partly and by doing so opens up the government into compromising positions i.e. digital litigation. Regretfully, the GDPR is just the introduction, by being a parliamentarian you'll know this isn't aimed to protect our civilisation from online interaction but a concerted effort to dispel political competition. Notably the GDPR was granted to the UK via Royal Assent due to leaving the European Union; as our monarchy has no dealings politically and is just a figure head by name only, I can accurately ascertain the DPA 2018 is purely for the current administration's cause -- albeit, deemed to be a necessity for transitional period preparation.
'Protection laws' are so vital, that there's no time limit in-place... and this is where protection morphs into a political will. Inadvertently, this goes against democratic principles, for there's a surge online against progressive thought, namely notification from social media streams pressured by the UK government to eradicate social values. These non-official, social media groups have 30k members for a reason they're instructive and highly influential - models that Conservatism have tried to emulate. Yet at the same time the authoritarians have impose restrictions of threads whereby comments are now supervised via an internal moderator; proof that political alignments are consciously damaging freedom of speech; outlandishly lambasted as being 'abusive content' -- Before you claim there's no correlation between protection (DPA2018 / Digital Charter) and political will; I'll refer you to Matt Hancock's (Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) interviews of recent... he let the incumbent feline out of the bag.
New legislation would enable the government to enforce anti-bullying or harassment fines; these are the new reforms in the Data Protection Act 2018; on Hancock's watch they're due in the next few weeks; thus, became the next few years... depending what daily interview you tuned into. The UK's digital economies cannot work under this nebulous approach to time scale. Again no specifics of what is deemed 'anti-bullying or harassment' either - however he elaborated on a political point, which let the cat out the bag: 'having a level playing field is important.' On the Digital Charter it categorically claims the governance makes the decision to label what conducts itself as an online 'hate machine' -- but there's zero boundaries laid. But 'hate machines' is exactly how certain social groups are labelled. Not only is Hancock's motives conducive to a nanny-state, it'll drive the serious issues of *real terrorism* into unknown quarters i.e. the 'Deeper Web'. Hancock's so-called whistle-stop reforming resembles a puppy in a pigsty. (is that an abusive comment, to clarify via idiom how he comes across in mainstream media?) I don't believe so.
When Emma Barnett managed to get out a number from Hancock in reference to social media platform interaction / discussions; the response rate was a diabolical 29%! Less than a third was curious about the plans surrounding the 'new legislation.' Ask yourself this, who would possibly look at the 'new legislation' and think, oh that's new and worth considering? Or there's another pathway the governance are particularly interested in, the actuality of security online with unprecedented investment and access to 'cyber security' and 'stronger cyber standards for government and public services.' Sounds like a surveillance state to me, sliding towards Orwellian. What's startling is the need to explain in the Charter what liberal values are to the converted: 'on liberal values that cherish freedom, but not the freedom to harm others.' I red-flagged this section up as dangerously superfluous, if anything I pictured liberal Berlin in 1932, prior to the fascist regime's deplorable rules and regulations. Furthermore, on a similar thread; liberalism was wide-spreading in Russia for a little while before the constitutional revolt, leaving the ilk of Pavel Miliukov residing in exile.
Our liberties today are eroding and I am not intending to harm anyone, but even I am informed to be extra vigilant while formulating ideas, implying I am incapable of doing so naturally. The hostile environment is ubiquitously in transit, spearheaded on by the Hancocks of this world without any congealed experience of the digital economy whatsoever; in reality he hasn't deserved a platform to warrant the ears of the sector's top brass. Odiously, this is audaciously standard in public office today -- and why deranged fixed concepts from cyber regulating without undoing our freedoms to clandestinely data harvesting profiles has fundamentally been thanks to Brexit opportunism. Draconian measures are played out against certain sectors of society; many of which have already been struggling for civil liberties. This is why I reside in trepidation of the knowledge my voice will be ignored, that my education won't aid this nation and that media streams will be regulated to the point I'll be ineffective as a bona fide polemicist.
Legal gurus are fully aware data profiling under State control has damaging discriminatory tendencies, and yes, it breaches the ECHR. Is this what you mean when you relay... 'social media has a damaging effect on our wellbeing'?
Comments
Post a Comment