Australia is to punish companies passed legislation sweeping social media, non-violent police content. Here’s what to know

Australia is to punish companies passed legislation sweeping social media, non-violent police content. Here’s what to know

to draw the legislator in Australia has adopted new legislation on Thursday, social media companies for the dissemination of hate content on their platforms of account. With its implementation companies such as Facebook and YouTube in heavy fines may be, and their leaders threatened with imprisonment if they do not guarantee removal “quick” unsuitable material. The exchange of Abhorrent violence bill was set to activate the live broadcast of last month Christchurch, New Zealand mosque massacre following the criticism of social media into force, allegedly carried out by an Australian man who left 50 dead. Platforms classifies the content after the first broadcast to remove, has been suspended. Last week he called Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for governments and regulatory authorities to play a more active role in the suppression of harmful content. But the Australian legislation is going to and drawn criticism without necessary coordination with tech companies and other stakeholders. There is also a concern, as with other countries reinforced efforts is to limit the online exposure of sensitive content that could censor legitimate speech. It ‘was reported that lawmakers in the British patent are also considering the introduction of a law, the social media company to hold responsible for the content of their platforms through, would aim. According to the Guardian, the will U.K. Government expects legislation plans on Monday published a duty of care by social media company that would be enforced by an independent regulator. What do the new law? According to the legislation, forms of media constitute terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape and kidnapping, both together inside or outside Australia, are considered as “abhorrent assault” and platform requirements social media to remove. When this happens, it is not “surprising” – an exact time period is not specified – could lead to companies that have to pay 10% of their annual profit a hefty fine of up, and for up to three years of prison staff. The law targets the online platforms to provide “can not be exploited by perpetrators of violence and be a weapon”, published after a memorandum on the website of the Australian Parliament. What say Australian politicians? Christian Porter, a member of the Liberal Party, which ruled the country as part of a coalition, said the bill “an important step” to ensure that the perpetrators are not using online platforms “with the aim of spreading their propaganda fanatical violent and extreme. ” But many, including independent MPs Kerryn Phelps, criticized the hasty timeline with which the bill was pushed through. By calling the bill a “knee-jerk reaction,” Phelps said it could have “countless unintended consequences,” such as Internet platforms that discourage are suspended from activities in Australia that carry risks to be avoided. Another consequence, said Phelps is that whistleblower “can no longer be able to use social media to shed light on the atrocities committed in the world” as companies social media would fearing removed with a crime pays. Those who are against the bill? E ‘used by both groups represented tech critics and human rights experts about the seemingly randomness of the legislative process. “This bill, designed and was delivered in five days without meaningful consultation, does nothing to hate” address is Sunita Bose, CEO of Digital Industry Group Inc., Google, Facebook and other tech giants in Australia , he told the New York Times. “Loaded every second with the huge amount of content on the Internet,” Bose said: “This is a very complex problem, the conversation with the industry of technology, legal experts, the media and civil society needs to get right the solution – they didn ‘t pass this week. “special representative of the human rights Council of the United Nations has called for the withdrawal of the bill and additional time for consultation. In a letter, two Council members criticized its ambiguity: “The Verpflichtungen, z├╝gig’entfernen content and report it to law enforcement in einer, questions angemessenen’Zeit raise about service providers flag as quickly as expected and identified content hurt . “added the Council added that the bill would be” the balance in favor of disproportionate restriction of the freedom of flip “and thus” undermine, rather than protecting the public interest. ”
Picture copyright by Florian Gaertner Photo Library / Getty Images

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *