The bill aims to protect under-18s from harmful content; so if regulators find that Instagram has been steering British kids toward material encouraging suicide, Mark Zuckerberg could face up to two years behind bars.
But it is actually a prudent move.
Being a progandists in the past required owning a printing press or a broadcast license – basically you had to be elite and wealthy.
Today, anyone can be a propagandist using the friction-free information distribution social media platforms.
BigMedia doesn’t like competition. This is why many major media outlets are now in favor of censorship, applied to their competitors. For decades, they long promoted the concept of a “free press” free from government interference. Now that what to shut down others’ voices. Hypocrites.
This isn’t just about stopping “name calling” (defined today as “hate speech”) or incendiary speech (“calls to violence”), but in their own words, it is also to stop “misinformation” (which generally means anything you may disagree with). The answer to speech we do not like has long been more speech, not censorship. Once you start down the path of censorship, who gets to decide who is the censor and arbiter of truth? Do we take a public vote and elect a Chief Censor each year?
I might be canceling my Bloomberg subscription as I find them increasingly obnoxious on topics like this.