The Online Safety Bill proports to promote the safety of the United Kingdom's children on the Internet. It has been critizied by various groups - The Internet Society and Open Rights Groups.
Signal, the encrypted messaging service, plans to defy the law and continue offering end to end encrypted services. WhatsApp is suggesting pulling out of the UK instead of complying (various news outlets but I don't see a press release by them).
This market resolves yes if the Online Safety Bill recieves Royal Assent during 2023. It will resolve no otherwise.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ101 | |
| 2 | Ṁ87 | |
| 3 | Ṁ69 | |
| 4 | Ṁ57 | |
| 5 | Ṁ51 |
I reading through the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords and am finding it appalling. 90% of the speeches are in favor of the bill and several call to reintroduce measures that were taken out - the automatic deletion of "harmful but legal" content.
There are also a few calls to push for enforcement of the bill beyond the UK. From Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour), despite significant reservations:
Legislation is required and the perfect should not be the enemy of a first attempt at the possible. However, given the fast developing and global landscape, further legislation will no doubt follow. Ultimately, I believe that His Majesty’s Government should seek to pioneer a global internet and AI treaty in due course—or at least, a Labour Government should. For one thing, the black boxes of advanced algorithms must be made transparent and subject to legal control so as not to entrench inequality, discrimination and hate.
The Earl of Erroll (Center Bench):
The first was on enforcement. This is always the big problem: how do you make them comply? One of the things that will work is the withdrawal of credit card facilities. If a Government or authority ask credit card companies to withdraw facilities from a company, they will, probably internationally. In fact, this happened not that long ago, a few months ago, to one of the big porn sites. It soon fell into line, so we know it works.
On the other hand, there is a small group of opposition scattered across the political arena. From Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour):
There are certain core premises that should guide our approach to online regulation. What is legal offline should be legal online. We need secure and safe communication channels to protect us all of us, but especially dissidents and journalists, so end-to-end encryption needs to be safeguarded. Our ability to protect our identities online can be life-saving, for domestic violence victims as much as for political dissidents, so we need to ensure that the principle of online anonymity is protected. Each of these principles is undermined by the current detail of the Bill, and I hope to work with many of your Lordships in the weeks ahead to add additional safeguards.
And Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party):
I put it very seriously to your Lordships’ House that before we proceed further, we should invite a youth parliament into this very Chamber. We should listen to that debate on this Bill very carefully. On few subjects is the obvious need for votes at 16, or even younger, more obvious—the need for the experts by experience to be heard. They have the capacity to be the agents and to shape their own world, if their elders get out of the road.
And Lord Moylan (Conservative):
The third point that I want to make, because I think that I am possibly going to come in under my four minutes, is that I did vote Conservative at the last general election; I always have. But that does not mean that I subscribe to every jot and tittle of the manifesto; in particular, I do not think that I ever signed up to live in a country that was the safest place in the world to be on the internet. If I had, I would have moved to China already, where nothing is ever out of place on the internet.