Parliament Select Cttee on addictive technologies

[DracoM]

House of Commons

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee

DCMS Committee begins inquiry investigating immersive and addictive technologies

The DCMS Committee will hold the first evidence session of its new inquiry into Immersive and Addictive technologies, seeking an overview of issues with academics and researchers on Tuesday 12th of February in the Wilson Room, Portcullis House from 10.30am.

[Anastasius]

I think that perhaps the phrase " stable door" springs to mind. Better late than never, I guess.

[MrGongGong]

"immersive technologies" ?

i.e = EARS




"addictive technologies" ?




and to follow

https://infodocks.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/stanley_cohen_folk_devils_and_moral_panics.pdf

(I'm not saying that there are some problems with the way in which some technologies are utilised but ............)

[DracoM]

Report now published: this is the preamble:

Damian Collins MP, Chair DCMS Committee, said:



“Our inquiry over the last year has identified three big threats to our society. The challenge for the year ahead is to start to fix them; we cannot delay any longer.



“Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised ‘dark adverts’ from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day. Much of this is directed from agencies working in foreign countries, including Russia.

“The big tech companies are failing in the duty of care they owe to their users to act against harmful content, and to respect their data privacy rights.

“Companies like Facebook exercise massive market power which enables them to make money by bullying the smaller technology companies and developers who rely on this platform to reach their customers.

“These are issues that the major tech companies are well aware of, yet continually fail to address. The guiding principle of the ‘move fast and break things’ culture often seems to be that it is better to apologise than ask permission.

“We need a radical shift in the balance of power between the platforms and the people. The age of inadequate self-regulation must come to an end. The rights of the citizen need to be established in statute, by requiring the tech companies to adhere to a code of conduct written into law by Parliament, and overseen by an independent regulator.

“We also have to accept that our electoral regulations are hopelessly out of date for the internet age. We need reform so that the same principles of transparency of political communications apply online, just as they do in the real world. More needs to be done to require major donors to clearly establish the source of their funds.

“Much of the evidence we have scrutinised during our inquiry has focused on the business practices of Facebook; before, during and after the Cambridge Analytica data breach scandal.

“We believe that in its evidence to the Committee Facebook has often deliberately sought to frustrate our work, by giving incomplete, disingenuous and at times misleading answers to our questions.

“Even if Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t believe he is accountable to the UK Parliament, he is to the billions of Facebook users across the world. Evidence uncovered by my Committee shows he still has questions to answer yet he’s continued to duck them, refusing to respond to our invitations directly or sending representatives who don’t have the right information. Mark Zuckerberg continually fails to show the levels of leadership and personal responsibility that should be expected from someone who sits at the top of one of the world’s biggest companies.

“We also repeat our call to the Government to make a statement about how many investigations are currently being carried out into Russian interference in UK politics. We want to find out what was the impact of disinformation and voter manipulation on past elections including the UK Referendum in 2016 and are calling on the Government to launch an independent investigation.‘

[MrGongGong]

At the last (specially laid on for comedy value ?) election I remember hearing a couple of MP's on the radio complaining about how "the young" weren't playing by the rules as they seemed to be getting their information from sources other than the BBC and mainstream media. The gist of the complaint was that there was something "wrong" with people doing this and it needed to be stopped.

The people I interact with on FB (some of whom are here as well) are often as well-informed and knowledgable (often more so) than those in the mainstream media.
"Democracy" is certainly "at risk" from the folks who have invited folks like Nigel Lawson to comment on Climate Change OR to give equal weight to the deluded fantasists of UKIP and the like.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Much of that preamble sounds like hot air - blustering attacks on Zuckerberg and "dark adverts". I hope that the "amble" actually presents ideas about how such threats can be tackled (not merely "identified") without government censorship of the Internet. If it doesn't do this, then it's been a very expensive waste of time and finances, producing only impotent statements of the bloomin' obvious.

[DracoM]

Suspect they may have been overtaken by very fast-moving events in the tech vs people debate?

[DracoM]

I think this may well be worth reading: fairly strongly worded and it looks as if there are rather more serious governmental attempts to exercise some control over online providers.

See what you think:


DCMS Cttee report on Disinformation:
“Over 18 months and two reports, the DCMS Committee has shone light into the darker recesses of the online world where some social media companies have been allowed to consider themselves above the law, behaving like ‘digital gangsters’. That era of self-regulation is coming to an end.

“Today we’re publishing the Government’s response to our work. It has recognised the rigorous work we carried out which provided much of the evidence upon which the White Paper on Online Harms is based. I’m pleased to see that the majority of our recommendations on how to regulate social media companies have been accepted. Particularly, the need for independent regulation, the need to make companies legally responsible for monitoring and removing harmful and illegal content, and the threat of substantial fines to force companies to act.

“Our newly launched Sub-Committee on Disinformation will continue to monitor the Government’s plans to carry out the action it has outlined in dealing with threats that disinformation poses to our political democracy. Members of the Committee will have the opportunity to question DCMS Secretary Jeremy Wright about his plans during his appearance before the Select Committee this afternoon.”



On making tech companies responsible and liable:

The Committee’s welcomes Government’s agreement of the need for a new regulatory framework for social media companies, with a statutory Duty of Care to protect users and Codes of Practice to ensure companies meet their legal responsibilities, as set out in its White Paper on Online Harms.
Giving the regulator sufficient powers to act on failures to remove harmful or illegal content is critical, and we are pleased that the Government has agreed with our recommendation on the ability to impose substantial fines when breaches occur.
We are disappointed that the Government has rejected our call to create a new category of tech company that is neither a platform, nor publisher, allowing for a tightening of tech companies’ responsibilities.
On Facebook, our report concluded it was evident that the company “intentionally and knowingly violated both data privacy and anti-competition laws.” It is surprising that in its response, the Government fails to address our call for a detailed investigation into Facebook’s practices.
Our interim report highlighted Facebook’s unwillingness to be accountable to global regulators. It called for a review of the impact powerful tech companies make on democracy. The Government’s response fails to directly address this challenge.
On changing the rules on political campaigning:

Committee welcomes action by Government on our recommendation for a comprehensive audit of the advertising market on social media.
The Government’s White Paper draws on the evidence we presented for greater transparency of online political campaigning with a code of practice to tackle disinformation.
The Government has also announced plans for a digital imprint on political advertising to be introduced this year.
Foreign interference:

The Government supports our recommendation that social media companies must be open and transparent when foreign interference has taken place on their sites, accepting that disinformation is a threat to the values and principles of UK
The Committee recommended a review of current legislation in protecting the electoral process from malign influence, however the Government response fails to mention any specific action around foreign influence in democratic processes.

[Serial_Apologist]

At this time [] the government wants to ensure its "special relationship" is not damaged by allegations of Russian or any other interference in the US political arena, would be my conclusion as to why its response to the report has been... selective, I would imagine.

[sidneyfox]

Stanley Cohen (RIP) was one of my lecturers and class teachers at university. A brilliant mind, sadly missed. Did you know him or come across him in your professional life?

"immersive technologies" ?

i.e = EARS




"addictive technologies" ?




and to follow

https://infodocks.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/stanley_cohen_folk_devils_and_moral_panics.pdf

(I'm not saying that there are some problems with the way in which some technologies are utilised but ............)

[MrGongGong]

Stanley Cohen (RIP) was one of my lecturers and class teachers at university. A brilliant mind, sadly missed. Did you know him or come across him in your professional life?

Sadly not but my son is a great enthusiast

[greenilex]

I remain convinced that my decision to eschew both Facebook and Twitter was the right one. You folks are my nearest approach to social media, and I don’t find for3 too terrifying at present.