Loading…
Loading…
Cohort 2021-23
This bill has been in the making for several years and its publication and passing in Parliament keeps being pushed back, as every week, another new area needs to be addressed. It is now going before the House of Lords for final approval.
Generally, the bill places a duty of care on all firms to protect adult users from illegal content such as child sexual abuse images, revenge pornography, threats to kill, selling firearms and terrorist material. Tech platforms have to proactively prevent that material from reaching users. Firms must also ensure that any content that could be accessed by children but is not illegal, such as content related to self-harm, is age-appropriate.
It aims to PROTECT CHILDREN – new procedures for registering for accounts re age etc. will be enforced.
Under the terms of the act, Ofcom has the power to fine companies up to £18m or 10% of worldwide turnover (that would be more than $10bn in the case of Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta), or even to block sites in extreme cases.
However, LEGAL, BUT HARMFUL content could still be allowed. However, if the platforms say they don’t allow it and it appears (i.e. eating disorders, some forms of racist or sexist abuse) then they could face criminal prosecution.
So banned: downblousing, upskirting, deepfakes, cyberflashing.
Reactive regulation is illustrated by this Bill. Trying to play catch up all the time.
These are some of the stories that have been important behind its implementation
In theory Online Tech giants could go to jail – but one wonders if that could actually happen.
As you can see, amendments come thick and fast as the instances of online harm and safety come to light.
As users of social media and probably occasional audiences for Reality TV, you have probably been aware of this latest case of Revenge Porn.
Georgia Harrison documentary – revenge porn is in the bill
This is Georgia talking about the UK Online Safety Bill and why it is necessary.
A great quote by Media theorist, Neil Postman which explains how most media regulation is REACTIVE to technology and the society that it belongs to.
News broadcasters and papers have, like the music industry before them, lost control of their distribution!
Except the social media platforms themselves!
The problem stems from one significant difference between social media and our previous case studies. Social media companies are global organisations. So, whilst it’s relatively easy to regulate adverts and news within the borders of a country, global regulation is highly problematic.
The other essential issue which prevents social media companies from being regulated is, are they a publisher or are they a platform?
It is impossible to regulate these American companies who have the protection offered by Section 230 of the American Communications and Decency Act 1996, which states platforms cannot be prosecuted for content posted by their users.
Fake news? Hate speech? Racism? A divided society and weakened democracies?
Here is an opinion piece from Jennifer Cobbe in The Guardian, in which she explains how Facebook and other players in the, “surveillance economy” have challenged the democracy we take for granted. It suggests:
“We need to confront their surveillance business models, their increasingly central position in digital society, and the power they now hold as a result.”
“As a result, some platforms’ algorithms systematically recommend disinformation, conspiracy theories white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.”
“At a minimum, behavioural advertising should be banned; other, less damaging forms of advertising are available. The algorithms platforms use to recommend content should be heavily regulated.”
As with news regulation, this is not a cut and dried argument. After all should we be allowing our governments to decide what ‘Truth’ should be available to us online?
The video below offers a counter argument to those demanding online regulation and quotes 17th century poet John Milton:
“Truth and understand are not such wares as to be monopolized and traded by tickets or statute, better to let truth and falsehood grapple”
He is suggesting we should not muzzle what we believe to be false or fake news, but allow argument and debate to flourish and in that process truth and greater understanding will come out.
Yesterday (29th March 2023) This…read the article.
More than 1,000 technology leaders and researchers, including Elon Musk, signed an open letter urging a pause in the development of the most powerful artificial intelligence systems, warning that AI tools present “profound risks to society and humanity.” https://t.co/39mqQK5C8C
— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 30, 2023
To answer that we have to go back to The Enlightenment and the birth of America…
You need to remember that many of the early American settlers (The Founding Fathers) were refugees, who were fleeing from religious persecution and tyrannical monarchies.
They were looking for a very different system of government, that was, according to the American Constitution;
‘Government By The People, For The People and Of the People.’
So they started to codify these beliefs in a Bill of Rights, which was then amended a number of times. These amendments were designed to state, in law, the fundamental freedoms of the American people.
The very first amendment was to protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression, because after all, if you are a tyrannical church or monarch, the best way to oppress your subjects is to ban different point of view and kill those who hold them.
So the first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So, freedom of expression , in it’s purest form, is about protecting the freedoms of the citizen, it’s about the right to hold the powerful to account and is essential in any enlightened democracy!
Should there be limits to freedom of expression if that freedom cause harm to the individual?
Because, whilst it’s all very well to hold politicians to account so that we can vote with full knowledge of the facts, should my freedom of expression extend to saying what I like, about who I like? After all, we do all love celebrity gossip and the popular tabloid press makes money because it gives us what we love…
Here is a cartoon from Private Eye which draws attention to our collective hypocrisy in the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana in a high speed car crash in Paris, when she and her new boyfriend were trying to escape the paparazzi (press photographers) chasing them on motorbikes.
Watch this video, from the BBC, which explains the story of how journalists from News of The World hacked the phone of a missing school girl, Milly Dowler, and in doing so broke the law and invaded the privacy of Milly’s grieving parents.
This sort of law breaking was a new low in press ethical standards and there was an outcry for more regulation of the press and the actions of journalists, who would do anything to get a story. So the government launched an inquiry, a debate, in front of a judge (Lord Leveson), who needed to advise the government on a new law to regulate the press.
Should we demand that freedom of the press to uncover stories should have limits when their methods cause harm to grieving families?
Many editors and journalists go back to that principle at the top of this post, that an entirely free press is essential for enlightened democracy.
They argue that if we limit journalists from uncovering genuine news stories, such as The Panama Papers or the scandal of The Catholic Church coving up the behaviour of priests who were molesting children.
What about Party Gate, when it was revealed by a journalist at The Mirror, that Boris Johnson was having parties in Number 10, after he’d banned social gatherings because of the dangers of Covid 19?
Or, Matt Hancock’s leaked WhatsApp messages that revealed he was more concerned with the government’s reputation than he was about care home testing or amending lockdown rules.
The British Government at the time did introduce a new regulatory body. They ditched the regulator the Press Complaints Commission, a model whereby the papers regulated themselves. And introduced our next case study… IPSO, who introduced a new Code or Practice for editors, which is enforceable in law if they break it.
Here is the last video. Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, who refused to sign up to IPSO, explaining what this now means for freedom of the press in the UK, which he asserts has now been eroded and the dangers of that for our democracy and the ability of journalists to hold the powerful to account.
“In Britain, we have a free press; it’s not a pretty press, but it’s free!”
Edit the Padlet.
Summarise the article, in what ways was this a victory for the press? In what ways was this an example of the press causing harm? First come, first served.
Weave in some theory, big ideas, concepts (representation, audience, industry, media language as appropriate) and key terms.
Who are the ASA?
THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY MISSION STATEMENT:
Listen to this presentation & make notes
Look through the following ads and consider why the ASA banned them where they:
Please submit your response via classroom.
These are some basic key terms and big ideas that you need to start using and applying to your case studies.
Communication is an inherent part of being human – this is how mass communication has developed – and given that it is now such a diverse, integrated and complicated landscape – regulating it is important.
But as societies and cultures develop and differ from place to place and time to time, so must regulation change – it is constantly adapting.
Who are the main British regulators?
Complete this worksheet in classroom and assign the correct mission statement to the correct regulator. They are mixed up in the document.
Learning Intention:
“Advertising exists to create desire.”
There is a widely held assumption that the media and advertising in particular (including propaganda) has an influence on the audience, so much so that they act based on an advertising. Whether that is to buy a particular brand or radically change their behaviour, in the propaganda examples above, join the army and fight in the trenches during World War 1 or contribute the the war effort at home.
Media Studies asks this simple question. which has proven remarkably hard to answer conclusively:
To what degree can we say that media has an influence on the audience’s behaviours, attitudes and beliefs about the world?
If it does effect behaviours and ideologies, how?
There are two broad schools of thought when thinking about media effects on audience.
Essentially this study suggests that…monkey see, monkey do…
This idea is reinforced regularly, ironically by the media, who suggests that violent and anti social behaviour is copied by a thoughtless, easily manipulated audience.
What the audience sees in the media they simply copy in terms of their behaviour and ideologies. A famous experiment by Bandura called the Bobo Doll experiment suggested that children will copy the behaviour of adults they watch playing a toy doll roughly and aggressively. Bandura suggested that this copy cat behaviour can be applied to audiences consuming the media just as easily.
‘Ok,’ you may say. I’ve seen hundred if not thousands of acts of violence in the media and I’ve never done anything violent. In fact society is in many ways less violent than it has ever been.
An adaptation of the hypodermic syringe model, which suggest that, ‘…most people form their opinions under the influence of opinion leaders, who in turn are influenced by the mass media.’ Wikipedia
These opinion leaders might be…
View this post on Instagram
Journalists, pundits, influencers, sports stars, music stars, film stars, shock jocks…
This is Alex Jones an American shock jock…
…who has a large, loyal and varied following around the world.
Although, an American judge recently, “ordered right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay an additional $473 million in punitive damages over the lies he told about the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.” and , CNN
A lot of people look up to this man and consider him to be a victim of a deep state conspiracy who are out to suppress the truth about the corruption at the heart of the establishment.
That’s the two step flow model right there!
Gerbner would suggest that our perceptions of what the world is like have been distorted by what we constantly see in the media over time.
Consider the following hypothetical example:
To understand the structure and implications of global media conglomerates.
“…a company that owns several smaller businesses whose products or services are usually very different.”
“…the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.”…
Why might media monopolies be considered, ‘a bad thing’ for audiences and society?
The argument goes:
Media theory time… Curran and Seaton…
… who argue that the opposite is true. (in summary)
Remember the Big Three record labels, who owns them?
The details are complex, but again, the big three are owned by much larger diversified conglomerates including.
Aside: So, only one of the Big Three record labels is actually owned by one of the Big Six. It’s a tangled & complicated web of ownership, which is discussed well in the video below.
Also here is an essay plan for this media ecology question. You must listen to the video and answer the questions and then hand it in to classroom by the allotted submission date.
*anti-trust – a legal mechanism for breaking up a monopoly into several separate smaller companies.
**net-neutrality – the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.
The video also talks about the FCC, an American body responsible for regulating distribution, media and tech firms. Our equivalent is OFCOM (see regulation unit).
To review, define and refine your understanding of the four key concepts in media.
Memorise the definition of the following four key concepts, which we came up with in class. There will be a test!
Remember, these are relevant (to a greater or lesser extent) to both your exams in May. So you need this keystone understanding.