FPB earmarks R8m to censor online

[Vrotappel]

I bet R8 million can buy a lot of KFC.

 

[Praemon]

Lets see how far they make it with their stupid plan

Well, no one has made any attempt to stop these new FPB policies, barring one or two online petitions (which will have absolutely no affect), so it will happen.

 

[Space_Chief]

It's not get it into you thick skull space loser. Every one is entitled to be treated fairly,equally and with respect, yes calling some one a thief or stupid or whatever is fair comment, still doesn't make it right with in accordance the constitution and laws, you can still sue that person for defamation under civil law.

Who was talking about someone being thick or stupid? You just called me that by the way a second time?

So your moronic argument makes it okay to call some one the K word, call my mother a Beatch, call RPM a box, because according to you not being able to do so is censorship.Not being able to speak your mind about the ANC would be censorship, not being able to to call some one K word is protection of his and your rights.It's not direct censorship is either protecting some ones right be it majority or a minority, we have a constitution which encourages freedom of speech and ideas, while still protecting others freedom of speech and ideas as well.

You're running strawmen. Nobody was talking about using slurs, which you use yourself. "Thick skull".
So why do you insult people with Paget's Disease? DO you think that promotes their equality and if that's not in the constitution is it OK to call "stupid people", thick skulled? And who decides someone is stupid? Because you fail at basic logic, so how can one assume your definition or even assessment of stupid is even valid? Can I sue you for "defamation"? Besides say I am stupid, I can't change that. If I have a low IQ, that's it. So it's OK to discriminate and insult me? Nobody was talking about what you actually applied in practice in this comment, but I think that's lost on you or you make exceptions which just meet current fashions. One is a slur, other is not because of an arbitrary reason.

So no I don't in the least bit consider it censorship, if the intention is protection and promoting equality to the benefit of each and every South African, you really need to consider what real censorship is.Kindly prove to me that these restrictions imposed has a direct "negative" impact of your right of free speech, with consideration for others rights, beliefs ect.

Your comment makes no sense. Nobody was talking about removing "protection" and "promotion of equality". Nobody was talking about using racial or other slurs. I think you're not grasping this.

I think discussing anything with you is useless. So kindly do not respond to me again.

By the way one can shut down any criticism using the excuse of equality, like one could shut down any criticism and say it's reactionary or anarchist or royalist or whatever. This means that things which are not that but interpreted by the authorities or opinion makers as that will also be shut down. But since you only think of one thing, particularly racial and other slurs (which I wasn't thinking about at all) and consider the constitution which can be changed with a 2/3 majority as something more important than fundamentals, I'm afraid I can't speak to you. We're by the large talking past each other but because you called me stupid on two occasions, and just assumed your own interpretation, even just in the local context - and I was speaking of the universal one - I don't think we can talk about this as you appear angry, mean spirited, uncharitable and enjoy running strawmen. What you should have done if you were a civil person in these comments was ask what was meant by what I said and asked if something like the k word is included. But you didn't ask that. You just assumed the worst in a most prejudicial way.

Censorship's definition by the way is "noun
noun: censorship

the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

So yes what you consider not censorship is. You don't get to redefine the dictionary.

Again don't bother responding but maybe digest what you read here.

 

[Thor]

Well, no one has made any attempt to stop these new FPB policies, barring one or two online petitions (which will have absolutely no affect), so it will happen.

This ^

In all honesty I read those petition links... They don't mean schist


We are in for a transformation boys

 

[Thor]

It's not get it into you thick skull space loser. Every one is entitled to be treated fairly,equally and with respect, yes calling some one a thief or stupid or whatever is fair comment, still doesn't make it right with in accordance the constitution and laws, you can still sue that person for defamation under civil law.

So your moronic argument makes it okay to call some one the K word, call my mother a Beatch, call RPM a box, because according to you not being able to do so is censorship.Not being able to speak your mind about the ANC would be censorship, not being able to to call some one K word is protection of his and your rights.It's not direct censorship is either protecting some ones right be it majority or a minority, we have a constitution which encourages freedom of speech and ideas, while still protecting others freedom of speech and ideas as well.

So no I don't in the least bit consider it censorship, if the intention is protection and promoting equality to the benefit of each and every South African, you really need to consider what real censorship is.Kindly prove to me that these restrictions imposed has a direct "negative" impact of your right of free speech, with consideration for others rights, beliefs ect.

I don't think you fell from the stupid tree, you had a rocket pack attached.

Defuq are you posting?

Logic = None

They should censor this post by the amount of insults you are throwing.

 

[Grimster101]

This ^

In all honesty I read those petition links... They don't mean schist


We are in for a transformation boys

Perhaps we ourselves should be emailing media sites, try to get their attention on the matter. Maybe even provide the link to the petition. What we need right now is a ton of awareness. And if the media sites all start talking about it.. Could very well catch more South African attention. Thoughts?

 

[koeksGHT]

Perhaps we ourselves should be emailing media sites, try to get their attention on the matter. Maybe even provide the link to the petition. What we need right now is a ton of awareness. And if the media sites all start talking about it.. Could very well catch more South African attention. Thoughts?

Make a video? if someone has time to make a script for me

 

[Grimster101]

Make a video? if someone has time to make a script for me

You want a script? I'll give you one. Check your PM

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

I watched the Aaron Schwartz documentary last night (http://trakt.tv/movies/the-internet-s-own-boy-the-story-of-aaron-swartz-2014) and was reminded that he was instrumental in stopping SOPA in the US. If you think about it, the FBP's attempt is really no different to SOPA. In it's own way, it also threatens free speech and dialogue and it is a bordering a thin line of undermining constitutional rights.

I take an example of ISPA where we already have a flawed take-down process (from experience this happened to us a number of times), where ISPA is incapable of verifying legitimacy of take-down requests, passes the TDM on to the ISP who in turn will just do what ISPA tells them. As the website operator or content provider you are at the end of this and will have to file counter-claims at your own costs which can not be recovered. I do see that the FPB will operate no different than ISPA when it comes to TDM.

Ideally a local independent body (think equivalent to Electronic Frontier Foundation) should rally local ISPs and content provider to have a strong stance at fighting FPB's censorship attempt and be as verbose about it as people where about SOPA. As a start perhaps get to sign https://www.change.org/p/film-and-publications-board-stop-the-internet-censorship

 

[Hitchcock]

Personally, i do not know what the big issue is. Anyone who knows just a little bit about the Internet knows that R8m is way too little to address an issue like this. In order to address it at full scale, they will need billions.

This is someone trying to make quick buck out of government. They will target probably around 100 videos and we will never hear from them again.

This is just another corrupt scam.

 

[koeksGHT]

Personally, i do not know what the big issue is. Anyone who knows just a little bit about the Internet knows that R8m is way too little to address an issue like this. In order to address it at full scale, they will need billions.

This is someone trying to make quick buck out of government. They will target probably around 100 videos and we will never hear from them again.

This is just another corrupt scam.

like etolls they will coerce big businesses to pay up huge fees(news24).

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

Personally, i do not know what the big issue is. Anyone who knows just a little bit about the Internet knows that R8m is way too little to address an issue like this. In order to address it at full scale, they will need billions.

This is someone trying to make quick buck out of government. They will target probably around 100 videos and we will never hear from them again.

This is just another corrupt scam.

The big issue is that this will form part of legislation and can result in subjective decisions by the FPB to take down content which they deem "inappropriate". So if you criticise the government, make fun of politicians or raise sensitive issues (think campaigns against women abuse or think about campaigns against some of those initiation practises), the FPB can very well take down content. It would then really be up to the platforms (such as Facebook, Google/Youtube, Vimeo etc) to decide on our behalf which content should remain on the net. This seriously questions the freedom of access and to be honest, we already have legislation in place to deal with child pornography, copyright infringement etc - so I fail to understand why the FPB should be given special powers to become South Africa's internet police.

 

[Grimster101]

The big issue is that this will form part of legislation and can result in subjective decisions by the FPB to take down content which they deem "inappropriate". So if you criticise the government, make fun of politicians or raise sensitive issues (think campaigns against women abuse or think about campaigns against some of those initiation practises), the FPB can very well take down content. It would then really be up to the platforms (such as Facebook, Google/Youtube, Vimeo etc) to decide on our behalf which content should remain on the net. This seriously questions the freedom of access and to be honest, we already have legislation in place to deal with child pornography, copyright infringement etc - so I fail to understand why the FPB should be given special powers to become South Africa's internet police.

This ^

Giving them that kind of power can and will be abused so heavily and our right to freedom of speech will be gone.

 

[agel]

Yeah I heavily agree with MagicDude4Eva's last post there.

I also feel this would be one big slippery slope if it starts... And I imagine that it would affect the poor the most, which are also the people that probably haven't even heard of (or care about it, as they're worrying about their next meal or next Gov handout) it.

#MushroomFarm (Kept/grown in the dark and fed crap)

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

I suggest that as an active citizen of this country, it is actually your responsibility to read through the gazetted version: http://www.fpb.org.za/media-centre-...oard-to-launch-draft-online-regulatory-policy and provide feedback to them. Submission dead-line is 90 days - so this means end of May 2015 (i.e. 90 days after it was published). This will eventually affect you and your family and I do not believe that FPB's intentions are as honest as they should be.

Content providers currently have mechanisms in place to report inappropriate content and ISPs already work with ISPA regarding take-down-notices. We have criminal laws in place to protect children from abuse and topics such as child-pornography and hate-speech are already a crime, so I fail to understand why the FPB needs to introduce a new framework. If the current criminal procedures act and any laws related to ECT are inadequate, why not fix those?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for protecting children from harmful content, but I then also think that this needs to become responsibility of schools, parents etc. Some snippets about the FPB policy below:

and for the first time, industry, civil society and the Film and Publication Board ("FPB") will join hands and share the costs and responsibility for digital content classification and compliance monitoring to ensure that children are protected from exposure to disturbing and harmful content. For all intends and purposes, content includes films, games, publications and self generated content uploaded or posted on social media platforms.

With regard to any other content distributed online, the Board shall have the power to order an administrator of any online platform to take down any content that the Board may deem to be potentially harmful and disturbing to children of certain ages.

Case in point: We frequently receive complaints on our marketplace about "pornographic" content (read: lingerie - http://www.bidorbuy.co.za/category/917/Clothing_Shoes_Accessories_Womens_Clothing_Lingerie.jsp). We also receive complaints about products not agreeing with cultural, religious, political background - none of which are offensive (i.e. people complaining about the insensitivity of books critical towards a religion, political group etc). This goes as far as people complaining about "50 Shades of Grey" being sold online, where the same is tolerated by people walking through a CNA or bookstore. 99% of those complaints are baseless, as they do not violate or infringe on any persons rights. I also think that accessing certain content is by choice and as such, if a school allows access to PornHub on their WiFi network, it should really be the school made accountable and not the children accessing such content. In the same sense, parents should install content filters on phones and laptops to provide age-compliant content. There are many applications an only proxies out there, which provide this content filtering already.

My biggest worry is that under the umbrella "let's protect our children from the evil of the internet", that SA will result in a nanny-/police-state, comparable to the SOPA-days in the US or how Russia, Turkey, Korea police internet content. Would the FPB now decide if gay marriage/relationships is inappropriate for kids and as such censor all such content (although such content might be opinion pieces and does not include nudity)? What about a critical documentary against the leading party? Or a church? Or a specific demographics?

I think if you read a few of the pages of the draft (http://www.fpb.org.za/profile-fpb/legislation1/514-draft-online-regulation-policy-2014/file) you will notice, that the FPB makes the draft out to be protecting children, but paints this with a very broad brush - i.e. covering religion, politics, race etc and I would fear that such attempt would stifle any open discussion about issues, since the FPB would just make content disappear before it actually sees it's light (I doubt that they will ever manage to do this, as this would mean, they would have to take control of the actual Internet).

The scope of content is broad:

This includes self-generated content uploaded on platforms such as You-Tube, facebook and Twitter, feature films, television programs and certain computer games which are distributed online by streaming through the internet.

When the FPB means "Online content" it is actually pretty much everything online:

"Online content" in relation to the distribution of films, games and certain publications, means distribution that is connected by computer or electronic devices to one or more other computers, devices or networks, as through a commercial electronic information service or the Internet.

Let this sink in for a moment:

Internet intermediaries, including application service providers, host providers and internet access providers will bear the responsibility of putting in place content filtering systems to ensure that illegal content or content which may be harmful to children is not uploaded in their services.

So in essence, how will those intermediaries be able to filter content without "spying" on your every move. With this would then also come bypassing of encryption/HTTPs/VPNs to be able to classify such content. This has broad implications for all our privacy.

The policy covers anyone and any content, irrespective of where the content originates from. So technically, if you bypass local filters via VPN or other means, you could get yourself into trouble for showing/viewing content which the FPB deems illegal (which is in their policy really undefined what inappropriate means and seems to be rather subjective):

This Online Regulation Policy applies to any person who distributes or exhibits online any film, game, or certain publication in the Republic of South Africa.

If you think about all of the above, the FPB's policy is not enforceable - and I leave it with this (and why we should not burn tax-payer money):
- Youtube: 1bn MAU's (monthly active users) and 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute
- Twitter: 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day (http://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/)
- Facebook: 1.39 billion MAU's. 300 million photos uploaded per day. Every 60 seconds: 510 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and 136,000 photos are uploaded.
- Blogs: Several million blog posts per day (http://www.internetlivestats.com/watch/blog-posts/)

 

[koeksGHT]

I suggest that as an active citizen of this country, it is actually your responsibility to read through the gazetted version: http://www.fpb.org.za/media-centre-...oard-to-launch-draft-online-regulatory-policy and provide feedback to them. Submission dead-line is 90 days - so this means end of May 2015 (i.e. 90 days after it was published). This will eventually affect you and your family and I do not believe that FPB's intentions are as honest as they should be.

Content providers currently have mechanisms in place to report inappropriate content and ISPs already work with ISPA regarding take-down-notices. We have criminal laws in place to protect children from abuse and topics such as child-pornography and hate-speech are already a crime, so I fail to understand why the FPB needs to introduce a new framework. If the current criminal procedures act and any laws related to ECT are inadequate, why not fix those?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for protecting children from harmful content, but I then also think that this needs to become responsibility of schools, parents etc. Some snippets about the FPB policy below:





Case in point: We frequently receive complaints on our marketplace about "pornographic" content (read: lingerie - http://www.bidorbuy.co.za/category/917/Clothing_Shoes_Accessories_Womens_Clothing_Lingerie.jsp). We also receive complaints about products not agreeing with cultural, religious, political background - none of which are offensive (i.e. people complaining about the insensitivity of books critical towards a religion, political group etc). This goes as far as people complaining about "50 Shades of Grey" being sold online, where the same is tolerated by people walking through a CNA or bookstore. 99% of those complaints are baseless, as they do not violate or infringe on any persons rights. I also think that accessing certain content is by choice and as such, if a school allows access to PornHub on their WiFi network, it should really be the school made accountable and not the children accessing such content. In the same sense, parents should install content filters on phones and laptops to provide age-compliant content. There are many applications an only proxies out there, which provide this content filtering already.

My biggest worry is that under the umbrella "let's protect our children from the evil of the internet", that SA will result in a nanny-/police-state, comparable to the SOPA-days in the US or how Russia, Turkey, Korea police internet content. Would the FPB now decide if gay marriage/relationships is inappropriate for kids and as such censor all such content (although such content might be opinion pieces and does not include nudity)? What about a critical documentary against the leading party? Or a church? Or a specific demographics?

I think if you read a few of the pages of the draft (http://www.fpb.org.za/profile-fpb/legislation1/514-draft-online-regulation-policy-2014/file) you will notice, that the FPB makes the draft out to be protecting children, but paints this with a very broad brush - i.e. covering religion, politics, race etc and I would fear that such attempt would stifle any open discussion about issues, since the FPB would just make content disappear before it actually sees it's light (I doubt that they will ever manage to do this, as this would mean, they would have to take control of the actual Internet).

The scope of content is broad:


When the FPB means "Online content" it is actually pretty much everything online:


Let this sink in for a moment:


So in essence, how will those intermediaries be able to filter content without "spying" on your every move. With this would then also come bypassing of encryption/HTTPs/VPNs to be able to classify such content. This has broad implications for all our privacy.

The policy covers anyone and any content, irrespective of where the content originates from. So technically, if you bypass local filters via VPN or other means, you could get yourself into trouble for showing/viewing content which the FPB deems illegal (which is in their policy really undefined what inappropriate means and seems to be rather subjective):


If you think about all of the above, the FPB's policy is not enforceable - and I leave it with this (and why we should not burn tax-payer money):
- Youtube: 1bn MAU's (monthly active users) and 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute
- Twitter: 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day (http://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/)
- Facebook: 1.39 billion MAU's. 300 million photos uploaded per day. Every 60 seconds: 510 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and 136,000 photos are uploaded.
- Blogs: Several million blog posts per day (http://www.internetlivestats.com/watch/blog-posts/)

with a budget of R8m lol

 

[Impulse_One]

If you think about all of the above, the FPB's policy is not enforceable - and I leave it with this (and why we should not burn tax-payer money):
- Youtube: 1bn MAU's (monthly active users) and 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute
- Twitter: 350,000 tweets sent per minute, 500 million tweets per day (http://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/)
- Facebook: 1.39 billion MAU's. 300 million photos uploaded per day. Every 60 seconds: 510 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and 136,000 photos are uploaded.
- Blogs: Several million blog posts per day (http://www.internetlivestats.com/watch/blog-posts/)

Then how does YouTube manages to process 300 hours per minute of video and audio, to ensure that content is not infringing copyright? Now think with just text and still images... Possible, very possible...

Alternatively, half-assed solution, like the one they used in Russia's Roskomnadzor(R). Example:
1) One large image website (no names, of course), predominantly hosts innocent artwork and very small, well hidden NSFW artwork of various nastiness.
2) R blocked the said website, because of couple softcore images, which are innocent compared to some NSFW content.
3) It ended up with removal of said images and uncertain situation depending on ISP side.
4) Admins launched Thor link for website, specially for affected users.

One thing scares me: very insignificant budget (it's relative) >>> draw little attention as possible.

 

[koeksGHT]

Then how does YouTube manages to process 300 hours per minute of video and audio, to ensure that content is not infringing copyright? Now think with just text and still images... Possible, very possible...

One thing scares: very small budget (it's relative) >>> draw little attention as possible.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

 

[MagicDude4Eva]

Then how does YouTube manages to process 300 hours per minute of video and audio, to ensure that content is not infringing copyright? Now think with just text and still images... Possible, very possible...

One thing scares: very small budget (it's relative) >>> draw little attention as possible.

Google / Facebook is very good at this and they have algorithm and manual review staff in place to monitor content based on their policies. Youtube does not block Anaconda and I would think the FPB would consider this inappropriate content - or? Either way, the big platforms have this in place in any case. FPB is really out of their depth here - they can not even curb the sales of pirated DVDs on street-corners, how do you think will they be able to shut down "inappropriate" content site. (Office talk has established that this site would be soooo blocked: watkykjy.co.za)

 

[Impulse_One]

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

I know.

Now, they may ask submit Content ID for keywords in video audio (eliminate "counter-revolutionary" yapping), text recognition ("inaccurate" infographics), color (pr0nz), etc...