Why Mark Zuckerberg Should Face the Threat of Jail
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
This is just the answer to the literal question, it doesn't in any way relate to the topic itself.
I think part of the problem is that old-Media companies have lost a lot of revenue and laid off a lot of people in the last few years. Journalists directly blame Facebook (rather than say Auction or Jobs sites) for their friends losing their jobs.
As parent, I expect to protect my own child. I don't need politicians using that as an excuse to expand their authoritarian powers.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak looks all but certain to strengthen the UK’s Online Safety Bill with criminal sanctions for social media bosses, after fierce lobbying from the country’s ruling Conservative party. 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.
Harsh as it sounds, politicians across the main parties are eager for the stricter rules. The amendment will likely go in when the bill goes to the House of Lords, probably this spring. Barring any major events — like the prime minister being replaced again — the Online Safety Bill should pass before November 2023, when the UK’s current session of Parliament ends.
Naturally, none of this has gone down well with some tech leaders. Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, called the move a form of tyranny, while others suspect a Silicon Valley vendetta by British politicians.
But it is actually a prudent move. “Tyrannical” criminal sanctions have been part of regulatory life in Britain’s banking and construction industries for years, and their existence has helped keep lines of accountability clear and the process of regulation easier. In the last six months, jail sentences have been handed out to at least four people from the building trade because of fatal accidents, including the deadly fall of a 69-year-old builder who was working on a house extension last year; the manager overseeing the builder’s work was jailed for nine months after inspectors found the scaffold he’d been working on had no guardrails.
Convictions have been more rare for financial rules that were introduced after the 2008 credit crisis to deter misconduct,(1)but they have created a clearer chain of accountability for banks, which have been forced to draw maps of executives’ roles and responsibilities to give to the country’s financial watchdog."
To an extent; that extent being "are you rich and/or have you donated to the Tory party?" because there has been precisely 0 accountability for e.g. Grenfell.
Pretty sure you could pick any issue of Private Eye from the last 10 years and stand an even chance of finding an example of someone getting away with H+S violations because of their connections.
> Convictions have been more rare for financial rules
Again, not if you're rich and/or connected - see, well, pretty much half of UKGOV who have flouted tax, expenses, etc. rules with no consequence (Zahawi being the current example.)