Appropriate filtering

[sigma]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meeting-digital-and-technology-standards-in-schools-and-colleges/filtering-and-monitoring-standards-for-schools-and-colleges

 

Refers to:

 

https://saferinternet.org.uk/guide-and-resource/teachers-and-school-staff/appropriate-filtering-and-monitoring/appropriate-filtering 

 

Which now states that:

 

 

Quote

 

Inappropriate Online Content

Recognising that no filter can guarantee to be 100% effective, schools should be satisfied that their filtering system additionally manages the following inappropriate) content (and web search) including ‘Primary Priority Content’ and ‘Priority Content’ (as described by the Online Safety Act)

• ..
• ..
• ..
• ..
• Mis/Disinformation – Promotes or spreads false or misleading information intended to deceive, manipulate, or harm, including content undermining trust in factual information or institutions

 

 

Firstly, are there any filters that can actually do this?

 

Secondly, who decides what is Dis/Misinformation?  E.G. Events in Gaza, 

 

This is also included in the July "preview" version of KCSIE. Whether it makes it to the final September publication will be interesting.  If it does, there's little chance we could comply.

[tom_newton]

We are keeping an eye on this - don't worry, we will make sure Smoothwall folks are as well compliant as possible!

[psydii]

That really is problematic, as you say, who gets to decide?  Both the Guardian and the Telegraph (often) publish pieces so extraordinarily biased that they are considered to be misinformation by those who lean the other way and the Mail has been flagged by  news verification services as unreliable or publishing verifiable false/hateful information. And let us not forget the dear old beeb which is both the occasional mouth-piece for government propaganda  and the whipping boy of the left/right (depending who is in power that year).

 

Combined with the AI slop dominating new web content and commentary (particularly sites that were formerly champions of "citizen journalism", we are entering a the very worst timeline  (unless you are a billionaire).

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on NewsGuard in Microsoft Edge? Its supposed to warn of strong bias/misinformation when searching for / reading news.

 

I wonder if we'll end up seeing the DfE doing a centralised procurement for a service like it or ground.news (the sponsor of many podcasters at the moment, not that that is any real endorsement see previous sponsorships for dodgy VPNs , or the double-dipping privacy thieving retailer backstabbing Honey)

[mikes]

The government as arbiter of what is truth or not ? Anything they don't like goes down the digital "Memory Hole"?

 

I don't like the idea of us having to put "true/false" on everything online like we now have a Snopes Dept. 

 

What happened to the idea of teaching kids critical thinking so they can make their own minds up whether something is baloney or not?    Of course our Govt would rather kids get used to trusting an "authoritative third party" (their "third party") than using their own minds.

 

And kids will already just ignore it just like they'll ignore the adult verification crap that's due in soon... 

 

[psydii]

I'm not well versed in the SW Legacy EU lore, but wasn't the slip between republic/empire and forgetting about Jedis/Sith etc "blamed" on the absence of books from the (creative) universe?

 

I note that a major MIS-adjacent provider seems to have erased almost all records of what could  (should?) have been a business-ending outage a few years ago from the internet.

 

It's not just governments-of-the-day that can use the law to manipulate the collective understanding of what is the truth.

[Davit2005]

"Mis/Disinformation – Promotes or spreads false or misleading information intended to deceive, manipulate, or harm, including content undermining trust in factual information or institutions"

 

Would that cover a certain main stream media institution I'm sure most of us know which one.

Edited July 17, 2025 by Davit2005

[mthomas08]

I don't know how a filtering system will detect such things unless they get people flagging content.

 

As for 'who decides' I'd like to think people will do their best to present the facts. Flagging something as a lie without a shred of evidence will be the problem. If the system is constantly making mistakes, I'd like to think changes will occur to fix the problem.

Take Covid conspiracies, anti vaxxers and climate deniers.

 

Are we all going to pretend they have a large amount of evidence to back them up?

Again - I want experts talking to me. The ones providing the stats.. the numbers.. the facts.. scientific evidence.

 

I'm still on Twitter, I don't know why..  and those 3 conspiracies are backed up by Streamers and YouTubers and random blue tick accounts (now people in power). While the experts are providing decades of scientific data. and pushed aside.

 

Now, things like this are pretty easy to call out.

 

Yes there are things much more harder to determine. This isn't just about labelling something true or false, something without a label has simply not been checked either way.

 

Will the system be perfect? It isn't at the moment but there's certainly progress made over the years.