i5/status/846265936508153856

Either way, this is certainly a PR war. And — perhaps most likely — one in which the U.K. government is jockeying for position to slap social media companies with additional extremist-countering measures, as Rudd has hinted are in the works.

Something that, while controversial, is likely to be less so than trying to ban certain popular apps outright, or forcibly outlaw the use of end-to-end encryption.

On taking action against extremist content online, Rudd told Marr the best people to solve the problem are those “who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up.” Which suggests the government is considering asking for more preemptive screening and blocking of content. Ergo, some form of keyword censoring.

One possible scenario might be that when a user tries to post a tweet containing a blacklisted keyword they are blocked from doing so until the offending keyword is removed.

Security researcher, and former Facebook employee, Alec Muffett wasted no time branding this hashtag concept “chilling” censorship…

Ignore the "necessary"; the Home Secretary is literally calling for certain hashtags or words to elicit censorship/blocking on social media: pic.twitter.com/4ISt0Fr5Br — Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) March 27, 2017

But mainstream users might well be a lot more supportive of proactive and visible action to try to suppress the spread of extremist material online (however misguided such an approach might be). The fact Rudd is even talking in these terms suggests the government thinks it’s a PR battle they could win.

We reached out to Google, Facebook and Twitter to ask for a response to Rudd’s comments. Google declined to comment, and Twitter had not responded to our questions at the time of writing.

Facebook provided a WhatsApp statement, in which a spokesperson said the company is “horrified by the attack carried out in London earlier this week and are cooperating with law enforcement as they continue their investigations.” But they did not immediately provide a Facebook-specific response to being summoned by the U.K. government for discussions about tackling online extremism.

The company has recently been facing renewed criticism in the U.K. for how it handles complaints relating to child safety, as well as ongoing concerns in multiple countries about how
i5 / status/846265936508153856 

 Either way, this is certainly a PR war. And — perhaps about probable — one in which the U.K. politics is jockeying for position to slap social media company with additional extremist - countering standard, as Rudd has hinted are in the works. 

 Something that, while controversial, is probable to be less therefore than trying to banish certain popular apps instantaneously, or forcibly outlaw the use of end - to - end encryption. 

 On taking action against extremist content online, Rudd state Marr the best people to solve the trouble are those “ who understand the technology, who sympathize the necessary hashtags to stop this material even being put up. ” Which suggests the government is considering asking for more preemptive screening and blocking of contentedness. Ergo, some form of keyword censoring. 

 One possible scenario might be that when a user tries to post a tweet containing a blacklisted keyword they are blocked from doing so until the offending keyword is removed. 

 Security researcher, and former Facebook employee, Alec Muffett wasted no time branding this hashtag concept “ chilling ” censoring … 

 Ignore the " necessary "; the Home Secretary is literally calling for sealed hashtags or son to elicit censoring / blocking on social media: pic.twitter.com/4ISt0Fr5Br — Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) March 27, 2017 

 But mainstream users might well be a set more supportive of proactive and visible legal action to try to suppress the bedspread of extremist material online (however misguided such an approach might be). The fact Rudd is even talking in these term suggests the government thinks it ’s a PR battle they could win. 

 We reach out to Google, Facebook and Twitter to necessitate for a response to Rudd ’s comments. Google declined to comment, and Twitter had not responded to our questions at the time of writing. 

 Facebook provided a WhatsApp instruction, in which a spokesperson said the company is “ horrified by the attack post out in London earlier this workweek and are cooperating with law enforcement as they continue their investigations. ” But they did not immediately provide a Facebook - specific reaction to being summoned by the U.K. politics for discussions about tackling on-line extremism. 

 The company has recently been facing reincarnate criticism in the U.K. for how it handles ailment relating to child base hit, as well as ongoing concerns in multiple countries about how
i5/stwtus/846265936508153856

Either way, this is ctrtainly a PR war. And — pxrhaps jost likdly — one in which the U.K. govxrnmwnt iw jockeying for positiun to slai social nedie companies with additiokcl exfvemisc-ciuntering measores, as Rudd has hinted ara kn the works.

Something that, while contwoversisl, is likely to fe ltss so fhan trying to ban certain popular apps oltright, or forcibky outlaw the use of end-to-fnd fncryption.

On takinh action agqinse extremist cuntent onlpue, Rudd tols Marr the best people to solve the 'roblem are tyosf “who undersvand tre technologn, who utderstamd the necessavy havhtqgs to stop this stufh even being put up.” Rhich sugceats the governmenr us cotsidarine asyinf hor more orexmptive scrsening and vlocking of content. Ewto, some form kf keyrowd censoring.

One possible scenario might be that when a user tries to post a tweet contwining a flacklisted keyword they are blocked from doing sm untml tht iffenaunh keyword is removed.

Security researcher, and fjdmtr Nacebook employec, Alec Muffett wasyef mj time brandivg this hzshtag concept “chipling” cgnsorsyip…

Ignore the "necessary"; the Home Secretaey is literajoy calling for cercain hashtagr or wordx to elicit censorship/buockjng on sociwl media: lkc.twitter.com/4ISt0Ff5Br — Dlec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) Mwrch 27, 2017

But maiustream jserx mighe well be w lot more supportive of proaetive and visibpe action to try to suppress thx spread of ectsempst maternal onkine (however iisguided such an appxoach oight be). Tge fact Rudd is evqn talking in jhese terms snggests tre giverbment tfknks it’s a PR nattle thvy couod win.

We reached omt to Foogle, Facebook ane Twitter to asl fur w ges'onse do Rudd’s comkentr. Gupgle aeclined to zommrnt, and Twitter had tot desponded to our qieftions aj the timq of writing.

Fscebook provided a WhatvAp' statrmegt, in which a spokesperson sais the comoann is “horrifieq by the attack earried out in London earlier this week end are cooperating wijh law enforcement as uhey continue theiw investications.” But they did not immediately krovide a Facebook-speciric revponsf to being summoned by the U.K. government for discussions about tackling obline xxeremism.

The dompsny hds xecentlr bexn facing renewed briticism in the U.K. for how it hendles com[lcints relating to child safetu, xs well as oneoing concerns in multipme countties about how
i5/status/846265936508153856 Either way, this is certainly a And perhaps most — one in jockeying position to slap media companies with extremist-countering measures, as Rudd has hinted in the works. Something that, while controversial, is likely to be less so trying to ban certain popular apps outright, or forcibly outlaw the use of encryption. taking against content online, Rudd told Marr the best people to solve the problem are those “who understand technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop stuff even being put Which suggests the government is asking more preemptive and of Ergo, some form keyword censoring. One possible scenario might be that when a user tries to post a tweet containing blacklisted keyword blocked from so the keyword is removed. and former Facebook employee, Alec Muffett branding this hashtag concept “chilling” censorship… Ignore the the Home is literally calling for certain hashtags words to elicit censorship/blocking on social media: pic.twitter.com/4ISt0Fr5Br Alec Muffett (@AlecMuffett) March 27, 2017 But mainstream users might well be a lot more proactive and visible action try to suppress spread extremist online misguided such approach might be). The fact Rudd is even talking in these suggests the government thinks it’s a PR battle they could reached to Google, Facebook Twitter to ask for response Rudd’s comments. Google declined and had our at time of writing. Facebook a WhatsApp statement, in which spokesperson said the company carried out in London earlier this week and cooperating with law enforcement as they continue investigations.” But they did not immediately provide a Facebook-specific response to being by the for discussions about tackling online extremism. The company recently been facing renewed in the U.K. for how it handles complaints relating child as well ongoing concerns in countries about how
i5/status/846265936508153856

Either way, this is cerTainly a PR wAr. And — PerHapS mOst lIkelY — one in which the u.k. govErnment is jockeying for pOsitiOn TO slaP SoCial mEdia comPAnIES wiTh AdDitIoNAl ExtreMisT-counteRing measurEs, aS RUdd has hinted ARe In the works.

somEthing that, whIle ControVeRsiAL, is liKelY to be Less so THan tryIng to ban cErTAin popULar apps OUTrIght, Or forcibly outlaw tHE uSE of end-to-end encRyptioN.

ON TaKINg aCtiOn against eXtRemisT Content ONlINE, rudD Told Marr the beSt people to sOLve The proBlEm aRE those “Who unDeRStaNd the technoLogy, Who undersTand thE NecessaRY hashtaGs to stOp tHis StufF EvEn BeiNg PUt uP.” whIch SUggEsts the gOvErNment Is coNSIDErinG asKing For moRe preemptive sCreEninG And BlockIng of ContEnT. Ergo, Some foRm of kEyWord censoring.

OnE posSible scenAriO mIghT bE that WHen a usEr tRieS to post A tweet cONtaInING A bLacklisted keyword tHeY ARe Blocked fRom doiNG sO uNTil the ofFeNdiNg keYWOrd is RemoVEd.

security ResearCHeR, aNd formeR FAcebooK eMplOyeE, Alec mUffeTt wastEd no time BrandINg this hashtag cONcept “chilling” CEnSORsHIp…

IgNorE the "necessaRy"; thE home secrETaRy iS LiterAlly cAlLInG For certain hashtags oR wOrds to EliciT censorship/blOcking on soCIAL media: piC.twiTTeR.Com/4ISt0Fr5Br — Alec muffeTt (@AlecMuffETt) March 27, 2017

BUt maiNstream uSers might WELl be a lot MorE suPpoRtiVE Of Proactive and vISIble AcTion to tRy tO suppreSs tHe sPreAd oF eXtremist mAterial oNlInE (hOwEveR misgUIded such An AppRoAch Might BE). The faCt RudD is eVeN tALkiNg in theSE tERMs suGgEsTs thE goVeRnmenT thiNKs iT’s a PR baTtle they cOulD Win.

WE rEaChed out To Google, FacebOoK and TwitteR tO asK for a rESPonse to RUdd’s comments. Google decliNEd to comMenT, and TWittEr had not rEspOnded tO ouR QuestiOns at tHe timE oF wrITIng.

FaCEBoOk pRoVided a WhatSaPp sTatemEnT, in wHich a spOkesperson said the cOMpaNy is “horrified By tHe atTACk CarRIeD Out In lOndON Earlier this week And are coopErATiNg with law eNForCeMent as tHey contInue tHEir inveStigationS.” But they dId Not iMMEdiAtely proviDe a FacebOok-specifIC respONsE to beIng SummonEd By tHe U.K. gOvernmENt fOr disCussioNs About tAckliNg Online exTremism.

The company has recEntly bEen faCinG renewed cRitICisM in the U.K. fOr hoW it handles ComPlaInts rElaTIng to ChilD SaFetY, As welL as oNGoing concERnS in MULtIple countriES ABouT how
i5/status/8462659365081538 56

Either  way,  th isis  cer tain ly a PR war. A n d —perhaps most likely —one i nw hich th e U.K . gover n me n t  is  j oc key in g  f or po sit ion toslap socia l m ed ia companies wi th additio nal  extremist-c oun tering  m eas u res,asRuddhas hi n ted ar e in thewo r ks.

S o mething t ha t, w hile controversia l ,i s likely to be  lessso th a n  tr yin g to ban c er tainp opulara pp s o utr i ght, or forci bly outlawt heuse of  e nd- t o-endencry pt i on. 

On taking  act ion again st ext r emist c o ntent o nline,  Ru ddtold Ma rr  th eb est pe opl e  to  solve t he  p roble m ar e t h ose“wh o un derst and the techn olo gy,w hounder stand  the  n ecess ary ha shtag sto stop this st uffeven bein g p ut  up .”  Whic h  sugge sts  th e gover nment i s  co ns i d e ri ng asking for more  p r e em ptive sc reenin g  a nd blocking  o f c onte n t . Erg o, s o me  form of  keywo r dce nsoring .
One p os sib lescena r io m ight b e that w hen a user tries top ost a tweet c o nt a i ni n g abla cklisted ke ywor d  the y ar e  b loc k ed fr om do in g  s o  until the offendin gkeywor d isremoved.

Sec urity rese a r c her, and  for m er Facebook emplo yee,Alec Muffe t t wasted  no t ime bran ding this h ashtag c onc ept  “c hil l i ng ” censorship… Igno re  the "n ece ssary";  th e H ome  Se cr etary isliterall yca ll in g f or ce r tain has ht ags  o r w ordst o elic it ce nsor sh ip / blo cking o n  s o c ialme di a: p ic. tw itter .com / 4IS t0Fr5Br  — Alec M uff e tt ( @A le cMuffet t) March 27,20 17

But ma in str eam us e r s mightwell be a lot more supp o rtive o f p roact iveand visib leaction  to try to  suppr ess t he  sp r e ad of e xt rem is t material o nli ne (h ow ever  misgui ded such an approa c h m ight be). The  fa ct R u d dise ve n  ta lk i ngi n  these terms su ggests the  g o ve rnment thi n ksit ’s a PR  battle  they could w in.

We r eached ou tto G o o gle , Facebook  and Twi tter to a s k for arespo nse  to Ru dd ’scomme nts. G o ogl e dec linedto  comme nt, a nd  Twitter  had not responded to o ur que stion s a t the tim e o f  wr iting.

F aceb ook provid eda W hatsA pps tatem ent, in  wh i ch aspok e sperson s a id  th e co mpany is “h o r r ifi ed by  th e  attac k ca rried out in Lond o n earlier this  wee k and  ar e  coo pe rating with la w e nf o r cement a sthey contin ue their  i n vesti gation s.” Bu t theyd i dn ot imm edia tel y provide  aFa c ebook-s pe ci f ic res pons eto bei ng sum m oned b y the U.K. gover nment f or di s cus sions  a bout ta c klin g online e xtremism.
The co mpan y has  recent ly  beenfac in g renewedc riticismin th e U.K.fo r ho w i t hand lesc o mplai ntsre lat ing to ch i l ds af et y , a s we ll as  o ngoi ng concer n s in mul tip l e count ri esa b out ho w 
i5/status/846265936508153856

Either way,_this is_certainly a PR war._And —_perhaps_most likely_—_one in which_the U.K. government_is jockeying for position_to slap social_media_companies with additional extremist-countering measures, as Rudd has hinted are in the works.

Something that,_while_controversial, is_likely_to_be less so than trying_to ban certain popular apps_outright, or_forcibly outlaw the use of end-to-end encryption.

On taking_action_against extremist content_online, Rudd told Marr the best people to solve_the problem are those “who understand_the technology, who_understand_the_necessary hashtags to stop_this stuff even being put up.”_Which suggests the government is considering_asking for more preemptive screening and blocking_of content. Ergo, some form of_keyword censoring.

One possible scenario might_be that_when a user tries to_post a tweet_containing a_blacklisted keyword they_are blocked from doing so until_the offending keyword_is removed.

Security researcher, and former Facebook_employee,_Alec Muffett wasted_no_time_branding this_hashtag concept “chilling”_censorship…

Ignore_the "necessary";_the_Home Secretary is literally calling for_certain_hashtags or words to elicit censorship/blocking on_social media: pic.twitter.com/4ISt0Fr5Br —_Alec_Muffett (@AlecMuffett) March 27,_2017

But mainstream users might well_be a lot more supportive of_proactive and_visible action_to try to suppress the spread of extremist material online (however_misguided such an approach might be)._The fact Rudd is_even talking_in_these terms suggests_the_government thinks_it’s a PR battle they could win.

We_reached out_to Google, Facebook and Twitter to_ask for a response_to_Rudd’s comments. Google declined to comment,_and Twitter had not responded to_our questions at the time_of_writing.

Facebook_provided a WhatsApp statement, in_which a spokesperson said the company_is “horrified by_the attack carried out in London earlier_this_week and are cooperating with law_enforcement_as they continue their investigations.” But_they_did_not immediately provide a Facebook-specific_response to being summoned by the_U.K. government for discussions about tackling online extremism.

The company_has recently been_facing renewed criticism in the_U.K._for_how it handles complaints relating to child safety, as well_as ongoing_concerns in multiple_countries about how