Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Whole platform should be shut down imho
Picking a choosing what he and they agree as the "Truth"
Any platform allowing anonymous terrorists to organise and encourage violence and destruction should be shut down.
Its also a dehumanising platform that encourages group think
Picking a choosing what he and they agree as the "Truth"
Any platform allowing anonymous terrorists to organise and encourage violence and destruction should be shut down.
Its also a dehumanising platform that encourages group think
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 29
|
By:
Not fully thought through what i would do with these so im probably persuadable.
I think im ok with global unedited free speech mass communication and if it descends into the gutter then, well, thats where we are. Organised violence and destruction to be dealt with by the authorities (nothing to do with free speech imo) Platform owners not to be accountable for the content and not to edit. Wild West Yeeeeehaaaa |
|
By:
Any platform allowing anonymous terrorists to organise and encourage violence and destruction should be shut down.
Its also a dehumanising platform that encourages group think the irony of these 2 sentences put together |
|
By:
Platform owners not to be accountable for the content and not to edit.
Totally agree. These platforms should under no circumstance be removing/editing comments but should have the ability to know who is posting. You mention that if we are in the gutter that is where we are but its the anonymity of accounts which allows widespread abuse etc... something which would occur far less if the person was forced to prove their real identity when using these platforms. Twitter fake accounts are vast and at this point has corrupted the entire platform when it comes to public discourse which it has toxified along with the politicisation of the likes of Fox News and CNN etc.. Dorsey had the Gaul to use CNN as a fact check against Trump ffs. Jesus wept. |
|
By:
This whole fact-checking business is very suspicious!
I think anywhere you have free communication you have spam. Spam phonecalls, spam emails, spam marketing everywhere, setting off fire alarms to stop people talking. You take your own measures to block or ignore what you dont like and you hope that the platform provider tries to take measures to limit one account per person. I dont use twitter regularly anyway but it sounds like they are rubbish at this. But in a good marketplace of ideas, the useful stuff should rise to the top. Not sure how i feel about anonymity. You should probably have to give your details up front to combat the illegal stuff but not sure if it should be public. |
|
By:
Been saying for years that social media is the biggest threat to democracy since the Berlin Wall fell.
There's just no regulation. That's the simple issue. And with no regulation they are only looking at the bottom line and don't have to think about social responsibility. Compare social to normal media. Maitlis was on Newsnight and said something mildly controversial and the Beeb apologised and she was stood down. A clear case of responsibility and actions taken. Couple of days later Andrew Neill is re-tweeting far more controversial ideas on twitter, but nothing is done. The desire to besmirch the MSM is easy to figure out. They want an unregulated way to get their warped and biased version of the news into people's heads without the annoying filter of having to be fair and balanced. Or truthful. Simple thing is they should treat it the same as the press. If they are proven to be biased or spreading lies then they are forced to apologise, to pay a fine etc etc. There's absolutely no reason that Facebook and Twitter shouldn't be as responsible for the content they broadcast as the Mail or the BBC are for theirs. None. |
|
By:
Just to say that Maitlis wasn't stood down. She chose to not appear the following night.
|
|
By:
Well that's the line they put out. Probably a fact of her realising she was a bit too close to the knuckle and not wanting that to be the hill she died on, so didn't put up any fight I reckon.
|
|
By:
You have to be kidding me, the mainstream media are the most manipulative form of press ever, regulation or not. You cannot form a proper opinion on anything without hearing everything unfiltered, Matlis however works for the BBC who are funded by the taxpayers who's employees are required not to give an opinion, she gave a strong opinion and was stood down (though denied unless you believe she really asked for the night off), social media is not funded by it's users, they don't pay for it. It's a platform for people to have their say. Of course if people are advocating things such as violence or being blatantly racist etc should be dealt with, but they are extremes. When it comes to lies, often it comes down to interpretation.
Donald Trump often makes himself look stupid with the things he comes out with, but tweets by him should be left there for everyone to judge him, twitter were wrong to censor him the other day. Even Zuckerberg refused to take down his post because it's free speech. |
|
By:
Social media is definitely funded by its users though
There's your problem too. They're both an advertisement and surveillance goldmine, and you don't have to adhere to some pesky local fairness doctrines to push a narrative, so who's interest is it really to regulate them And it be perfectly fine to censor hate-speech as a means of propaganda, put into law. It's been working for a while now. None of your liberties need be stepped on |
|
By:
darren - I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and guess that you use social media to get your news
 It's not about paying for it. That analogy simply doesn't work. We don't pay for ITV, Channel 4 or The Metro yet they are still regulated as any other tv or newspaper company. And Twitter and Facebook are dominated by traffic to get advertising revenue. Trump can get away with murder because he has millions of followers and his posts get millions of hits. He's a goldmine. Who's gonna turn their backs on that as long as you don't have a pesky oversight body to tell you why it's wrong. Fact is social media can do things normal press can't. Amplification. Bubbles are a simple fact of life. I'm seeing one interpretation of events, but last night I caught sight of an opposing view and followed his feed and from that you'd believe there's no mass protests, only some hoodlums causing trouble and committing crimes. And you see these tweets and they can be re-tweeted thousands of times. The impact on your perception is huge. Fact is, both of those things are true but unless it's a MSM channel on there you will never see that, only the biased version. As more and more people get their news from twitter and facebook, they need to be held to the same standards as other news media. It's that simple. Ultimately there's no such thing as free speech. It's a term used by blerts such as Toby Young and other overly-entitled cretins to try to fool the plebs that they are being oppressed. There have always been limitations on speech. You aren't allowed to slander, incite violence, be overtly racist etc etc. That's always been the case. But the social media companies are just showing very little interest in self-regulation. As with bookies and FOBT's they'll continue to protest that self-regulation works for as long as possible - even when they know it's a con - merely to milk the golden goose for as long as they can get away with it, and to hell with the consequences. |
|
By:
I suppose the regulation thing depends if you see social media as an extension of news and msm or as an amplification of a person on a soap box.
Personally i dont care what a person on a soap box says (incitement laws aside) and am fine if they amplify it round the world as long as i have the ability to ignore them and as above not allow them the ability to self-replicate and drown everything else out. |
|
By:
but that's the thing, who gets to decide what hate speech is, it's always an arguable point, of course there are some blatant out and out forms of incitement, but a lot of the time it's not, like for example.
Free speech to me is people who are allowed to have an opinion on something without that opinion being censored by somebody else because that somebody else does not agree with them, and that happens all the time via mainstream outputs. You say that normal press can't do things that social media can, normal press hack into the phones of celebrities, politicians, schoolchildren who have died, they pay homeless people to raid the bins of public figures to find something incriminating, they find out the bank details/transactions using means, they get England managers drunk in order to say something that will get them the sack etc etc etc. They are not regulated, they pay fines after breaking regulation and move on. |
|
By:
but that's the thing, who gets to decide what hate speech is, it's always an arguable point, of course there are some blatant out and out forms of incitement, but a lot of the time it's not, like for example.
The regulator would. It's not really arguable. We have laws which determine what is and isn't hate speech. The regulator could investigate and determine, and the media co could go to court if it disagreed. Free speech to me is people who are allowed to have an opinion on something without that opinion being censored by somebody else because that somebody else does not agree with them, and that happens all the time via mainstream outputs. That's not just free speech though, there are other influences. BBC for instance has this ridiculous notion of balance. Someone comes on to talk about a perfectly legitimate piece, and they have to have someone to say the opposite in the interests of balance. It's infuriating. (to quote from elsewhere) if someone comes on to say it's raining outside, the Beeb's job isn't to have someone saying it isn't, it's to check if it's raining or not. You say that normal press can't do things that social media can, normal press hack into the phones of celebrities, politicians, schoolchildren who have died, they pay homeless people to raid the bins of public figures to find something incriminating, they find out the bank details/transactions using means, they get England managers drunk in order to say something that will get them the sack etc etc etc. That's a ridiculously small number and you know about it because they have been found out and punished accordingly. They've also done invaluable amounts of proper investigative journalism to bring wrongdoers to account. But the idea that we must bin off proper journalism because a couple of people have done wrong in several decades is clearly ridiculous. |
|
By:
social media already have a reporting system in place and employ people to with things like hate speech, but they cannot police over a billion people on their platform as not everything gets reported. Which is why social media is virtually unregulatable the way mainstream media is, traditional media and sells it's product in a completely different way, it's comparing apples and oranges. The issue I have with even the regulators on social media is who are they? who are the people deciding what is what isn't hate speech as they can interpret something the way they want to based in their own politics.
Facebook employees staged a virtual walkout over Trumps post, they deemed his post as glorifying violence, but other people interpret it differently as factual, when looting starts the shooting start, things like this are subjective. My own opinion is that, that is the sort of poorly worded phrase you'd expect a redneck would come out with not the president, but either way, it's not for facebook employees to start determining what can and can't be said. What you said about BBC having two opposing views the whole time is far from silly and it's where they get something right, and Sky tbf to them do it all the time on press preview shows or any time where there's a contentious issues they bring on two contrasting views. Whichever topic they are discussing it is usually more serious than the weather. Don't see why that's wrong. Likes of CNN and FOX are more likely to bring in guests to preach to the converted. Then we move in to papers, they all push open doors, they're all politically biased. Didn't say for a second that regulated, traditional press reporters should be binned, they have indeed run many a good campaign over the years and even in an era of mass media where their impact and readership/viewership has lessened considerable, they are still useful. What I am saying is that it is literally impossible to regulate social media the way normal media is, if they were taken to court for every single thing that technically breached media guidelines or broken the law after a post by one of it's users, they'd never be out of court and would go bust. Hiring employees themselves is pretty much the only form of regulation they can impose on themselves unless you get rid of it altogether then we're back to relying on old media to tell us how and what to think. Though as said above even self regulation can be open to abuse. Free speech does also exist, just not in every country. |
|
By:
social media already have a reporting system in place and employ people to with things like hate speech, but they cannot police over a billion people on their platform as not everything gets reported. Which is why social media is virtually unregulatable the way mainstream media is, traditional media and sells it's product in a completely different way, it's comparing apples and oranges. The issue I have with even the regulators on social media is who are they? who are the people deciding what is what isn't hate speech as they can interpret something the way they want to based in their own politics.
Again...for the hard of understanding...the smoking lobby, the alcohol lobby and, latterly, the pro-FOBT lobby prove that self-regulation is not regulation. It is always a con to show they are protecting people while doing the minimum effort and creaming as much as possible before the authorities get wise and shut the door. A reporting system is just nonsense. The teams who monitor content are hopeless. Throwing a team of a few dozen people at it and say "see, it's so difficult to monitor a billion people" is just another way of saying we're self-regulating but it's really difficult y'know. Fact is, they throw so much money at their Silicon Valley guys when it comes to creating algorithms to generate revenue, they could easily tackle monitoring if they tried/were forced. Regulation will be via an official government body and work to that government's rules on media and content. It's really that simple. And again, there is an official explanation of what is and isn't hate speech. It is constantly monitored and updated as language is a living, breathing thing but in terms of it "being difficult to interpret" that's just another cop out by those who are desperate to avoid scrutiny. Facebook employees staged a virtual walkout over Trumps post, they deemed his post as glorifying violence, but other people interpret it differently as factual, when looting starts the shooting start, things like this are subjective. My own opinion is that, that is the sort of poorly worded phrase you'd expect a redneck would come out with not the president, but either way, it's not for facebook employees to start determining what can and can't be said. Good on them. That Trump quote is a clear dog whistle. It was a quote from a racist police chief at the height of the 60's civil rights movement and it's a quote that's been used by racists since. Trump knew exactly what he was saying and how his words would be interpreted by different sections of society. What you said about BBC having two opposing views the whole time is far from silly and it's where they get something right, and Sky tbf to them do it all the time on press preview shows or any time where there's a contentious issues they bring on two contrasting views. Whichever topic they are discussing it is usually more serious than the weather. Don't see why that's wrong. Likes of CNN and FOX are more likely to bring in guests to preach to the converted. Then we move in to papers, they all push open doors, they're all politically biased. I agree about papers being politically biased. I think it's something that needs to be closely monitored and managed personally. Sorry, but I could give you dozens of examples of the beeb's "balance" problem. I remember first noticing it on a Today piece about - yes! - FOBT's. I was well up on the subject at the time so it was nice to tune into something I was well informed about. The piece was an absolute farce with one well informed contributor and some raving loon just jamming in emotive language and buzzwords, yet Humphreys played the two sides off as if their arguments had equal merit. And I've seen the same a million times since. The beeb have got a real problem confusing balance with accuracy. What I am saying is that it is literally impossible to regulate social media the way normal media is, if they were taken to court for every single thing that technically breached media guidelines or broken the law after a post by one of it's users, they'd never be out of court and would go bust. Hiring employees themselves is pretty much the only form of regulation they can impose on themselves unless you get rid of it altogether then we're back to relying on old media to tell us how and what to think. Though as said above even self regulation can be open to abuse. Free speech does also exist, just not in every country. Again, that's just a cop out fed to you by the companies profiting and the charlatans spouting falsehoods. The two groups who have the most to lose by regulation. Again, see smoking. They have complex algorithms that can tell you what's trending, those that magically listen in to your conversations and suddenly you're bombarded with adverts for a Lego Millennium Falcon the next day. Don't tell me they couldn't identify key words to flag accounts, warn them and block them. They could do it in a minute. Soon as people realise they're blocked for spreading lies, you'll see the number of lies drop like a stone. What's not to like about that? As for you last sentence, it doesn't. Name me one country where you could walk down the street shouting that the head of state was a kiddy fiddler and should be killed. There isn't one. Every country's laws understand that free speech is a responsibility and there are limits in place for fairly obvious reasons. |
|
By:
you're being pedantic with the point about free speech, it's obvious you literally cannot say anything you want, but most take it to mean they are able to voice their opinion, and do not take it to mean they can make unproven accusations at will.
You cannot compare FOBT's machine which is gambling and designed by companies to rob people blind, to social media, FOBT's needed regulating because the clue was in the name, they were fixed. A said, if you tried to impose the same kind of regulations on social media then they would go out of existence because there are over a billion people using them, to police daily, that's not the same with individual companies whose users are educated, middle class professionals in a position of authority, as also said, you're comparing apples with oranges. Thousands of people make/tweet factually incorrect/discriminatory remarks/words every single second, how in the world are you planning on regulating that. Punish the platform provider how? There is a reason why it has not happened thus far that's because it's unregulatable in the same way a much smaller media outlet with next to know public user bar a comments section that's much more easy to moderate. You can also get around the flagging of key words, but that's easy to get round, like if someone says muslims are t3rrorists, t£rrorists, t€rrorists, or just misspell the word. They could employ thousands more moderators, but that creates more issues such as their backgrounds, their own political beliefs, and then putting trust in them not to allow that to affect them. Traditional media as I said have regulations that they bend or break all the time, phone hacking was happening for decades for example, it's how they got stories rather than good old fashioned cloak and magnifying glass type stuff. |
|
By:
Whereas in North Korea for example, no free speech, Kimmy wins an impressive with an impressive 100% of the electorates votes, amazing.
|
|
By:
sorry predictive text has been repeating/messing up posts.
|
|
By:
Gotta just laugh at the ineptitude of twitter, symbolised by the `fair, neutral and impartial`, yet TDS-suffering chap employed to fact-check The Don`s tweets
`...Head of Twitter's 'Site Integrity' has previously called the President 'a racist tangerine', the administration 'Nazis' and compared Kellyanne to Joseph Goebbels...` https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8361349/Head-Twitters-fact-checking-history-anti-Trump-tweets.html |
|
By:
It's not being pedantic, it's just proving the point. Go back to my post from 1.45. You often hear the likes of Young etc moaning about restrictions on free speech. It's a nice soundbite that's attractive to the ears. But he'd be the first to sue if someone called him a baldy beast.
The FOBT comparison is very, very valid. We had years of deflection. There wasn't (still isn't) evidence that FOBT's themselves are addictive. There has never been a proper study done to determine that. Why? Because there was a lot of pressure from those profiting from the machines to frame the questions so the addiction would focus on the player and the number of different gambling forms they were using. If the guy bets on dogs or does scratchcards too then they're equally to blame! Fact is, it's the exact same stance now from the media giants. It's just too difficult. Make a token gesture to Trump's latest lie to show that they are on top of things. Play it out that the responsibility is on the user not the tool. There are people in the world paid fortunes to advise the likes of these and to spend thousands lobbying governments and other influential bodies to leave them alone. And the playbook is being followed very closely from before. You punish the platform with fines, with regulatory shame (v effective if listed on the stock market and works with advertisers not wishing to be connected) with forcing it to go offline for a day, week etc, with having personal licence holders in positions of responsibility and facing jail time (eg for that New Zealand loon videoing his shoot up for youtube), and you can ultimately remove the licence. The tools are there and are very effective. The only reason it hasn't happened so far is that they have spent so much money on convincing world leaders not to do it. The misspelling of key words is clearly daft. I think the firm who can create algorithms to tell you which other bands you will probably like could get around someone writing t3rr0r1st. The point is you don't need so many extra moderators. You just need rules. They have thousands of moderators now, but they are told to ignore so many libellous, defamatory, racist, threatening and just simply untrue posts. They could do the job properly with the staff they have. Not saying it's perfect, and there are obviously elements of traditional media I find troubling but social media is just the unregulated wild west. If there are no rules to stick to, then you can just do what you like. |
|
By:
if you want to go by the literal meaning of free speech than yes, but as said that is not what most take it to mean, it means to most to be allowed to have an opinion and say what you feel. Of course there is always the legal line most don't cross.
it is absolutely ludicrous to think they could police over a billion users using more people or clever algorithms, facebook has over 2 billion acitve users, 500 million facebook stories are shared daily, how do you police that lol, then there are Instagram stories, videos posted on twitter in hundreds of different languages, 2.3 million blog posts per day in wordpress, 6000 tweets per second, 300 hours of videos posted every minute in youtube, then there are all the pics posted carrying messages, avatars, you cannot regulate this and/or then fine/punish the platform providers as it's just not possible for them to control everyone, maybe in utopia but the real world. Comparing regulation with old media and new media doesn't work. |
|
By:
It is absolutely the opposite of ludicrous. They have the cleverest of people plucked from around the world earning absolute fortunes to develop algorithms and programmes that will earn them money. You think it's beyond their ability to create the same to monitor content? That is a line forced out by the companies themselves and those on the platform spreading sh!te but getting loads of hits to convince everyone to maintain the status quo. Facebook made $70,000,000,000 profit last year. But apparently they're too stupid to come up with a way to monitor their content. Honestly, do you really think they couldn't do it if they were forced to? Really? They will continue to push the envelope as far as possible and rake in as much cash as possible until they're forced to change their ways. Exact same way we've seen with other unregulated sectors that said it was too difficult or not their responsibility.
|
|
By:
If somebody does something illegal online eg libel, incitement, etc, then its a matter for the police. No need for the platform provider to get involved other than hand over details on request.
If somebody is doing something legal online that annoys some other people then who cares. That just leaves a debate over calibration of laws. |
|
By:
but you're not providing a solution only a wish along with they have money so they can find a way answer, we have the richest countries and economies in the world who can't find cancer cures or SARS vaccines 17 years later and by God they have poured trillions in, can you tell me how they regulate billions of posted videos a week on various platforms? or picture messages where word filters don't work etc, it can only ever come down to people reporting misuse. , even with word filters, ok, you find the word terrorist, posted several thousand times a day, you go through them all? and that's one word. They probably can do more with the profits they do make that can be agreed, but you are wanting regulation the same way old media is which is impossible.
|
|
By:
By the way
Can we have more regulation on old media creating clickbait Headline titles to draw people in and subsequently wasting their time, they also generate income per click and should not be allowed to trick people, making money under false pretences. |
|
By:
I've provided a perfectly reasonable solution. They are licensed in this country the same way every other media company is. They are responsible for their content, just as every other media company is. And if that content is deemed illegal, libellous etc etc then they face the stipulated consequences just as every other media company does. It can't be right that Katie Hopkins could write a short hate-piece on bbc.co.uk and on twitter and the former would be punished while the latter escapes with nothing. It is simply daft. It's the exact same media.
It's all very doable. Word filters on pictures will work. You can reverse search a pic to see who it is etc so the tech is there to pick out words. Facial recognition software is in existence that could flag up dubious pics of potential under-aged kids etc. The idea that it relies on people reporting is a 20th century approach to a 21st century problem. Your ideas of what is impossible is frankly limited. It is very, very possible. What I have written on this board has directly influenced adverts and prompts elsewhere. We are dealing with very, very sophisticated tech and very clever people. The idea that it relies on people grassing each other up is a convenient lie to keep the incredibly profitable status quo in place. I'm frankly amazed you can't see through that. |
|
By:
again, you are comparing new media with old media by saying social media should be treated the same as tv/radio/newspapers, it's all well and good saying they are responsible for their content but tv/radio/newspapers do not have billions of words of other people thoughts, billions of photos and picture and billions of videos posted by billions of people every week on their platforms, they only allow a small group in comparison of educated professionals to write/report content for them. #
Technology is not full proof, the largest and most important organisations in the world have their websites hacked all time including the US government. Filters can always be circumvented. effectively regulating the verbal speeches made in over 1 billion videos published weekly on the various platforms not doable. According to Business Insider, 1.8 billion photos/pics/image are published on social media every single day, no filter is going to accurately scan and identify every single wrongun. Governments know all this and is why they're not treated in the same way, it's a different beast. In an ideal world maybe. But this is a new age. Nobody is saying at all that the likes of Katie Hopkins should not be punished on twitter but punished on BBC, she is a high profile personality so whatever she says will be flagged anyway, but for Joe Public far harder unless reported, people can create fake accounts all the time, then you can talk about people having to verify who they are with documents, then you get people stealing/faking/forging them. |
|
By:
No, I'm saying that articles and posts on twitter and facebook should be regulated in exactly the same way as articles and posts on mailonline, theguardian or bbc.co.uk. They all have to take responsibility for what's posted on their sites. Twitter and facebook get a free pass.
And - again - the way regulation works is that you don't necessarily need to monitor every single post. Have the rules in place, monitor and deal with the bad guys and you'll be amazed how quickly they clean up their act when they realise the cost, reputational damage and potential personal liability can come otherwise. Again, these megacorps have the capability to deal with this easily. They are simply choosing not to because they're not being asked. The point about Hopkins is that it would be the beeb punished, not twitter. If it was equal, twitter would then be much more careful about allowing similar comments on their site. That's how the rest of the media works. But somehow you think the richest companies on the planet should be exempt because it's a btit tricky for them. It's frankly bizarre the lengths you're going to to make excuses for them. |
|
By:
it's stupid if any mainstream organisation is punished for anything a contributor has said that was beyond their control unless pre-recorded, so I don't agree with that anyway. Does not matter how much you punished offenders there one born every second, not fair to punish platform providers for what someone else has said, I have never agreed with company bosses of huge organisations being forced to resign from their positions because of what some stray employee has done. Just a lazy nonsense practice.
Social media already has their rules and guidelines in place, I don't think Russian or Chinese citizens working for their respective governments would worry about personal liability when wanted to spread propaganda etc. 'A bit tricky' is massive understatement lol, of course that can pour more money in, increase volume of moderators but it can never ever be fullproof to the same extend as traditional forms of media, you cannot police the world. Why do you think governments have not come down hard already. |