Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
Which would be great, if the social media orgs didn’t have a long history of making themselves unsuitable in that role, by taking explicitly partisan stances on a number of contentious social issues in the past few years.
Yet you think Musky Baby's doing a better job...
We need an answer. Yours - getting a judge to sign off on takedown orders - utterly ignores the reality of how social media 'works'.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
The interesting thing is that it is the Internet itself which has essentially revolutionised anonymised communication. Before that how did you get in touch with someone anonymously? I suppose you wrote to someone under an alias, but that wouldn’t be making it accessible to the whole world.
Hence why I think your comment about de-anonymising social media is interesting.
Personally I suspect that I would be much less likely to post, not because what I say is particularly inflammatory (I don’t think it is, anyway) but just because if I wanted a debate I’d probably be more likely to have it with my immediate social circle rather than broadcasting it to the world. If people are using the internet to communicate less and we are instead speaking and seeing each other more, I’d see that as a great thing (albeit I am sure I could be accused of being something of a Luddite there).
On the other hand, if you’re suddenly requiring everyone to be de-anonymised you’re giving a very useful tool to oppressive regimes or authoritarian politicians to crack down on the expression of dissent…
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Social media’s own moderation should be limited to removing clearly illegal material posted, not making judgements on the rights or wrongs of the opinions of individuals posting to them.
You just said posts should be removed only on the instruction of a judge, "rather than random employees of social media companies".
Perhaps you need to stop posting for a while and think things out.
Err, nope.
Posts should be removed by individuals on the order of a judge, the platforms should have nothing to do with it except to enable posts to be deleted in connection with a court order.
The previous problem was the likes of Twitter hiring a bunch of twentysomethings in California as moderators, with what should have been an obvious bias in their moderation.
You're saying something different in every post.
And frankly it's all nonsense. You're now saying anyone running any kind of social media website should be forced to publish anything anyone wants them to, on demand? And they have to get a court order to remove anything? (Though no doubt it will be different again in five minutes.)
Publishing of any kind has never worked like that, and only a fool could imagine it ever will.
Because social media companies aren't publishers I think the mods here will confirm one of us posts something that infringes a law they get a demand for our identity then the poster gets a visit not the site owners. If sites like this were held jointly liable the result would be they would probably largely stop allowing comments
Whatever the legal defences that may be available to social media companies, it's a million miles away from what's being suggested here - that they should be legally barred from moderating content unless they have obtained a court order. That is utterly crazy.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
It's a tricky tightrope with no perfect answer. But then most big issues are.
There's a middle ground that means you are not anonymous to the platform owner but are to the viewer of the platform. That means you can eliminate bots but don't face the disapproving employer issue.
I try to make sure nothing I post here or elsewhere would be embarrassing or problematic if my employers or family saw it (or indeed if I ever stood for elected office). I'm only half anonymous here and on one or two other forums anyway, and my Twitter account is not anonymous at all.
The “share with platform owners but not with end users” is an interesting one too, and one that isn’t without its risks, because:
1) now we’re giving these sites even more access to our personal data; and 2) at what point is the state permitted to demand the platform owner pass on the details of the end user?
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Social media’s own moderation should be limited to removing clearly illegal material posted, not making judgements on the rights or wrongs of the opinions of individuals posting to them.
You just said posts should be removed only on the instruction of a judge, "rather than random employees of social media companies".
Perhaps you need to stop posting for a while and think things out.
Err, nope.
Posts should be removed by individuals on the order of a judge, the platforms should have nothing to do with it except to enable posts to be deleted in connection with a court order.
The previous problem was the likes of Twitter hiring a bunch of twentysomethings in California as moderators, with what should have been an obvious bias in their moderation.
You're saying something different in every post.
And frankly it's all nonsense. You're now saying anyone running any kind of social media website should be forced to publish anything anyone wants them to, on demand? And they have to get a court order to remove anything? (Though no doubt it will be different again in five minutes.)
Publishing of any kind has never worked like that, and only a fool could imagine it ever will.
Because social media companies aren't publishers I think the mods here will confirm one of us posts something that infringes a law they get a demand for our identity then the poster gets a visit not the site owners. If sites like this were held jointly liable the result would be they would probably largely stop allowing comments
Whatever the legal defences that may be available to social media companies, it's a million miles away from what's being suggested here - that they should be legally barred from moderating content unless they have obtained a court order. That is utterly crazy.
I wasn't the one suggesting that nor did I endorse the view
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
I still surprises me that internet posting has developed in the way that it has. I didn't expect it to be anonymous.
We're the product, not the consumers. Companies that limit its commentators to identified individuals have fewer contributors and are edged out by those that are more open.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
That would be a cut for me (though not applicable in Scotland unless there is some quirk of reserved powers).
This was always how a land/wealth/housing tax would be introduced - via council tax. Wonder how you'd redistribute all the Kensington revenues?
I think it would be a cut for me too which perhaps reflects the much lower property values in Scotland outside some property hot spots.
But your last point shows the flaw in this. The distortions in values means that southern England would be paying multiples of more tax than the north or Scotland. Where is the equity in that?
Surely your property tax would be a matter for the Scottish Government?
Yes, but we are discussing a percentage of value as opposed to the current council tax bands. And if I lived in the north of England the problem would be the same. A national percentage cannot work in a country whose property market has become so distorted unless the percentage is fixed locally in the same way as Council tax is.
In London the average house now costs in excess of £630k. You probably wouldn't need more than 0.1% with such values.
Sure it can work.
Central government collects the money, then central government distributes the money based on what it has obliged councils to do such as care/SEN etc
But to take what I thought was your point, why on earth should a care worker in London pay 6x what the care worker in Newcastle pays? Where's the justice in that?
I think that's perhaps rather exaggerated.
At present that is the other way round - the same worker in London is more likely to be paying a little more than half what the worker in Newcastle pays on Council Tax for an 'average' house.
Currently a Band D in Wandsworth pays around 60% of the amount paid by a Band D in Newcastle - £1300 vs £2300.
Where's the justice in *that*?
I don't think we can remove distortions, but there's 30 years of differential property price fluctuations to leapfrog.
Because the “Band D” in Wandsworth is a two-bed flat, and the “Band D” in Newcastle is a four-bed house with a nice garden.
My 3-bed semi in a nice area of Newcastle is Band B I think.
Good for him. There’s no reason why swearing on what sounds like a form of low Animism is any more or less silly than swearing on the concept a personal saviour.
Yep. So long as he believes it rather than it being a pisstake. I think that's the idea, isn't it. Your object of swearing must be dear to you so as to add gravitas to your testimony. Eg what about "I swear on my mother's life"? That's a colloquialism but could it actually be used in court? Interesting area. Never thought much about it before.
Or for that matter the formerly pointless attempt to get Quakers to swear on the Bible when everyone knew and knows they take the matter far more seriously than that. Long ago abandoned.
Several Non-Conformist Protestant sects refuse to swear oaths, based on James 5:12
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." KJV
Hence Affirmation can be used instead, as an alternative.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
Yes and look how whistleblowers actually get treated, mostly they end up jobless and the idiocy continues as to proper journalism we havent had that for decades a long time before the internet became a major thing
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
No we didn't just more scandals got swept under the rug because whistleblowers were easier to suppress
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
Which would be great, if the social media orgs didn’t have a long history of making themselves unsuitable in that role, by taking explicitly partisan stances on a number of contentious social issues in the past few years.
Yet you think Musky Baby's doing a better job...
We need an answer. Yours - getting a judge to sign off on takedown orders - utterly ignores the reality of how social media 'works'.
So who should make the judgement? And what happens if a wildly popular forum starts making explicitly partisan judgements ahead of an election?
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
No we didn't just more scandals got swept under the rug because whistleblowers were easier to suppress
Maybe, who knows. Let’s give it a go. The current setup is thoroughly broken and demonstrably catastrophic.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I don't see what Huw Edwards has to do with it.
Also, most Russian disinformation isn't illegal. You want a world with much more Russian disinformation in it.
It's the "are you free to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre?" question. Or even the "are you free to shout 'I'm not saying there's a fire, but reasonable people have had their concerns about fire ignored by the liberal elite for decades'" question. Which doesn't have a tidy simple answer, and never has, apart from all of us being responsible for what we say. And that responsibility has been undermined by a couple of factors.
One is that SM makes it far too easy for bad-faith actors to spew out rubbish because, even if they are called out on it, losing their reputation doesn't cost them anything, because they didn't have a reputation to start with. (See here, most Saturdays, for a relatively benign example of that. Now imagine that turned up to 11 and never ceasing.)
The other is that pros can develop a reputation by building engagement, even if it's engagement with nonsense. Trad media has always done it, but now engagement measured by clicks has become the target, which reinforces bad instincts. Especially when everyone has their own media silos and there's minimal agreement about a shared reality.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
No we didn't just more scandals got swept under the rug because whistleblowers were easier to suppress
Maybe, who knows. Let’s give it a go. The current setup is thoroughly broken and demonstrably catastrophic.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
No we didn't just more scandals got swept under the rug because whistleblowers were easier to suppress
Maybe, who knows. Let’s give it a go. The current setup is thoroughly broken and demonstrably catastrophic.
No really lets not give it a go
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
Since the current set up is demonstrably a broken, toxic hellsscape manipulated by bad actors against the national interest, I reckon reform is worth a try.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
No we didn't just more scandals got swept under the rug because whistleblowers were easier to suppress
Maybe, who knows. Let’s give it a go. The current setup is thoroughly broken and demonstrably catastrophic.
No really lets not give it a go
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
Since the current set up is demonstrably a broken, toxic hellsscape manipulated by bad actors against the national interest, I reckon reform is worth a try.
Well you might see it a toxic broken hellscape and its an opinion but thats all it is....your view
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
No we didn't just more scandals got swept under the rug because whistleblowers were easier to suppress
Maybe, who knows. Let’s give it a go. The current setup is thoroughly broken and demonstrably catastrophic.
No really lets not give it a go
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
Since the current set up is demonstrably a broken, toxic hellsscape manipulated by bad actors against the national interest, I reckon reform is worth a try.
Well you might see it a toxic broken hellscape and its an opinion but thats all it is....your view
Not sure that I’m alone. The Wild West’s days are numbered.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Possibly not, although I should add I’ve shared them very forcefully with senior staff at both theDfE and Ofsted, a corespondence they seemed not to relish.
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
Sharing a view internally is however not seen as badly as washing the dirty laundry in public. Sadly as we have seen time and time again. Companies and the public sector both don't like the dirty laundry becoming publicly known....cf the whole post office scandal. Pretty sure fujitsu, the PO, the civil service and politicians involved would have much rather none of that became publiclly known
Whistleblowers can still be a thing. They were before the internet. They still can be on an internet where people stand behind and take responsibility for their comments. Proper journalism would be re-empowered.
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
A world in which all the dissidents and those who hold views unapproved by the government could be hounded out of public employment.
Nah. We managed to get by before the internet. It will be fine.
No we didn't just more scandals got swept under the rug because whistleblowers were easier to suppress
Maybe, who knows. Let’s give it a go. The current setup is thoroughly broken and demonstrably catastrophic.
No really lets not give it a go
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
Since the current set up is demonstrably a broken, toxic hellsscape manipulated by bad actors against the national interest, I reckon reform is worth a try.
Well you might see it a toxic broken hellscape and its an opinion but thats all it is....your view
Not sure that I’m alone. The Wild West’s days are numbered.
Never going to happen, nothing a national government can do....say the uk governement banned instagram.....they aren't going to get reelected and they know it and uk people will just use a vpn to access it so the effect will be nil apart from losing a couple of million votes
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
It's a tricky tightrope with no perfect answer. But then most big issues are.
There's a middle ground that means you are not anonymous to the platform owner but are to the viewer of the platform. That means you can eliminate bots but don't face the disapproving employer issue.
I try to make sure nothing I post here or elsewhere would be embarrassing or problematic if my employers or family saw it (or indeed if I ever stood for elected office). I'm only half anonymous here and on one or two other forums anyway, and my Twitter account is not anonymous at all.
I have posted stuff related to work when it steps over into egregious misuse of public funds because I felt it needed highlighting. It was in relation to something we did for the NHS where the trusts demanded a change that really didn't effect the product but meant the nhs would spend about 30x more per unit
If sites have lists of people’s identities, then legal demands to reveal who said X will follow.
As to retaliation against online posting - there was, a few years ago, a detained campaign to end bloggers from the public sector. Nightjack ring a bell?
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
It's a tricky tightrope with no perfect answer. But then most big issues are.
There's a middle ground that means you are not anonymous to the platform owner but are to the viewer of the platform. That means you can eliminate bots but don't face the disapproving employer issue.
I try to make sure nothing I post here or elsewhere would be embarrassing or problematic if my employers or family saw it (or indeed if I ever stood for elected office). I'm only half anonymous here and on one or two other forums anyway, and my Twitter account is not anonymous at all.
I have posted stuff related to work when it steps over into egregious misuse of public funds because I felt it needed highlighting. It was in relation to something we did for the NHS where the trusts demanded a change that really didn't effect the product but meant the nhs would spend about 30x more per unit
If sites have lists of people’s identities, then legal demands to reveal who said X will follow.
As to retaliation against online posting - there was, a few years ago, a detained campaign to end bloggers from the public sector. Nightjack ring a bell?
This rubbing the Right's nose in diversity is going well
Some pissed up, coked up thugs doing what they have been doing for decades is just a long-established aspect of indigenous British culture reasserting itself once more, surely.
There certainly is some of that, but from the TV pictures I have seen the far right types dont have the numbers that are filling the screen. They have nowhere near that many people
Ever since I can remember, the Far Right has been trying to dupe people into following their agenda.
When I was at uni (ha!) we had to deal with persistent attempts to set up societies and organisations that turned out to be fronts for the fascists.
Incidentally, why is it that extremists seem to have a body odour issue? The fascists, the tankies and the snackbarists all seemed to have it. Presumably the Thousand Year Reich is the time between showers?
Ditto, the IRA in NI.
However when the Catholics were horribly discriminated against frpm 1920s to 1960s - it ended up with the IRA getting widespread support as the only ones who could effectively stand up for them and protect them (the IRA also got better as intelligent and outraged people joined them not just knuckledraggers).
You will never get rid of extremists, but you can get their number down enough to have their committee meetings in phone boxes if you remove the underlying injustice that allows them to gain widespread support.
I didn't recall a single case of the IRA protecting anybody when I lived there for four years during the troubles. On the contrary they had a cynical approach of provoking loyalists in order that counter-attacks killed ordinary Catholics whose families and friends then became radicalized.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/07/robert-jenrick-has-cartoon-murals-painted-over-at-childrens-asylum-centre
We need an answer. Yours - getting a judge to sign off on takedown orders - utterly ignores the reality of how social media 'works'.
Hence why I think your comment about de-anonymising social media is interesting.
Personally I suspect that I would be much less likely to post, not because what I say is particularly inflammatory (I don’t think it is, anyway) but just because if I wanted a debate I’d probably be more likely to have it with my immediate social circle rather than broadcasting it to the world. If people are using the internet to communicate less and we are instead speaking and seeing each other more, I’d see that as a great thing (albeit I am sure I could be accused of being something of a Luddite there).
On the other hand, if you’re suddenly requiring everyone to be de-anonymised you’re giving a very useful tool to oppressive regimes or authoritarian politicians to crack down on the expression of dissent…
Since, unbelievably, they didn’t understand their own safeguarding procedures or management structures as defined in the relevant policy documents it is of course understandable they were embarrassed.
1) now we’re giving these sites even more access to our personal data; and
2) at what point is the state permitted to demand the platform owner pass on the details of the end user?
Mum and daughter graduate together
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dm4yk97nlo
NEW THREAD
The more the debate goes on the more it seems that moving on from
Anonymous posting in public forums is the right way to go.
Imagine a world where the trolls and the bots disappeared overnight. Glorious.
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." KJV
Hence Affirmation can be used instead, as an alternative.
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/giving-evidence-court#:~:text=Before giving evidence in court,an affirmation is non-religious.
One is that SM makes it far too easy for bad-faith actors to spew out rubbish because, even if they are called out on it, losing their reputation doesn't cost them anything, because they didn't have a reputation to start with. (See here, most Saturdays, for a relatively benign example of that. Now imagine that turned up to 11 and never ceasing.)
The other is that pros can develop a reputation by building engagement, even if it's engagement with nonsense. Trad media has always done it, but now engagement measured by clicks has become the target, which reinforces bad instincts. Especially when everyone has their own media silos and there's minimal agreement about a shared reality.
And no, I don't know what the answer is.
Since the current set up is demonstrably a broken, toxic hellsscape manipulated by bad actors against the national interest, I reckon reform is worth a try.
As to retaliation against online posting - there was, a few years ago, a detained campaign to end bloggers from the public sector. Nightjack ring a bell?
Kamala Harris formally chosen as Democratic nominee
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4ng1my55vno