SURVEY: Do we need more control of social media?

[JAG]

11 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Shadow banning of certain points of view on social media is becoming a big problem. 

Regulations to eliminate that are needed 

I did wonder what you were on about. Then I read the topic about Mr Trump accusing "twitter" of "stifling Republicans".

 

Clear as a bell now!

 

Never mind, remember you will soon get tired of winning...

Edited July 29, 2018 by JAG

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

So is it fox news that holds this monopoly? cnn? who exactly is it?

Start here

[CGW]

15 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

Sorry I thought I asked a straight forward  question.

 

Google can give a lot of answers and I use it many times daily/ hourly 

 

I asked your opinion with hopefully  a link or two if you could provide it.

 

No problem.

I apoligise I misinterpreted your post, this is a start https://www.quora.com/Why-do-reputable-news-media-often-re-publish-article-from-Reuters-AFP-and-AP-when-they-had-their-own-team-of-journalist

Problem is they release what they feel is appropriate & fits their criteria............

This has been going on for a long time, longer than I have been around and I'm old ? 

[Chomper Higgot]

What needs challenging is the position taken by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other major businesses in the social media industry that they are ‘passive platform’ for the comments made by others and for which they do not accept any responsibility.

 

Examples might be Terrorist videos on YouTube, child pornography, dissemination of instructions to enable crime or terrorism, dissemination of stolen IDs. But of course also propaganda attacks on elections.

 

I believe the way to address this is remove the claim made by the service provider that they are not responsible.

Give them the legal definition of ‘publisher’ and therefore responsibility for what they publish.

 

They might then use some of their vast profits to address abuse of the services they provide.

 

———

A real life example I know of:

 

A year or so ago I logged into fb to find my feed full of nude photographs of a female colleague. She’d split with a boyfriend and he’d accessed her fb account, posted the photos and then changed her password.

 

I and others reported the images but it took fb a whole day to remove them.

 

Why not provide an automatic removal when an image is reported? The moderator could the release the image if it isn’t offensive.

 

A few weeks later the images started appearing elsewhere on the internet and agIn linked through fb.

 

The same technology that fb uses to recognise faces can be used to recognise any image.

 

Why can’t fb automatically recognise and block images that have been previously reported?

 

Social media companies are amongst the most profitable in the world, legislate to force them to address abuse of their platforms.

 

As it stands they make profit out of abusive images, propaganda adverts and criminal use of their platforms.

 

That needs to end.

 

[canuckamuck]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What needs challenging is the position taken by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other major businesses in the social media industry that they are ‘passive platform’ for the comments made by others and for which they do not accept any responsibility.

 

Examples might be Terrorist videos on YouTube, child pornography, dissemination of instructions to enable crime or terrorism, dissemination of stolen IDs. But of course also propaganda attacks on elections.

 

I believe the way to address this is remove the claim made by the service provider that they are not responsible.

Give them the legal definition of ‘publisher’ and therefore responsibility for what they publish.

 

They might then use some of their vast profits to address abuse of the services they provide.

 

———

A real life example I know of:

 

A year or so ago I logged into fb to find my feed full of nude photographs of a female colleague. She’d split with a boyfriend and he’d accessed her fb account, posted the photos and then changed her password.

 

I and others reported the images but it took fb a whole day to remove them.

 

Why not provide an automatic removal when an image is reported? The moderator could the release the image if it isn’t offensive.

 

A few weeks later the images started appearing elsewhere on the internet and agIn linked through fb.

 

The same technology that fb uses to recognise faces can be used to recognise any image.

 

Why can’t fb automatically recognise and block images that have been previously reported?

 

Social media companies are amongst the most profitable in the world, legislate to force them to address abuse of their platforms.

 

As it stands they make profit out of abusive images, propaganda adverts and criminal use of their platforms.

 

That needs to end.

 

It's funny how the left is now the biggest proponent of censorship and other authoritarian controls. Is it now that you got control you no longer feel the need for free speech?

[Chomper Higgot]

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

It's funny how the left is now the biggest proponent of censorship and other authoritarian controls. Is it now that you got control you no longer feel the need for free speech?

What’s all this ‘Free Speech’ nonsense.

 

Nobody is challenging ‘Free Speech’, the challenge is putting ‘Free Speech’ back into the context of ‘owning the consequences of what is said’.

 

All rights, including the right to free speech come with responsibility.

 

It is funny how ‘the right’ are now the biggest proponents of ‘rights without responsibility.

[CGW]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s all this ‘Free Speech’ nonsense.

 

Nobody is challenging ‘Free Speech’, the challenge is putting ‘Free Speech’ back into the context of ‘owning the consequences of what is said’.

 

All rights, including the right to free speech come with responsibility.

 

It is funny how ‘the right’ are now the biggest proponents of ‘rights without responsibility.

Speaking from the "middle" ? Who decides what is "free speech" ? therein lies the problem, no one is to be trusted that is a position of power from what I have seen ?

Just look at Thailand for an excellent example, those deciding what "free speech" is, invariably have ulterior motives! Same everywhere..............

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, CGW said:

Speaking from the "middle" ? Who decides what is "free speech" ? therein lies the problem, no one is to be trusted that is a position of power from what I have seen ?

Just look at Thailand for an excellent example, those deciding what "free speech" is, invariably have ulterior motives! Same everywhere..............

I’m not at all sure on what basis people believe they have a right to ‘freedom of speech’ when ‘speaking’ on a privately owned platform.

 

Example: There are a number of issues that you may not discus here on TVF, that doesn’t limit your ‘freedom of speech’, there’s nothing stopping you making some placards, inscribing them with your thoughts on any of those issues and marching around your local town center.

 

You’ll of course suffer the consequences of your actions but since when did anyone promise you can say what you like without consequencess?

[Walter Travolta]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What’s all this ‘Free Speech’ nonsense.

 

Nobody is challenging ‘Free Speech’, the challenge is putting ‘Free Speech’ back into the context of ‘owning the consequences of what is said’.

 

All rights, including the right to free speech come with responsibility.

 

It is funny how ‘the right’ are now the biggest proponents of ‘rights without responsibility.

You should have stopped typing after your first sentence Chomper. That is basically how the left think. In your little Utopia, free speech is only allowed if it fits your agenda. Any other rhetoric or freedom of speech shown by demonstrations or meetings that dont fit the lefts agenda is attacked, opposed, shouted down by the left every time. It happens in England and the USA and if you try and sweep this criticism under the rug, Im afraid you will be embarrassing yourself as much as the lefty cranks who oppose EVERY demo from the right. Its funny how you compare the left to the right and make out the right wing are howwible nasty brutes, yet the right wing NEVER turn up at lefty demos and try and disrupt them (UK). Im not sure what is wrong with the left. They see the same things we all do, yet their brains tell their mouths to say the opposite?? Very weird bunch of people

The left wing are ALWAYS challenging free speech so stop with the nonsense. Now get on your unicorn and trot off over the rainbow

[connda]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

’m not at all sure on what basis people believe they have a right to ‘freedom of speech’ when ‘speaking’ on a privately owned platform.

I may actually agree with you on that point if major tech companies, such as Facebook, weren't overt monopolies.  Perhaps it's time to break-up monopolies such a Facebook and Twitter.  These 'private' companies hold wayyyyy to much sway over the overall social dialogue and commonly accepted narratives. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by connda

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Walter Travolta said:

You should have stopped typing after your first sentence Chomper. That is basically how the left think. In your little Utopia, free speech is only allowed if it fits your agenda. Any other rhetoric or freedom of speech shown by demonstrations or meetings that dont fit the lefts agenda is attacked, opposed, shouted down by the left every time. It happens in England and the USA and if you try and sweep this criticism under the rug, Im afraid you will be embarrassing yourself as much as the lefty cranks who oppose EVERY demo from the right. Its funny how you compare the left to the right and make out the right wing are howwible nasty brutes, yet the right wing NEVER turn up at lefty demos and try and disrupt them (UK). Im not sure what is wrong with the left. They see the same things we all do, yet their brains tell their mouths to say the opposite?? Very weird bunch of people

The left wing are ALWAYS challenging free speech so stop with the nonsense. Now get on your unicorn and trot off over the rainbow

You too should have stopped after your first sentence, non of the claims you made afterwards has any relationship to anything I’ve said.

 

Come back when you have evidence of a right to ‘free speach’ on privately owned platforms.

[canuckamuck]

I have no problem with private companies having rules about what people can say on their sites. My problem is with outside groups and government dictating to the private sites what they think is acceptable. 

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I have no problem with private companies having rules about what people can say on their sites. My problem is with outside groups and government dictating to the private sites what they think is acceptable. 

That’s not what I’ve suggested.

 

I’ve suggested legally designating the operators of social media sites as publishers.

 

They would Then be forced to use some of their vast profits to address abusive use of their platforms.

[canuckamuck]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not what I’ve suggested.

 

I’ve suggested legally designating the operators of social media sites as publishers.

 

They would Then be forced to use some of their vast profits to address abusive use of their platforms.

Sounds like censorship to me.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Sounds like censorship to me.

Sounds like you don’t understand you have no rights to free speech when speaking on a privately owned platform.

[canuckamuck]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sounds like you don’t understand you have no rights to free speech when speaking on a privately owned platform.

How'd you make that jump?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

How'd you make that jump?

From your multiple responses.

 

The idea that privately owned platforms owe you the right to say what you want regardless of any legal jeopardy  or business risks your ‘speech’ places on the platform is preposterous.

 

As is the idea that privately owned platforms profit from the dissemination of hate, child pornography, terrorist videos and propaganda.

 

You want free speech, stand on a corner and speak. Say what you want, and accept responsibility for your words.

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

From your multiple responses.

 

The idea that privately owned platforms owe you the right to say what you want regardless of any legal jeopardy  or business risks your ‘speech’ places on the platform is preposterous.

 

As is the idea that privately owned platforms profit from the dissemination of hate, child pornography, terrorist videos and propaganda.

 

You want free speech, stand on a corner and speak. Say what you want, and accept responsibility for your words.

You mean like what I said here?

12 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I have no problem with private companies having rules about what people can say on their sites. My problem is with outside groups and government dictating to the private sites what they think is acceptable. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

41 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You mean like what I said here?

 

Yep.

 

No evidence of censorship.

 

[watcharacters]

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Sounds like censorship to me.

 

Every country employs censorship to one degree or another.

 

[Walter Travolta]

On 7/30/2018 at 1:03 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

You too should have stopped after your first sentence, non of the claims you made afterwards has any relationship to anything I’ve said.

 

Come back when you have evidence of a right to ‘free speach’ on privately owned platforms.

Evidence??? What are you on about, evidence hahaha, do you need a link also?

Free speech is free speech kid. Where do I get evidence of speaking? Are you one of these new kind of people where you think everyone should be pigeon holed or put in a box with a label on it?

Why not just let people say what they want? Thats how its always been. Taking offence to something is subjective, not fact. 

 

PS - If you had stopped after your first sentence I would not have felt the need to correct you

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Walter Travolta said:

Evidence??? What are you on about, evidence hahaha, do you need a link also?

Free speech is free speech kid. Where do I get evidence of speaking? Are you one of these new kind of people where you think everyone should be pigeon holed or put in a box with a label on it?

Why not just let people say what they want? Thats how its always been. Taking offence to something is subjective, not fact. 

 

PS - If you had stopped after your first sentence I would not have felt the need to correct you

Somebody else who doesn’t understand the difference between speaking in public v speaking via a platform belonging to someone else.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Something occurred to me today.

 

I often read ‘heated debates’ on LinkedIn, not surprising when some of the issues discussed touch on climate change, worker’s rights, equal opportunities and other issues over which people’s points of view are strongly held and often at polar opposites. (Like many discussions here on TVF).

 

But here’s a thing, I’ve never once seen anyone posting anti immigrant, anti Muslim/Islam, derogatory posts towards women, ethnic minorities or people identifying as LBGT on LinkedIn.

 

Is LinkedIn automatically ‘censoring’ such comments before they appear or are people measuring what they wish to say against the consequences on their job/employment?

 

#Rights+Responsibility

[Peterw42]

There is the truth and there is fake news. More concerning is labelling anything that goes against your opinion or when you get caught out telling a lie, as fake news.

Calling the truth fake news is ultimately worse than fake news

[Walter Travolta]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Somebody else who doesn’t understand the difference between speaking in public v speaking via a platform belonging to someone else.

 

 

I understand perfectly. Speaking on a platform belonging to someone else obviously has their rules to abide by. Speaking in public is exactly that, no thought police telling you what you can and cannot say. 

 

My point is I disagree with that (of course I dont include racist/homophobic etc slurs) but If I want to say something I should be allowed to say it as long as I am not breaking the law, whether it be in public or on a platform such as this. The minute someone has control of what you can and cannot say, we are doomed. IMO we should be teaching kids how not to be offended instead of teaching them to run to mummy or the teacher crying because someone said something. Honestly it really is getting to be a nanny state AND a police state all in one. Mention muslims or islam the cops will be round, hurt someones feelings unconsciously and you're on a caution lol

 

Im not falling for any of it because I will not be controlled and if I do not like something, I dont conform. If I dont like what is going on where I am, I move. I dont try and change everything around me to suit me because I am not an entitled little middle class cry baby. 

 

Maybe if more people took a hold of their own lives more rather than relying on others to give them a hug (remainers) we would be living in a society a lot stronger and a lot more bonded than we are right now. Division is everywhere and it will only get worse when people carry on attacking for the wrong reasons.

For example, DT is doing an amazing job as POTUS that is a fact, not negotiable. Yet we have millions of people denying this fact simply because they hate him!!! Even that is better than Obama still because millions hated him but he didnt really do that much in 8 years but I digress
Im a supporter of a football team in the north of England and I hated Man Utd and Alex Ferguson. But I still could not deny the success they had. Thats what is happening over there and people are actually falling for it and believing their own fake news.

As Peter just said, calling the truth fake news is actually worse than fake news

Controlling what people say, even on a minute level, is an opening for further oppression down the line. I mean look at the EU that started life out as the EEC in 1973, and look what that has morphed into under the radar of 45 years? A controlling entity full of unelected beaurocrats flicking pieces of cr@p at us from their Ivory towers? Not for me thanks. Im all for capitalism and the freedom to make money and become wealthy by your own means, but these to$$ers in the EU are certainly not that. I dont know why anyone can think that being in their gang is a good idea, unless of course you are a complete scaredy cat who cowers in a corner at the thought of actually having to wipe their own butt!

 

I dont mind agreeing to disagree Chomper thats how life is, and this freedom of speech issue will be around at least as long as social media is around (forever!)

[Opl]

"RT is big on Twitter and YouTube. “Its social media is much more important than the channel, because no one really watches that,”

[Chomper Higgot]

You want total free speach but you ‘dont include racist/homophobic etc slurs)’.

 

You accept ‘Speaking on a platform belonging to someone else obviously has their rules to abide by.’ But have also said ‘If I want to say something I should be allowed to say it as long as I am not breaking the law, whether it be in public or on a platform such as this.‘

 

You claim ‘Im not falling for any of it because I will not be controlled and if I do not like something, I dont conform‘ and yet your whole post is stuffed full of the garbage fed you by the right wing and the right wing press.

 

You present a text book example of ‘conformance’ to right wing/nationalist doctrine.

[mikebike]

On 7/29/2018 at 11:16 AM, connda said:

And who becomes the arbitrator to determine the veracity of "false stories and misinformation" in this day and age of weaponized government propaganda?  All governments have self-interests that they act upon, so it's pretty much a given that governments will inject propaganda into the social media narrative.

 

From supporters of Government A:
Government A is good; Government B is bad - therefore Government A should impose limitations on the freedom of speech to protect 'the people' from the evil Government B.

Of course, from supporters of Government B:
Government B is good; Government A is bad - therefore Government B should impose limitations on the freedom of speech to protect 'the people' from the evil Government A.

So what I get from the current poll results is that the majority of responders wish to have their own governments restrict what they are allow to see in social media.  That's a statist's dream come true: the citizens call on the their respective governments to censor what the information they can obtain: Fahrenheit 451 for the digital age.
The nanny-state gets to keep the ignorant even more ignorant because it's the "Will of the People."  <head-shake>

 

The minority of the poll responders are classical liberals:  "We're adults.  Give us everything and allow us to determine what is true and what is false."  And if 'adults' are worried about what their kids see, then it's the parent's responsibility to limit the content.

Your mistake is the assumption that "more control" means "government control". 

[mikebike]

On 7/31/2018 at 4:27 AM, canuckamuck said:

Sounds like censorship to me.

You do understand how the publishing industry works, right?

 

If a major (global or national) publisher rejects your work there are many small, boutique or fringe, publishers who will accept it. 

 

The creator is not censored but their work is relegated to a potentially smaller audience. If their work is revealed to be relevant to a larger audience there is the opportunity to then be picked up by a larger publisher and potentially wider audience.

[Curt1591]

I think individuals should make the decision on what's real and what's fake. Too many sites are moderated to fit their own agendas. Just because someone doesn't agree with a statement, doesn't make it false.

Allow free speech, or shut down. Otherwise, it becomes just more propaganda.