On 7/29/2018 at 10:37 PM, canuckamuck said:

Social media is the people talking, people should be able to say whatever they want. What should be banned is international conglomerates having a monopoly on news media.

Nonsense, a right of center talking point to enable oppression. There are examples where Social Media has been used to encourage violence, hate speech and so on. Social media, as does any media, needs to be subjected to the Rule of Law in democratic societies. 

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

Social media such as Linkedin and Facebook are often used to check out the background of applicants. As you know some are subsequently not hired or later fired for not complying to employer Social Media guidelines in Business and Political environments.

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Social media such as Linkedin and Facebook are often used to check out the background of applicants. As you know some are subsequently not hired or later fired for not complying to employer Social Media guidelines in Business and Political environments.

Correct.

 

But my point is people’s use of ‘speech’ is moderated when they are accountable for what they say  has consequences for themselves.

Whether that be reputatation/job if their identity is known online or a thump in the ear if they are speaking face to face.

 

Many of the ‘free speech’ arguments are in truth ‘freedom to create consequences for others without consequences for the speaker.

 

Say what you want but own the consequences for what you say.

 

#Rights + Responsibilities.

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Nonsense, a right of center talking point to enable oppression. There are examples where Social Media has been used to encourage violence, hate speech and so on. Social media, as does any media, needs to be subjected to the Rule of Law in democratic societies. 

You really think people right of center are trying to enable oppression. The right is all about freedom these days.

On Sun Jul 29 2018 at 9:52 PM, 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.

 

Patience... coming soon...EU regulator is probing so heavily into FB and others....UK is too relaxed about this!...FB will be dismantled.... soon...needs beaurocratic processes to take their own course.. sorry about your friend... Good Day!

On 7/29/2018 at 10:00 PM, canuckamuck said:

Is it now that you got control you no longer feel the need for free speech?

 

To whom are you directing this please?   Who do you feel has control and thus  " no longer feel (sic?) the need for free speech?"