Theresa May to create new internet that would be controlled and regulated by government

[crinkleshoes]

So what about a family member that was like that behind your back? Would you still be friends with them?

Your personal choice to react to someone's personal views is in no way equivalent to supporting a business being allowed to fire employees for things that have absolutely nothing to do with work.

He's ready to fire his family members and control his children... an employee/friend means nothing to him.

I know how horrible this sounds before I type it... but when you talk about dis-ownership of family, that extent of strict control is more likely to have you be disowned by your kids if you really go down that route. It's the human condition, people will rebel against such control and there are countless documented cases of such scenarios... all I'm saying is be careful, even if you forget everything else I've said.

 

[Trusty]

Soooo... now you want to disown family members if they don't fit into your mental box? Yikes... I'm glad I don't know you in person... although a reasoned debate could be interesting I suppose.

No, family is family... friends can be family too... in that scenario it's more likely I would be the one disowned as I'd point it out to them when I disagreed with something.

Funnily enough, yea if a family member turns out to be a nasty racist, i won't talk to them again really, i'm sorry i'm such a bad guy. You'd of been a good nazi

 

[stewski]

Im my eyes censoring porn is what the Japanese do, saying you can't do this act or that act, or not show certain parts. Its different to making it harder to find for younger children who stumble across it.

Frankly I wouldn't let my young child stumble anywhere online and that wouldn't change one iota if the entire content of pornography was removed from the face of the planet overnight.
Similarly they won't be reading any and all books in the history of literature or watching every movie ever made without my knowledge.

The printing press was not a child's toy and neither is the internet.

 

[Tefal]

So what about a family member that was like that behind your back? Would you still be friends with them?

yeah i've got homophobic friends.

some even know im bi they find what i do wrong as much as i find thier views on it wrong.

doesnt mean we dont get along, we disagree on something thats all.

just like how my hard right mates get on ok with my hard left mates. they just dont talk about it all the time.

 

[Kenai]

Do you believe in any government regulation?

Not regulation of available information, no, which is what is being discussed.

 

[Tefal]

Funnily enough, yea if family turns out to be a nasty racist, i won't talk to them again really, i'm sorry i'm such a bad guy. You'd of been a good nazi

so based on your posts in here, should the country mvoe towards a racist bent, ie bnp end up the leading party after a series of events.

this system is then altered to be that say supporting equal rights for blacks or wanting immigration to rise is the information that will get you sacked you'd still support its use?

 

[Tefal]

Frankly I wouldn't let my young child stumble anywhere online and that wouldn't change one iota if the entire content of pornography was removed from the face of the planet overnight.
Similarly they won't be reading any and all books in the history of literature or watching every movie ever made without my knowledge.

The printing press was not a child's toy and neither is the internet.

stop being a responsible parent it makes it harder to argue for the censor ship of adults!!

 

[Trusty]

Not regulation of available information, no, which is what is being discussed.

Why is information different? Like i said before, i believe in some regulation, doesn't matter what it is really but i do believe in some sort of regulation. Not complete regulation, don't confuse what i'm saying here, not everything but certain things that are damaging to society should be regulated

 

[Macro]

Exactly, it's so wrong I can't believe someone is trying to be its proponent.

There's censorship in everything we do - try standing in an airport shouting ISIS dogma and then claim the police are "censoring" your free speech as you get bundled into the back of a van. Perhaps you also support the right of people to create websites specifically designed to promote racism? How about your right to stand outside a school and espose the virtures of peadophillia? Or do you only class it as censorship if it impacts something you have decided is reasonable?

 

[Macro]

The discussion isn't really worth continuing if your response to everything is just 'spectrum' is it?

I'm clearly not going to convince you it's not good for government to have control of what you can and can't see.

So given you don't believe there's any kind of scale to this do you think the publishing of child porn should be freely available and not censored?

 

[Trusty]

There's censorship in everything we do - try standing in an airport shouting ISIS dogma and then claim the police are "censoring" your free speech as you get bundled into the back of a van. Perhaps you also support the right of people to create websites specifically designed to promote racism? How about your right to stand outside a school and espose the virtures of peadophillia? Or do you only class it as censorship if it impacts something you have decided is reasonable?

Thankyou, i felt bullied earlier

 

[crinkleshoes]

I think you are getting a bit confused here, you seem to think that i feel it's alright for a business to fire someone for doing silly pranks or something. I'm not. But i don't oppose a business for firing someone is showing extreme views, eg being a racist, throwing out hate speech, threatening people. If someone shows that kind of behaviour on a consistent basis, i have no problem with a company firing them, maybe they'll learn to reel it in then.

How do you discern a prank / fake / wind-up from truth in a seemingly anonymous post on a forum / bbc comment site / etc?

I'm not getting at you with that, I would be more happy with a genuine explanation of how you think that could realistically function.

This is where the censorship goes far too far the wrong way and becomes thought police.

I can understand the desire to weed out the truly hateful... on the other hand, I also think people are basically good at heart, like you do... so if someone is so hateful, there is likely a reason for it and something like education or simply the loving acceptance of another human would be more likely to have a positive effect on them than ostracizing them which will only amplify the hate.

I am not saying that I think you think it's ok for a business to fire someone based on a silly or mis-placed comment. What I am saying is that with such legislation and policy such as the one from the BBC T&Cs that was posted in this thread... it will be impossible in many cases to discern the difference and innocent people are going to be punished for it more than the guilty ones.

Let's take this a step further and apply the basically good heart to these policies. Perhaps the ones who have drawn them up have a similar viewpoint... but the potential for mistake and abuse is so high, it's just not worth it and as such, it is not a viable policy. Their inability to think like that or to at least consult someone who can think like that, makes them unfit leaders.

A fit leader can admit when they have reached their knowledge and experience level and draw that information from better qualified sources.

 

[Kenai]

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from the consequences of your speech but that's a far cry from supporting the government being able to pick and choose what you can and can't see according to their whim.

 

[Trusty]

I can understand the desire to weed out the truly hateful... on the other hand, I also think people are basically good at heart, like you do... so if someone is so hateful, there is likely a reason for it and something like education or simply the loving acceptance of another human would be more likely to have a positive effect on them than ostracizing them which will only amplify the hate.

I think a good slap makes people think twice, it's half the reason a lot of young kids this generation are complete scrubbers, they know you can't touch them.

obviously the slap bit is an analogy for being fired. But i agree that is it difficult to judge, some businesses will abuse it and some bussiness won't be harsh enough

 

[xyphic]

There's censorship in everything we do - try standing in an airport shouting ISIS dogma and then claim the police are "censoring" your free speech as you get bundled into the back of a van. Perhaps you also support the right of people to create websites specifically designed to promote racism? How about your right to stand outside a school and espose the virtures of peadophillia? Or do you only class it as censorship if it impacts something you have decided is reasonable?

There are already laws that govern the difference between free and hate speech online, in the same way that there are laws to govern it offline. If you start shouting ISIS dogma on your twitter account, the police will take an interest. The main difference is that it's easier to remain anonymous on the internet, but censoring is *not* the way to tackle the problem.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Do you believe in any government regulation?

Regulation and censorship may seem related but there is a significant difference.

Censorship is regulation of thought and communication.

Regulation can help guard against mistakes, while still allowing them to happen.

Censorship punishes the mistake without viable recourse.

Regulation of certain things makes sense... like the drinking age of 18, or smoking at 18, or porn at 18... but it still allows, to an extent, a breach of that regulation... something which is rarely harmful and a side effect of human nature.

Censorship tries to fight human nature and makes things far worse... censorship is prohibition and instead of making alcohol or drugs completely illegal... makes thought illegal... it is abhorrent.

 

[stewski]

There's censorship in everything we do - try standing in an airport shouting ISIS dogma and then claim the police are "censoring" your free speech as you get bundled into the back of a van. Perhaps you also support the right of people to create websites specifically designed to promote racism? How about your right to stand outside a school and espose the virtures of peadophillia? Or do you only class it as censorship if it impacts something you have decided is reasonable?

I complained to a waiter once because I could see him weeing in the soup he was about to serve me, his reply was there was a fly in it anyway.

For clarity of the toddlers who stumble on this conversation whilst their parents blame the government for letting me type it, the above is all made up!

 

[MooMoo444]

Probably wont happen, but that doesn't mean we should allow it.

 

[Macro]

There are already laws that govern the difference between free and hate speech online, in the same way that there are laws to govern it offline. If you start shouting ISIS dogma on your twitter account, the police will take an interest. The main difference is that it's easier to remain anonymous on the internet, but censoring is *not* the way to tackle the problem.

The thing is there is censorship anyway, it's just carried out by large corporations like Facebook/Google/Twitter/ISPs at their own whim based on their commercial interests.

I'm not saying censorship is the answer, I just struggle with the righteous indignation of some posts as if there is no censorship in everything we do every day anyway.

 

[Trusty]

Regulation and censorship may seem related but there is a significant difference.

Censorship is regulation of thought and communication.

Regulation can help guard against mistakes, while still allowing them to happen.

Censorship punishes the mistake without viable recourse.

Regulation of certain things makes sense... like the drinking age of 18, or smoking at 18, or porn at 18... but it still allows, to an extent, a breach of that regulation... something which is rarely harmful and a side effect of human nature.

Censorship tries to fight human nature and makes things far worse... censorship is prohibition and instead of making alcohol or drugs completely illegal... makes thought illegal... it is abhorrent.

This is the ridiculous leap though, your thoughts are not being censored. You can think about murdering someone if you want, no police is going to come to your door and stop you, now if you start yelling that at the top of your voice then someone has to step in otherwise an innocent person is taken away from their life.