Social media bosses could be liable for harmful content

[[FnG]magnolia]

source

Look, first things first ... yes it's the Griadion but let's move on from that.

Social media executives could be held personally liable for harmful content distributed on their platforms, leaked plans for a long-awaited government crackdown obtained by the Guardian reveal.

and

The regulator – likely initially to be Ofcom, but in the longer term a new body – will have the power to impose substantial fines against companies that breach their duty of care and to hold individual executives personally liable.

This sounds like a good idea to me. Thoughts?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I'm terrified people are happy for the UK to be turned into China

Which people are happy for the UK to be turned into China?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Precisely. People have differing tolerances for what they find harmful or upsetting.
We've all seen how we have some members on here who get their noses out of joint at the slightest thing and start throwing around shouts of racist or Nazi whenever someone doesn't agree with them or they don't agree with someone.
Do we bow to the lowest common denominator? In which case any opinion that doesn't fit the current narrative or broad consensus is basically harmful and therefore not to be tolerated.

I don't think we've seen Nazi or racist in this thread, apart from your comments.

And you're a bright guy but this latching onto "narrative" ... it's just tiring, you know?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I didn't say we had seen it in this thread. But we frequently see it in others.
I'd say it's actually often more insulting than the comments that trigger it.

But you'll take my point that those two words were not raised by me but by you? I get what you're saying, in a wider context.

Anyway,

will have the power to impose substantial fines against companies that breach their duty of care and to hold individual executives personally liable.

Thoughts?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Of course. But I had to say them to illustrate my point in this instance that some people will too readily take offense and bandy such terms about, incorrectly applying them to others. It's those people, who if given power or control over what's acceptable and isn't, will become very dangerous.

No, I get that, dude. I disagree with you but I get it.

Do you have an issue with the intent of the idea? Does it check off the boxes which are 'yeah - good idea' or 'nah'?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Genuine question - why would you go straight to the worst outcome?

e: sorry, for context, having said "It's a brilliant idea".

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

The government doesn't have a stellar record policing the internet.

Why would you expect anything other than the worst outcome? Either it will cost millions and achieve nothing, or it will have unintended consequences.

Almost guaranteed.

Which government? I know that you dislike any type so perhaps that's redundant.

Well for this to be fair, the execs would need to have plenty of warning and be found to be failing to implement changes.

So every 6 months a new head honcho takes the spot and resets the "plenty of warning clock".

So, a measure? That seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Because I'm a realist. I'd love to be optimistic but having seen what those in authority do it's hard to be anything but pessimistic. We've already had the example of humberside police actively pursuing and threatening a man who committed no crime.

We have countries worldwide with blasphemy laws where you will be executed for 'insulting'a religion. We have countries where stepping on an image of the monarch will land you in prison (Or worse). What are these things if nothing but a twisted attempt through censorship to exert control over people with differing opinions?

Ok, that's powerful and I mean that.

What positives can you see from the proposed ideas?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Perhaps you can point to an example of any government policing the internet effectively for the benefit of its people?

I'll give you as long as you need...

Because we haven't been able to fix it before is barely a reason to extend our ignorance.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I dont know, what question am I answering?

So every 6 months a new head honcho takes the spot and resets the "plenty of warning clock".

That one. I was agreeing with you.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Passively being subjected to something you find horrendous (someone posting a video of the mosque shooting for example) vs actively seeking such things out because of morbid curiosity is a very different kettle of fish.
I certainly think the first is wrong and should be policed but I don't think the second is. However harmful is not something I do think should be policed. Illegal, definitely, harmful, no.

That's a negative dressed up as a positive but I think you're talking about a bigger issue.

Let's get into it.

Do you think social media should have constraints? Yes or No.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Yes.

What kind of constraints would be legally enforeceable and workable? In your view.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

How many thousands of staff to review every post that gets flagged on Facebook?

Why should this be an issue?

@ Dis - I'll reply shortly.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I believe content that is illegal should be removed and the operators of social media should be obligated to do this.

I do not believe that 'harmful' content should be covered under these regulations.

As an example, someone may not approve of homosexuality. They may state that they find it disgusting or wrong or abhorrent. I do not agree with them. I do think they should be freely allowed to hold and state those opinions however.
If they then state that homosexuals should be harmed that has crossed a line in to illegality. That's the point at which that content should be removed.

As for enforcement...community support helps. If something has been flagged then perhaps x number of days should be allowed to review it.

Edit, apologies if you miss this. As a further example of why I don't think 'harmful' works due to individual subjectivity.
Recently on here we had a poster say that a child should be tortured and killed. That post was seen as being acceptable. We had another poster use a term which the dictionary defines as not being offensive and yet the posts referencing it were deleted.
I think that's completely back to front.

Well, at least that is clear

I don't like your examples by way of exemption, I think they're subjective and are quite telling. But I get it, again.

]As for enforcement...community support helps.

What do you mean by this?